Implementing Motivation Theories into Modern Workplace - Essay Example

MOTIVATION Critical assessment of the difficulties of implementing motivation theories in the modern workplace. ______________ ___________ _______________________ Critical assessment of the difficulties of implementing motivation theories in the modern workplace. 1 Introduction 2 An organization comprises of human resources who have distinct feelings and emotions. These emotions and feelings play important role in determining the output and efficiency of work of the human factor while at job. Management of any organization has to work adequately to enthuse the human resources in order to ensure that they do work in consonance with organizational goals and objectives. Motivation theories provide ready and general constructs to analyze the behavior of human resources at work place. This analysis can distinctly exhibit the possible solutions to motivational problems at work place. In this paper we look at the problems faced in application of various motivational theoretical constructs to work place. Understanding of such problems would help improve employee response and motivation resulting in better output and achievement of organizational goals. 3 Problems in applying Motivational Theories at Work 4 There are many motivation theories however most popular among them are behavioral theories of Maslow and Herzberg. The chief features of these theories needs to be understood before we can dwell on problems in their practical implementation. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there are five categories of needs viz. (1) physiological, (2) safety, (3) social, (4) esteem, and (5) self-actualization. They form a pyramid structure with the lowest and broadest physiological need at the base. Pyramid also illustrates the fact that breadth of needs, as we graduate up the pyramid, gets reduced indicating that the need is finely tuned and well defined. In order to have fully motivated workers each lower level needs to be satisfied before one can graduate to higher level needs. Maslow made a supplementary hypothesis that physiological, safety, social, and esteem needs on satisfaction, ceased to motivate, while the self-actualization needs motivated an individual more as they got satisfied. Maslow's premise was that it is the growth choice that propels an individual toward self-actualization - that of individual growth or "filling one's potential."(Maslow, 1954).A worker wise need analysis is a tough task and may even result in manager forgetting main work related goals. People are individual and it is so difficult to meet everyone's need at their required level. Such needs may be sourced outside the work place. Herzberg used Maslow's lead as a base to build his motivation-hygiene theory. According to him the hygiene elements relate to low level needs (physiological, safety, and social). For an individual, hygiene conditions include company policy and administration, supervision, relationships with peers and supervisors, work conditions, salary, status, and security (Markiewicz, 2002). Paucity of hygiene factors can lead to dissatisfaction or lack of motivation and account for 69% of the factors which cause employee dissatisfaction or lack of motivation. The motivation conditions, which include achievement, the job itself, recognition, responsibilities, and personal growth, accounted for 81% of the factors which contributed to job satisfaction. The hygiene conditions are extrinsic factors while the motivation conditions are intrinsic factors, and the only way to sustain motivation toward organizational goals is through the achievement of intrinsic outcomes. 5 Each of these theories carry ideas consistent with human nature, however each faces limitations within organizational settings. Because lower order needs are generally satisfied in the workplace today, managers have to deal with how to provide esteem and self-actualization to their employees, and that can be a nebulous concept to a manager who demands results immediately. As Stolovitch and Keeps state," Another problem common to most work settings is the strong inclination of managers to avoid deep analysis of performance problems and to solve shallowly analyzed problems with training, even if the problem is not caused by a lack of knowledge (Stolovitch and Keeps, 1992). Also, studies demonstrate that different workers are motivated by different factors --intrinsic or extrinsic. Studies on intrinsic and extrinsic job motivation among different segments of the working population show that while skilled and technical workers are motivated by the intrinsic rewards of their employment, lesser skilled workers in routine jobs were motivated by extrinsic factors such as incentives and bonuses. These ideas do not discount the work of Herzberg and Maslow, but these two theories did not carry within skill distinctions. It is for the manager to ascertain varying skill levels and apply motivational techniques. This by itself is no mean a task. 6 Job enrichment efforts have proven somewhat successful in improving performance and attitude amongst employees. The one thing that job enrichment cannot do, however, is make the individual a better worker. That is a distinction that a worker must earn himself. Though some studies have shown the effectiveness of job enrichment. These studies exhibited that by enhancing and changing a routine job through manipulation of their five implementing concepts (natural units of work, task combination, client relationships, feedback and vertical loading), improvements were made in productivity, quality, absenteeism, attitude, the elimination of unnecessary controls, and in the role of the supervisor. These studies do provide evidence that job enrichment is an affective tool when coupled with the theories of Herzberg and Maslow, but have limitations in the fact that job enrichment seeks to create an environment in which the needs of the employee are consistently met instead of an environment in which an employee can "earn" the satisfaction of his or her needs. This may lead to complaisance. 