Psychological Theories of Work Motivation - Research Paper Example

Psychological Theories of Work Motivation Why does one employee exert more effort than another? Why does one persevere in working towards a goal while another simply gives up? What is it that motivates human beings to perform in the workplace? This paper will explore the psychology of employee motivation by looking at three different theories of employee motivation: Need for Achievement Theory, Goal-Setting Theory, and McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. Each of these theories draws upon a different area of motivational theory and reflect different psychological approaches to employee motivation. Taken together, they provide a good overview of some of the most significant thinking in the area of employee motivation. The basis for Need for Achievement Theory (McClelland, 1953, as cited in Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009) lies in the work of David McClelland, who sought to understand differences between individuals in the need to achieve and how they varying levels affected how they approached tasks or evaluated their own performance (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). McClelland believed that the best way to gain insight into an individual’s mind was not to ask them, but rather to study their dreams and fantasies. I an extensive study, McClelland contrasted and compared subjects’ responses to the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), ambiguous images about which subjects were encouraged to fantasize. Based on this, McClelland constructed his Learned Needs Theory, which claims that human behaviors are influenced by the need to satisfy three main types of needs: the need for achievement, the need for power, and the need for affiliation (LearnManagement2.com, n.d.). Of these, McClelland’s Need for Achievement has become the most well-known and applied component (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). Need for Achievement refers to individual differences in the importance of planning and working towards one’s goals. Individuals are designated as being either high or low in n ach (where n refers to need and ach refers to achievement). An individual with high n ach will focus on the achievement and will see sacrifices today as necessary to achieve the goal and also as bringing the individual one step closer to that achievement. Conversely a low n ach person will consider that while it may be nice to reach a certain achievement, the work needed to achieve the goal is not worth it (i.e. achievement is not worth the sacrifice). McClelland’s Need for Achievement is a need-motive-value theory of employee motivation, similar in nature to other need-based models such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs or Alderfer’s ERG theory (Levy, 2003). What the need-based theories of motivation share is the concept that human beings are driven to accomplish physiological and psychological needs. In the case of Need for Achievement Theory, employees are motivated to achieve, and thus will expend considerable effort in order to achieve their goals and thus satisfy this need (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). Employees who have a high need for achievement will be very achievement focused. Salary is quite often seen as a measure of achievement, as is promotion (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). For example, research has found that those who measured a high n ach at age 31 tended to have higher salaries at age 41 than did their low n ach peers (McClelland & Franz, 1992 as cited in Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). Prestige and status may also be important to high need for achievement employees. Conversely, low need for achievement employees will not be focused on achievement, and will believe that while it may be nice to earn more money or to be promoted, the hard work and effort needed to do so are simply not worth it. Goal-Setting Theory is the most researched and well-established theory of work motivation (Levy, 2003). This theory highlights the motivational power of having and being committed to the achievement of goals. Locke’s Goal-Setting Theory (1968, as cited in Levy, 2003) has four main components which summarize the motivational power of goals. First, goals direct the employee’s efforts towards a specific task or elements of a task. Second, goals mobilize efforts towards the successful accomplishment of the task. Third, goals enable the employee to persist in their efforts; if the employee did not have a goal, quite often he or she would give up and move on to something else. Fourth, goals help the employee to coordinate multiple strategies on the cognitive level to move towards the attainment of the goal. Empirical research has shown that employee motivation and performance is highest when the goal is difficult; when employees have easy goals or have no goals at all, motivation and performance is lower (Levy, 2003). However, this higher level of motivation and performance occurs only if the employee is committed to the goal. If the employee is not committed to the goal there is no motivational effect (Levy, 2003). Empirical research also clearly indicates that feedback about an employee’s performance positively affects that performance (Levy, 2003). Goal-Setting Theory is a self-regulating theory of motivation. Self-regulating theories attempt to understand how individuals monitor their own behavior and make adjustments to those behaviors in order to successfully accomplish goals (Levy, 2003). More specifically, individuals assess their progress towards the achievement of a goal, in the process determining what is working and what is not working. They then adjust their behavior based on which approach they believe will be the most effective in the accomplishment of the goal. Thus employee motivation is directly translated into specific behaviors designed for goal achievement (Levy, 2003). Applied