Organisational Behaviour - Literature review Example

Name: Tutor: Title: Organizational behaviour Institution: Date: Introduction Rynes, Gerhart and Minette’s article revisits a number of employee surveys investigating the relative significance of various motivational factors among employees. It points out the main weakness of their findings as being inconsistency with those that study the employees’ actual behavior, and presents evidence that employees in most instances consider pay as being a lesser motivational factor than is usually suggested. The authors refer to evidence from various sources that imply a difference between theory and practice with regard to pay. Information which emerges from professional human resource journals does not fully tally with research findings that cover the expected motivational role of pay and benefits. It is often concluded that pay is not a highly significant motivator, but this is undesirable in practice because it is likely to lead to less emphasis on the design and implementation of competitive pay structures. The article suggests that while pay has the ability to increase employee performance, its usefulness depends on various situational and individual factors, in addition to the ways in which it is administered. It therefore suggests learning, as management, to take any employee complaints regarding their pay seriously, not deviating too much below market pay rates, pursuing performance-related pay as a way of boosting individual worker output and harmonizing the employee pay structures with those of the executives as mean towards the creation of more effective pay structures (Rynes, Gerhart & Minette 2004). The idea that pay is valued by many employees is true. According to Armstrong (2012), a good number of employees derive a lot of motivation from the pay that they receive. It may be argued that most are motivated by money for instance as they pursue the fulfillment of their basic needs. Such pay-related motivation is often in the form of commissions, raises, profit sharing or bonuses. It can also take the form of benefits, for instance vacations, company vehicles or any other rewards to which some financial value can be attached. Pay is acknowledged as a major determinant of the recruitment, retention and motivation of employees. It is not always the most important aspect of an employee’s job. However, it is a major contributor to the effectiveness of the three processes (Reyes 2011). Crouse (2005) suggests that in practice, most human resource practitioners tend to expect their employee to overrate the place of pay in influencing their performance whenever presented with surveys. This however tends to be wrong. There are always discrepancies between what they are likely to say and what they actually do with regard to pay. Some scholars might believe that money does not have the ability to modify an individual’s behavior, basically because it is not best described as a motivator but rather, a director of such behavior. This therefore becomes a semantic debate, in which the question is whether behavior can be directed towards management’s desired direction or not. Sandhya & Kumar (2011) suggest that in in most organizations and job positions however, pay is unfortunately granted a small role in the management and change of employee behavior. This is attributable to inadequate application of their respective incentive plans and poor design and implementation of pay plans. Pay is crucial because it helps to provide many human needs, for instance esteem, security and the resources for self-actualization. It helps to attract the best skills to the organization and retain them as for most employees, pay constitutes the most significant part of the job that they are offered (Crouse 2005). There is a strong case especially for performance-related pay as a motivational strategy. According to Gratz (2009), it is used in both individual and team motivation as a way of offering a progression for them across the pay system. Pay rises will entirely be based on performance, which is in turn measured against targets. It is therefore a good way of rewarding individual employees differently for performing the same task. In spite of the desire of employees to get money, employee performance and motivation are complex matters that are subject to the influence of a variety of determinants (Armstrong 2012). According to Schmitz (2011), there is usually no single factor which can be said to offer motivation with the exclusion of others. Pay cannot play the role that effective management is charged with. While some studies may suggest that money does not work effectively in motivating the employees, this is only true for some individuals. However, for the majority, the opposite is true. Many other studies in the past have suggested that a majority of people cite financial gain as one of their motivating factors at work. Many of them report it at a moderate level, while the majority considers it an even more powerful motivator in the presence of a well-designed pay or compensation system. Nursing Standard (2012) points out that just like human motivation in other aspects of life, cash incentives for employees often tend to be quick-fixes rather than long-term remedies. Carter & McMahon (2005) further suggest that even with hard economic times, there are however firms that continue expanding even in an environment where some employees are even leaving the job market. This heavily depends on the extent to which identifying and maintaining the best skills is perfected. Money is not always the main way through which the effective retention programmes are sustained. In spite of common perceptions which may still be founded on research, money is only one of the factors that inspire individuals to come to work and put in their best effort in whatever they do. A competitive organization is therefore one where talent is nurtured, even if the salaries and wages are not necessarily the highest. There are instances where for instance, recognition plays a greater role than financial returns in relation to employee motivation. The promotion of dialogue, appropriate employee coaching and healthy relationships among staff can therefore possibly have a motivational effect, possibly greater than pay in such organizations (Sarosh 2013). Related to this, Reyes (2011) argues that individuals are motivated by different things while at work. The reasons why a person goes to work tend to be as varied as the individuals themselves. However, everyone works because of a specific benefit that is derived from the work process. Whatever