7 An additional theory on human behavior, motivation, and management was developed in the late 1950's by McGregor. His theories X and Y and were based on assumptions made regarding the organization and individuals. In short, in Theory X management organizes all elements of production, motivates and controls employee behavior to get to the objects of the organization, and without this intervention, employees is seen as indolent and indifferent to organizational needs. McGregor further assumes that managers believe that the average employee is by nature indolent and lazy, lacks ambition, is self-centered, and resistant to change. The "direction and control" style emanating from Theory X is unpopular in today's modern work place and has been so since last 45 years or so. This itself evidences that McGregor's assumptions regarding Theory X were inaccurate. Professional and technical people simply do not respond favorably to the Theory X manager anymore (Insurance, 2002). Converse side of McGregor's coin carried the Theory Y. Theory Y gives out a contrasting description of an average worker. Workers are, by nature, not resistant to change and organization. The motivation, the potential for growth, the capacity for assumption of varying responsibilities and the willingness to mould activities/work to meet organization goals are all present in workers. Management could not possibly implant them there. However it is the responsibility of management to make the workers realize these latent positive human characteristics for themselves. Management can also work to develop these hidden traits. The primary task of the management is to organize work conditions and operations so that workers can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts toward organizational objectives (Heil et al, 2000). The Theory Y worker, also termed as the knowledgeable worker, not only accepts responsibility, but seeks it. The contrast between X and Y brings out the contentious issue as to who controls human behavior. Theory X espouses external control, and Theory Y has as its base self control and self direction. The main dilemma a manager faces in McGregor's construct is the unrealistic burden which Theory Y places on him viz.to fulfill his own personal goals and the goals of the organization while conceiving subordinates jobs' as helping them to achieve their mutual goals in their own manner. This is hugely complex task requiring not only heavy managerial inputs but also awesome psychological inputs. No wonder employee analysis by superiors is shallow and scratches the surface only. Primary question is why management should be responsible for an employees personality and growth in a contractual situation asking 8 hours a day of work. Management must have some responsibilities to the emotional well being of their subordinates, but they cannot be responsible to the extent Theory Y proposes. 8 Vroom's theory of motivation is an intrinsic theory. His expectancy-valence theory is a cognitive approach to explaining the causes of motivation, which in turn, influence the behavior of the individual. It makes no apriori assumptions about a worker's personality or needs but relies on three assumptions internal to a worker's motivation process. In nut shell, the expectancy theory of motivation states that employee motivation is high when a task is attractive in itself, and when the outcomes of the completed task are attractive to the employee (Vroom, 1964). However due to the complexities of the internal nature of the expectancy theory, it is a difficult approach to take as a manager. Similarly in F W Taylor's scientific management theories differences between workers were ignored. Workers were treated like inhuman machines causing conflict and resentment. It was often alleged that money is not the only motivator. Elton Maayo's human relations theory was primarily hit by the fact that his conclusions were drawn from small 'non-scientific' experiments and often workers and managers often have different goals; this will affect decisions. These goals can be conflicting. A manager relying on any of these theories alone would run the risk of messing up work place.Graham & Weiner (1996) report a continuing concern with "the theoretical overlap between constructs" as is the case with Maslow and Herzberg theories. Weiner (1990) advocated for more general models and have voiced concerns about the construct validity of a number of motivation variables. For no apparent reasons, very little motivational research is conducted in work settings; when conducted it is not disclosed for fears of business competition. This category of research would be directly useful to modern work place motivation. Research apart modern life styles have left more motivational complications for managers. These may arise from special employee circumstances of say family problems, including negative interactions, child noncompliance, high parental control, maternal depression, paternal antisocial behavior, marital conflict, problems with peers ,frequent negative feedback from peers and adults .peer rejection and resulting social isolation etc.These would tend to make lighting up motivation even more problematic. 9 10 11 12 References 13 Maslow, A.H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954. 14 15 Markiewicz, Dan. Been There Done That Yes, You Can Improve Job Satisfaction. Industrial Safety & Hygiene News: Vol. 36, No. 12; pg. 16. Dec. 2002. 16 Stolovitch, H. D. and Keeps, E. J. The handbook of human performance technology, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. (1992) 17 "Motivation: the X Factor." Insurance Day 14 Nov. 2002: Section News. Heil ,Gary, Stephens, Deborah C., Bennis ,Warren G. Douglas McGregor, Revisited: Managing the Human Side of the Enterprise. John Wiley & Sons. (2000). Vroom, V. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. (1964). Graham, S. and Weiner, B. Theories and Principles of Motivation, in Berliner, D. and Calfee, R. C. (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. (1996). Weiner, B. History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 616-622. (1990). 18 19 Read More