Concepts of Motivation
Introduction:
Modern business environments coupled with complex organisational structures nowadays have added a lot of pressures and problems in the workplace. Managers and their constituents are pressured to produce the needed output for the organization. However, some managers are often faced with problems related to how their employees respond positively to the need for greater efforts and commitments. They tend to view employee motivation in a very intrinsic form that is actually different from what their employees actually believe. Their employees are also in a quandary as to whether their efforts are being recognized and dealt with properly. Both see the need to improve on some things but they also want to be motivated properly in order to move.
a) What is motivation and why is it important in the workplace?
According to the Harvard Business Essentials (2003), in order to change some aspects of the organisation, a high degree of motivation on the part of the employees is a necessary condition for change-readiness. Motivation is a feeling of interest or enthusiasm that makes somebody want to do something. It is also a reason for doing something or behaving in some way. Management may formulate policies and strategies that can be seen as incentives for workers to excel and perform better.
Feldman and Arnold (1983, p. 106) say most of the problems within an organisation are motivation problems. Those involved in the study of organisational behavior recognize the importance of motivation as a determinant of effective performance in the organisation. Recognizing the level of motivation in the workplace can address a lot of worker-related problems.
According to Konzes and Posner (1995, p.43), the challenge of creating a new way of life is basically motivating to leaders and constituents alike. Leaders search for opportunities for people to exceed their previous levels of performance. Employees also search for opportunities to be properly compensated, acknowledged, and be given job security for all of their efforts. Konzes and Posner (1995, p. 40) further add that in traditional organizations, what gets rewarded gets done. So organizations generally offer a lot of extrinsic rewards – money, stock options, bonuses, perks, prestige, and positions just to get people to perform. Aside from these rewards, organizations also provide other incentives through a non-monetary system known as ‘positive reinforcement’ (Hill and Stone, 1977). In this system, managers let their employees know how well they are meeting the organisation’s objectives and gives them proper recognition and praise. Usually, these types of rewards uplift the morale of their employees and let them excel better.
Konzes and Posner (1995, p. 41) however say that reliance upon external incentives and pressures doesn’t liberate people to perform their best. It actually constrains leaders from ever learning why people want to excel. It is said that if managers don’t learn this, they will never learn to lead.
According to McIntosh (1984, p.102), everyone is motivated in some way or another. However, management and their employees differ greatly in what kind of incentive programs might motivate them. It is natural for people to respond to any incentive programs to the point that they see the outcome as satisfying. McIntosh (1984, p. 102) further say that if a particular person in an incentive program sees a high probability of the program having a satisfying outcome, then it is likely that this person will respond positively to demands for greater effort and commitment.
McIntosh however says that in order for any incentive program to be successful, there should be a management philosophy. A manager must truly believe and be able to demonstrate that his/her staff possesses unused potentials and abilities that can be unleashed and applied in the right direction. Without this, employees will not truly sense the true motive of managers in giving out incentive programs.
b) Compare and contrast any two theoretical treatments of motivation from both the worker and the manager’s perspectives.
Contemporary theories and research have much to say about why people behave as they do in organisations. According to Wendell (1973, p.85), one of the most widely accepted theory is Abraham Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory. These needs pertain to physiological requirements, safety, belonging and affection, esteem, and self-actualization.
These needs are ranked according to the most basic to the highest needs. Feldman and Arnold (1983, p. 108), say that people move up the hierarchy of needs from lowest (physiological) to highest (self-actualization). This theory hypothesizes that the lowest level of needs that is denied will be the main set of needs until they are fulfilled. Once these main needs are fulfilled, the next highest levels of needs are activated until it is satisfied.
Another theory which similarly addresses the different needs found in Maslow’s theory is the ERB Theory developed by Alderfer. The E, R, and G stand for existence, relatedness, and growth. Obviously, there are only three needs as compared to Maslow’s five. The main difference of these two theories is that Maslow’s theory is more strictly locked up with the hierarchy of needs while the ERG theory is more flexible as it allows people to activate all the needs at the same time. According to Maslow’s theory, managers sometimes don’t understand the indifference of employees to their work. It is possible that even if management is constantly giving recognition to their outstanding work (the esteem need or the 4th need in the hierarchy), a part of the problem lies on the inability of these employees to fulfill the lower needs. A manager can say please and good work to a particular employee and the effect would still be negative (Accel-team). The ERG theory suggests that people may move up and down the three-step hierarchy and satisfaction of needs at one level leads to progression to the next level of needs. This theory reflects the complex human needs and that the implications of this theory for management practices are less defined and clear-cut that those of need hierarchy theory. It would be easier for management to address needs based on hierarchy than those needs that need to be addressed once.