to the organization, this means that one of the best ways to motivate employees is to work with them on setting challenging goals that are important to them. This will cause the employee to focus their efforts on accomplishing this goal and to persist despite setbacks in the achievement of the goal, resulting in overall higher performance. As a manager, it is important to monitor the employee’s progress towards accomplishing the goal and to provide feedback. Given the substantial body of research which supports it as well as the relative simplicity of the concept in theory and in practice (Levy, 2003), goal-setting theory has been widely accepted in organizations and many modern management and human resource management techniques reflect goal-setting theory to some degree. For example, the Managing by Objectives (MBO) performance appraisal method, in which the manager and employee set goals for the employee to accomplish during a performance period, and the employee’s performance is assessed based on his or her progress towards achieving these goals, clearly reflects the basic principles of goal-setting theory. The last theory of employee motivation that will be presented focuses on how employee motivation is influenced by others, in this case the employee’s supervisor. According to Vroom (1995) and Hiam (1991), the way managers treat employees strongly influences the level of employee motivation and consequentially their level of performance. Consideration, namely how the manager treats the employee in daily interactions, is particularly important (Vroom, 1995). One theory which reflects the impact that a manager can have on an employee’s motivation, and thus performance, is McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, first published in 1960 (Levy, 2003). According to Theory X, employees are fundamentally lazy, will avoid work if they can, inherently dislike work, will avoid responsibility whenever possible, and will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program. Motivation of employees, then, can only occur through external means. Managers must rely on the use of external monetary rewards (the metaphorical carrot) or threats and coercion (the metaphorical stick) to gain employee compliance. Managers must closely supervise employees in order to control their on-the-job performance. These managerial behaviors, required due to the fundamental nature of employees, create a punitive atmosphere, and the manager-employee relationship is characterized by mutual distrust (Levy, 2003). Conversely, according to Theory Y, employees have the potential to be ambitious, self-motivated, and to be capable of self-control. According to Theory Y, employees enjoy being mentally and physically challenged and are able to creatively problem-solve. According to McGregor (1960 as cited in Levy, 2003), employees are often capable of much more than what the organization expects for them; in other words, employees are often under-utilized. According to Theory Y, most employees fundamentally want to do well at work and the satisfaction of doing a job well is a powerful motivator. Given the right conditions, they can exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing goals to which they are committed. The role of the manager then, is to provide these “right conditions”, creating an overall positive workplace where employees are respected, valued, challenged, and provided with frequent feedback (Hiam, 1999). Theory X and Theory Y appear to contradict each other, but in actuality, they are part of the same continuum. The important question is not what is the fundamental nature of employees; the important question is what the manager believes to be the fundamental nature of employees. This theory highlights the importance of the way the manager treats the employee as an influencer of employee motivation. McClelland believed that his theories were part of a self-fulfilling prophecy, meaning that the manager’s belief about the fundamental nature of his or her employees would influence how he or she would treat them, in the end causing the employees to ultimately behave in the way the manager expects (Levy, 2003). McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y is a humanistic theory of employee motivation. It focuses on employee motivation from an organizational context, specifically the way in which employees are treated. Humanistic theories of employee motivation were largely a reaction to the more utilitarian way that employees were perceived and treated in the past. Such ideas as scientific management and the mechanistic model of organization led employees to be perceived and treated simply as functional parts of a machine, particularly during the industrial revolution. Humanistic theories of employee motivation recognize the human nature of employees and specifically address how the way employees are treated influences their work-related motivation. The concept of employee motivation, particularly from a psychological perspective, is multi-dimensional and complex. The three theories described above, specifically Need for Achievement Theory, Goal-Setting Theory, and McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, approach the psychological motivation of employees from different perspectives. Taken together, these three theories represent important ways that employees can be effectively motivated in the workplace. References Gerrig, R.J. & Zimbardo, P.G. (2009). Psychology and life (19th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hiam, A. (1999). Motivating and rewarding employees. Hollbrook, MA: Adams Media. LearnManagement2.com (n.d.). David McClelland-Human motivation theory. Retrieved from http://www.learnmanagement2.com/DavidMcClelland.htm. Levy, P.E. (2003). Industrial/organizational psychology: Understanding the workplace. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Vroom, V.H. (1995). Work and motivation. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Read More