Importance of Pay in Employee Motivation - Coursework Example

Student’s Name Instructor’s Name: Course: Date of submission: A critique of the article the “Importance of pay in employee motivation: discrepancies between what people say and what they do” by (Rynes, Gerhart, & Minette, 2004) Thesis statement Rynes, Gerhart, & Minette, (2004) suggest in their article that employee surveys regarding the importance of various factors in motivation generally yield inconsistent results that don’t give the true picture of the employee behavior. The intention of the paper is to prove this notion and specifically prove the thesis statement that: employees tend to say that pay is less important to them than it actually is. Key arguments According to Rynes et al (2004) human resources practitioners tend to take the simple answer given by the employee and disregard the behavioral signals that actually send a different message from what the employee is claiming. In thus doing, the practitioners go on believing that pay is of little motivation to employees than other factors such as job satisfaction and non cash benefits. The result of this underestimation is that human resource practitioners don’t pay enough attention towards developing a well designed compensation system (Rynes et al, 2004). Rynes et al (2004) forward several arguments to support the thesis statement regarding employee pay. Among them, Rynes et al (2004)claim that the reason most employees and potential employees will say one thing and reserve different opinion regarding pay and motivation, is the fact that people usual give a socially desirable respond to such questions. Socially desirable responding according to Rynes et al (2004) comes from lack of self insight or lack of frankness. In regards to pay, people would want to respond with an answer that shows they are not so into money than other motivating factors such as a challenging work or work that contributes to the societal welfare. Money is viewed as a less noble source of motivation that an employer may perceive the employee from a negative point of view if he/she list money as primary motivator. The more a question touches on strongly held social norms, the less likely that the response is going to be valid (Rynes, Gerhart, & Minette, Winter 2004). In this view then, some researchers prefer to asses several factors indirectly to see the effects of pay on the productivity of the employee, productivity being a measure of motivation in work settings (Rynes et al, 2004). This is what the authors refer to as assessing behavioral signals rather than asking straight questions that don’t get valid responses. In such studies, Rynes et al (2004) argue that the results are inconsistent with what the employees admit consciously. The results of the behavioral assessment show that pay is a actually the number one motivator for productivity in the workplace and no other factor comes anywhere near the effects of pay on employee motivation to be productive. Another approach which can also betray the inner thoughts and positions of employees is to ask indirect questions which bundle all the motivation factors without singling out pay. If asked to choose a job from this kind of setting most employees would rank pay as the highest motivator to their accepting a job and giving in total productivity to the job. In a nut shell then Rynes et al (2004) try to bring out the fact that most employees and potential employees don’t tell the truth about whether pay is an important motivational factor; they lie by saying it is not while deep inside they know and actually show it when their productivity goes up whenever their pay is raised. Rynes et al (2004) insist on there being strong evidence from studies that pay is a powerful motivator or even the most powerful potential motivator in an organization. Rynes et al (2004) also believe that the reason why pay may not be regarded as a potential motivator is the types of professional reading materials such as HR journals and books. These books and journals tend to sustain the argument that pay is not an important motivational factor for employees and should be treated as such. These practitioner resources actually argue that pay is a “demotivator” in the sense that highly paid employee is likely to be less aggressive in meeting objectives since “they have it all”. The idea of using pay as motivational factor in an organization is painted as traditional management style that doers not fit in today’s workplace (Rynes et al, 2004). The argument is that today’s workplace consists of employees who are not necessarily interested in huge amounts of money and related benefits but rather on job satisfaction, satisfaction of their individual achievement needs and so on (Longenecker, 2013). Rynes et al (2004) claim that, money can actually be used a means towards fulfilling other employees needs that motivate them such as acquiring new social status, new cars and accessories, solve primary and secondary wants and retiring early. All these are motivational factors that can be achieved through better pay. It is also worthy to note that pay is used to measure social status especially among peers (Briscoe, Schuler, & Claus, 2008). Some people may feel unappreciated if their peers earn more than them yet they are by all means same in terms of qualifications and experience. People always want something a bit higher in the social ladder than what their peers are getting; it motivates them (Cairns, 1996). Rynes et al (2004) also present a few arguments opposing their thesis statement that: employees tend to say pay is less important a motivational factor than it actually is. Rynes et al (2004) contend to the fact that pay is not the single most important motivational factor. They identify such factors as a challenging job, performance-based pay and organizational structures and cultures as ways through which employee motivation can be achieved apart from basing the whole idea on pay. Rynes et al (2004) suggest multiple motivators be employed to achieve the best results. Pay may also be determined by individual differences in personalities of employees (Rynes et