is gained from work has an impact on employee motivation, morale and quality of life. Some people need to attain set goals and feel that they are contributors to an entity which is greater than the individual and is therefore important. There are however others who simply love their clients or the work that that they do. Some have personal missions in life, and the way to accomplish them is through fully engaging in work. There are others who like the day to day interactions with other workers and customers while others seek the challenges that work poses. Motivation therefore becomes a highly personal and diverse issue. Pay alone cannot therefore be the avenue through which it can be achieved. Armstrong (2012) suggests that apart from individual studies, it is possible to identify a theoretical basis for the argument that money is not really a motivator. Hertzberg for instance believed that pay does not constitute a positive motivator, even though its absence would lead to demotivation. His theory X approach specifically argued that employees always show a response to financial rewards. It remains a significant pursuit for any organization which seeks to optimize its employees’ output. According to Schmitz (2011), pay is not the main motivator behind human behavior. A large number of successful entrepreneurs tend to believe that their greatest motivation lies in building businesses that would last for long, rather than just the need to make money. Others suggest that their motivation arises from the work that they do, rather than the money that they expect to make from the ventures that they invest in. in such cases, the lasting respect gained among their peers is considered a greater measure of their achievement than the money that is generated. Many artists also do not work simply because of the money, but rather, their love for art. In Gratz (2009)’s view, money comes out mainly as a secondary by-product, especially among high achievers. Emotional aspects of motivation generally tend to have a more powerful influence upon behavior, and are usually best presented informally within the organization in the form of peer respect, admiration by juniors and acknowledgement of the individual’s success within his community or social network. Money ends up becoming more of a default motivator simply because it is highly measurable and tangible, as compared to the other factors. The effect often becomes negative when the possibility of making a lot of money becomes the main driving force in a person’s motivation. It leads to selfishness and greed. The best way of motivating people to improve their work-related behaviour, in line with Frederick Hertzberg’s theory, therefore remains in the ability of management to focus more on the way people feel about their respective tasks. According to Carter & McMahon (2005), it is highly rewarding to work for an employer who emphasizes coaching and leadership while seeking a collective success. Having a compulsory staff development program makes sure that the employees stay ahead of technology and other changes in the business environment. Developing a coaching culture requires a lot of dedication and time for all those involved. It therefore needs to be valued as a key competency for leadership and a source of accountability for all managers. Behavioral change can best be attained through celebrating the achievement of goals. Recognition of success and appropriately rewarding it has a great impact, even if it involves only acknowledging it loudly in front of the employee’s peers. Irrespective of the motivation of any employee however, I believe that the basic reason for going to work is money. Whether it comes in the form of salary, commissions, benefits or bonuses, money is what pays the bills. It provides food and clothing to the employee’s family, pays for education, leisure and retirement. Downplaying its role in the motivation of employees would therefore be a mistake. This implies that pay and benefits need to remain the foundation of recruitment and retention of workers. After a good pay structure has been established, the other motivational aspects can be addressed. Otherwise, the organization stands the risk of losing its employees to better paying competitors. Conclusion In conclusion, Rynes, Gerhart and Minette’s discussion rightly argues that money is not the sole motivator to employee performance, and most importantly is not the primary one for every individual. However, it is a valued motivator for most employees, and because of this there is usually a variation between practical facts and responses during performance-related surveys. The discussion does not deny the motivating effect of money. It has a definite effect of promoting selfish ambition, which in turn leads to greater productivity. However, individuals who consider money to be their main source of motivation are generally not accurate in their focus, especially if they do not consider stronger and more effective sources of such motivation, and these are always emotional factors. From the discussion, it comes out that the rating of pay as a motivator can easily differ across individual employees and in relation to theories of human behaviour. There has to be a divergence between what they say and what they do. Bibliography Armstrong, M 2012, Armstrong's Handbook of Reward Management Practice: Improving Performance Through Reward, Kogan Page: London Carter, E and McMahon, F 2005, Improving Employee Performance through Workplace Coaching: a Practical Guide to Performance Management, Kogan Page: Sterling Crouse, N 2005, Motivation is an Inside Job: How to Really Get Your Employees to Deliver the Results You Need, iUniverse: New York Gratz, D 2009, The Peril and Promise of Performance Pay: Making Education Compensation Work, Rowman & Littlefield Education: Lanham Nursing Standard 2012, Nursing Angling Towards Cash Rewards, Nursing Standard, Vol. 26 (35), p. 26-27 Reyes, M 2011, Employee Motivation: Do Incentives and/or Threats Really Help to Motivate Employees? Greenwood Publishing: Westport Rynes, S, Gerhart, B and Minette, K 2004, The Importance of Pay in Employee Motivation: Discrepancies Between What People Say and What They Do, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 (4): 381–394 Sandhya, K and Kumar, P 2011, Employee Retention by Motivation, Indian Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 4 (12): 1778-1782 Schmitz, N 2011, Motivation Strategies for Managing Employees, UMI Dissertations Publishing: Duluth Sarosh, C 2013, Coaching Means Engaging Employees, Bottom Line Vol. 29 (7): 13 Read More