Motivational Concepts and Motivation - Essay Example

Choose one of the theories from the Motivation Concepts Table and describe how this theory would AND would not be applicable if applied to two ormore workplace situations drawn from your personal experience. Drive theory basically revolves around the assumption that all living organisms are created with certain psychological desires. The theory relates motivation, to the level of satisfaction of these psychological desires. Whenever some of these desires are left unachieved, according to the theory, one goes to a state of negative tension. This creates a drive which is in other terms is, motivation. On the other hand, when a particular psychological need is satisfied, the drive is reduced and the result is a state of relaxation. This more or less operates like a thermostat. These two phases are regulated psychologically by an equilibrium state which is defined by Freud as Homeostasis (Mills, 2004). Motivation is a key factor, which governs the efficacy of one’s work. When applied to a team work environment as that of a health care system, motivated and self driven team members become the key for effective medical outcomes. Freud’s drive theory when related to real life health care systems can be found applicable to many of situations which involve staff motivation and performance. However, contrary to this, it may also be found that there are real life health care situations, wherein, Freud’s drive theory does not apply. The objective of this essay is to identify situations from personal work experience where this theory applies and other instances where this theory does not apply. According to the theory, organisms strive to maintain the state of Homeostasis. Whenever there is an aggravation in the drive (which in other words is a change in the level of tension towards either positive or negative side) one motivates himself to get back to the equilibrium. In the case of a health care environment, with increasing pressure on both quality and quantity of work, it is quite common to have target oriented work. In case of an emergency as in the case of a major accident, work pressure increases manifolds. This is an ideal example of drive. Here, the nurse is forced out of Homeostasis. For her to achieve the state of equilibrium, she will have to work harder and faster so that more patients are attended to at a set limit of time. The urgent situation here prompts a drive arousal in the nurse which resultantly motivates her to work faster. Freud’s drive theory applies really well in this context. The state of urgency triggers the drive and it results in an imbalance in Homeostasis. This ultimately results in motivation to work harder and faster so as attain back the status of equilibrium. The reverse hypothesis of the theory also applies in this situation. After some days or hours after the emergency, as the case may be, the work pressure will come down. This will create a negative tension in the nurse which in turn will reduce the drive. The result would be that the nurse gets back to the psychological equilibrium which existed earlier. In modern work spaces, to maintain efficiency, this principle is used by the employees as a deliberate measure. If in the case explained above, the drive was created by an emergency, work supervisors deliberately create work pressure to generate the imbalance in psychological equilibrium. Factors like targets to be achieved, high benchmarks, quality of service, super checks etc are routinely done by employers and supervisors so as to create similar situations of drive. However, this work place example won’t prove Freud’s drive theory to be applicable to all work situations with reference to motivation. The situation explained above maybe perceived entirely differently by another individual. This is not taken into consideration by the theory of drive. The theory does not take into account the fact that, psychological state of homeostasis has no reference to some human motives (Mills, 2004). Ethics, values, personal norms etc have not been considered while imagining this psychological state. The universal application of the theory thus becomes impossible as the theory has a benchmark which has left to consider these individual specific factors. As in the Health care work environment explained above, the drive was created by the case of emergency. However, the theory does not apply to a nurse who is indifferent to the emotional emergency of the situation. If the nurse is one who turns a deaf ear to such human values, the amount of drive will differ. She won’t be motivated by the emergency as was in the case explained above. The factor that is central to her motivation does not come under the theory of drive. This is basically because the benchmark for her physiological equilibrium differs much from any standard versions. Taking into consideration the fact that every human have their own motives, a possibility of a standard version is too less. Let’s consider the case of a nurse who is truly committed to her profession and does everything professional with a personal touch. More than any set standards, it’s her ethics and values that drive her. For her, she does not need a drive to get motivated. Whether it be a case of emergency or it be a case of routine every day work, she will carry out her duties faster and harder. Thus, Freud’s drive theory does not apply in this case. Motivation for her is a continuous self developing process whereas in Freud’s drive theory, motivation is a result of the arousal due to external drives (Mills, 2004). To put simply, some people do not need this external drive which is very evident in this example. Thus, in this context as well, it becomes evident that Freud’s drive theory cannot be universally applied to motivation in real life work environments. 2. In the instance in which the selected theory of motivation was not applicable to your workplace experience, assess the need to develop and create new theoretical models of motivation in today's changing work environment. What are the ramifications of the failing to meet this challenge? Among the issues that may be considered are effects on personal satisfaction and productivity. Modern day work environments are ever evolving. They constantly pose new challenges for the employees. In the globalised competitive market of today, for any employer to be successful; he has to make his employees work efficiently. As proven in the case of drive theory, it is extremely difficult to apply the existing theories of motivation to modern work environments. As work environments keep evolving, new motivational theories need to be adopted. Since working teams are increasingly becoming multicultural, this challenge becomes tougher. The increased level of expectations from employees also adds to the challenge. The factors that differentiate the classical theories of motivation from modern evolving theories mainly include the difference in the views of employees on their work and the supervisory approach of the employers. The traditional theories were based on an assumption that people work merely for remuneration. The concept of supervision was also thought to be strict. New theories of motivation should evolve continuously, as, in the modern work environments employees emphasize more on the human relationship view. Hawthrone studies have suggested that the “strongest motivational force behind most employees’ behaviour at work was the preservation and nurturing of social relationships with their colleagues” (Masen, 2009). Thus motivational theories must evolve more on a team orientation than on individualistic approaches. Modern employees look forward to have self respect, recognition, identity, sensible monitoring and self regulation in work. If the motivational theories fail to address these issues, it would result in dissatisfaction of the employees. For an employee to be motivated and to be productive, he or she must have personal satisfaction in what is being done at work. Theories must be based on intrinsic motivation which includes psychological rewards than on extrinsic motivation. It is also important that these new motivational theories are process theories rather than content theories. It must be noted that not being successful in adopting such process theories would acutely affect employee satisfaction. References Masen K B (2009) Theories of motivation: a comparative study of modern theories of motivation , Kent University Press (4), p 131 Mills, Jon (2004). Clarifications on Trieb: Freud’s Theory of Motivation Reinstated. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21(4), 673-677. Read More