al, 2004). There are some employees that are motivated by being given an environment where they can be creative and give a personal touch to their work. They may not necessarily be motivated by huge amounts of pay. Other would prefer more money to feel appreciated and thus motivated to work and be productive to the organization’s success (Groysberg, 2012). It is also more likely that pay influence in the productivity of an employee reaches a point of declining marginal utility; for example an employee earning an average pay may be very motivated by a $100 dollar raise than a high earning employee may be motivated. The latter already enjoys the benefits of higher pay and is not exited by the additional pay as it will have little if any change on his/her life (Rynes et al, 2004). It is therefore important to note that although pay is an important motivational factor, its effectiveness depend on a number of factors such as individual and situational factors and also how it is being administered in practice. Rynes et al (2004) conclude by suggesting that practitioners should take steps to ensure that; pay complaints are well responded to, their pay regime should reflect the prevailing market pay, performance and pay go hand in hand to motivate the best employees, the pay system is going into a direction where employees feel fairly treated n terms of pay. Own view point The thesis statement by Rynes et al (2004) which they have gone on to defend in the above analyzed arguments, seem to fit well into the an accepted opinion that employee cash remuneration is a very important factor in motivating employees to give their best towards achieving objectives on behalf of the company. Employees will most likely judge their appreciation in an organization by the amount of pay they are getting. It is particularly a big issue when it comes to profitable business (Hong, Yang, Su, & Chiou, 1995). Highly critical employees to the whole system may feel that their contribution only yields high profitability for the company yet they get only a minute fraction of the profit. They may thus feel unmotivated to work for the organization (Latham, 2007). In fact it is claimed by Pfau & Kay (2002) that such employees tend tor educe their productivity to a level that they feel measures up to the amount of pay thy get. The fact that the global economy is highly monetized means that the importance of money towards fulfillment of personal desires cannot; be gainsaid. With money an individual will live in the best estates as he/she desires. Educate his/her children in whichever schools he desires and acquire any other thing that motivates them with money (Aswanthappa, 2005). If the current job is not providing enough to meet the desires of the employees then, he/she will not be motivated to work as his/her life does not actually mirror what he would like. Money then happens to motivate an employee indirectly by being a means towards achieving certain motivational desires (Longenecker, 2013). The thesis statement also brings out the fact that most employees especially at the point of recruitment are not so honest with money issues. This is true especially for highly competitive positions with many candidates and thus less bargaining power on the side of the employee. They feel that attaching motivation to pay may seem as morally unacceptable and sending the wrong signals to employers and thus prefer to state that pay is not essentially the main motivator yet they know it is (Pravin, 2004). It has been established that if employees feel their peers are earning more than them, they feel unappreciated and work just to pay bills while looking for better paying jobs, their commitment towards their current job is very low and as such impacts on their motivation (Pablos, 2008). It is actually right for Rynes et al (2004) to claim that employees tend to say that pay is less important to them than it actually is. Conclusion Pay is an important motivational factor towards the productivity of an employee. However, empirical studies tend to yield different results when they ask the question: whether pay is an important motivational factor to employees? The reason why the response is inconsistent is the fact that an answer that sys yes to this would seem ethically unacceptable in a society that views monetary motivation as socially undesirable. Importance of pay in motivating employees may also be underestimated due to reliance by practitioners on various publications giving a contrary opinion to the importance of pay in motivation. Pay is however not the single most important motivational factor but rather multiple factors all combined after extensive analysis of the concerned individuals and the situation. References Aswanthappa, K. 2005. Human Resource and Personnel Management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Briscoe, D., Schuler, R., & Claus, L. 2008. International Human Resource Management. Routledge. Cairns, L. 1996. Negotiation skills in the workplace: a practical handbook. Pluto Press. Groysberg, B. 2012. Chasing Stars: The Myth of Talent and the Portability of Performance. Princeton University Press. Hong, J. C., Yang, S.-D., Su, F.-y., & Chiou, E.-f. 1995. Impact of employee benefits on work motivation and productivity. International Journal of career Management , 7 (6), pp. 10-14. Latham, G. 2007. Work Motivation: Theory, Research, and Practice. SAGE . Longenecker, C. 2013. Creating human-resource management value in the twenty-first century: Seven steps to strategic HR. Human Resource Management International Digest , 21 (2), 29-32. Pablos, P. 2008. Competencies and human resource management: implications for organizational competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management , 12 (6), pp.48-55. Pfau, B. N., & Kay, I. T. 2002. Theories of Executive Human Resource Management. McGraw-Hill. Pravin, D. 2004. Human Resource Management. Pearson Education India. Rynes, S., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. 2004. The Importance of Pay in Employee Motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Human Resource Manageemnt , Winter issue. pp. 381-394. Read More