In the world of business in the 21st Century, it is vital that corporations have motivated employees to allow for competitive advantage and ensure a committed workforce. The topic can have been seen to be as controversial and whether employees can actually be motivated. This essay will defend that it is possible for managers to motivate employees and whether it is actually important to have self-motivated employees in the beginning. It can be seen the importance of money as a motivator with employees and the impact the managers can influence by creating a suitable working environment. These are two factors supporting the impact of managers when motivating employees. McGregor can be used to disprove the statement, it can be seen that X type of people no matter what the managers do, they cannot be motivated for the aims of the business
It can be argued that managers can in-fact motivate employees to ensure a committed workforce within the organisation. One way in which managers can motivate is through money. A theory which explains how money can be used is Adams’ Equity Theory. It states that there is a “positive association between an employee’s effort or performance on the job and the pay she or he receives” (Ramlall,2004, pg.55). How can the Equity Theory be used to explain money as a motivator? Equity theory balances the inputs and outputs of an individual. Therefore, it could be argued that if a manager was to follow the assumptions of the theory, s/he would use money as an input and expect an increase of output from the employee. As the individual accesses their own performance, they will increase their output and have higher motivation due to the increase in money. However, it can be seen that under the Equity Theory, money is not always enough to ensure a committed workforce. Money will not motivate an employee to go beyond what is expected of them and “monetary rewards only secure temporary compliance and do not build any long-term commitment or lasting behavioural changes in people” (Kohn, 1993, pg.7)
Money as a motivator works practically in many cases in corporations. As managers attempt many different methods to try and motivate employees, it was found that “motivating employees toward improved performance… money was overwhelmingly the most important” (Locke,1980, pg.379). How can it be impossible for managers to motivate employees if it was found that money was the most important incentive in increased performance. To support that money is the most important motivator, intensive data has been devised reinforcing this claim. Studies of actual behaviour shows that in “response to motivational initiatives nearly always showed pay to be the most effective motivator” (Sara,2004 pg.382). This intensive data along with Locke findings can be used to show how managers can internally motivate employees and it is not that important to have self-motivated employees at the recruitment stage. Managers can motivate employees
Nevertheless, it can be seen that money might not be as big as a motivator as one thought. Money as a motivator will only decrease job dissatisfaction, minimising the opportunity for the employee to become dissatisfied. Herzberg Two Factor theory allows us to understand how money is only a hygiene factor and these factors in fact actually don’t influence the motivation of an employee. Therefore, if money is the only factor used, it could be argued it is not as effective as managers originally perceive. As mentioned previously, money is only as hygiene factor under Herzberg. However, if money is used alongside another motivator, then money incentives can be effective. It can be seen if used with “multiple motivators—for example, performance-based pay and challenging work” (Sara,2004, pg386) then it can in fact improve motivation.
It can be seen that money and other incentives can allow managers to motivate employees to ensure a committed workforce. Another crucial way managers can motivate employees is by creating the right working environment. In doing this, it allows the individuals to excel thus acting as a motivator. Herzberg Two Factor theory tells us that there are hygiene factors such as wage (as mentioned before), working conditions, policies, supervisor quality and co-worker relations which will not motivate an employee. In fact, it will just decrease job dissatisfaction for an employee. Using Herzberg theory, if managers want to increase motivation, they will need to improve the internal factors. These include challenging work, autonomy, recognition and advancement then job satisfaction. If managers alter these variables of internal factors, employees will become more motivated. This theory shows managers the importance of the environment of the employees when trying to improve motivation. When analysing what factors contributed to increase job satisfaction, it was found that “of all the factors contributing to job satisfaction, 81% were motivators” (Herzberg, 1987, pg.9). This supports how under Herzberg theory, if managers were to create an environment where employees are given the opportunity to excel then it will increase job satisfaction contributing to a committed workforce.
Increasing internal factors is not the only way in which managers can increase motivation. “Motivation can be increased through basic changes in the nature of an employee’s job, that is, through job enrichment” (Steers, 1983). This is the redesigning of job specifications so that the employee finds their work more challenging. Under Maslow Hierarchy of Needs, it can be seen that through job enrichment, it will allow employees to reach self-actualisation and thus improve motivation. By creating a proper climate where employees can develop their fullest potential, it will allow the employee to become motivated and help achieve a committed workforce. “Failure to provide such a climate would theoretically increase employee frustration and could result in poorer performance, lower job satisfaction, and increased withdrawal from the organization” (Steers & Porter, 1983, pg.32). It is clear the influence managers can entail when motivating employees. If managers are able to make work more challenging then under Maslow theory it states that individuals will be more motivated as they will be reaching their self-actualisation.
Many factors influence the motivation of employees but how important is it to have a self-motivated employee? It can be argued that motivation comes from within and the individual needs to be self-motivated. McGregor’s X and Y theory is an example how important for managers to recruit self-motivated employees at the recruitment stage. The theory states that there are two types of people. The X type of employee who “does not like to work and responsibility, focus on economic security and need to be coerced into effort” (Thompson, 1990, pg. 308)”. This type of employee, no matter the environment the manager creates and incentives used, they will not contribute to the committed workforce. As this type of employee is only focusing on economic security and under Herzberg, we know that pay cannot be a motivator, it would be impossible for them to be motivated. If an individual is only interested in economic security then “Money rewards only secure temporary compliance and do not build any long-term commitment” (Kohn,1993, pg. 7). This supports how these types of employees will not contribute to ensuring a committed workforce and supports the argument that employees need to be self-motivated. An X type of employee under McGregor’s theory is impossible to motivate.
Furthermore, the statement of self-motivation employees can be supported by the Carrot and Stick approach. This principle was given its name by philosopher Jeremy Bentham which states that an individual need prompting to elicit desired behaviours.
The managers can give the prompts to the individual and can create the environment but cannot force the them to be motivated. This approach will make an employee carry out certain tasks through rewards and punishment, but overall the manager cannot force motivation on someone and therefore ultimately have to recruit self-motivated employees.
In conclusion when determining whether managers have the capability and influence to motivate employees, many factors have to be considered. It can be seen that through the use of money, managers can influence and motivate an employee. Equity theory allows us to understand that an individual feels the need to balance the inputs and outputs and therefore if the manager gives the employee more money, they feel obligated to put in a higher performance. Also, that out of all the motivators a manager could use, money is the most effective option. We cannot forget how if money is used alongside another motivator such as challenging work, it increases the effectiveness of improving motivation. Conversely It could be argued that as money is a hygiene factor that in fact it does not motivate the individual but in fact decreases job satisfaction. Additionally, the environment which the manager creates for the employees has seen to affect the motivation of the employees. By redesigning the jobs of individuals and increasing job enrichment, Maslow states that employees will reach self-actualisation and this will increase the motivation. Also by increasing internal factors stated by Herzberg then this will increase motivation of the employee. Supporting the statement, motivation might be impossible by managers if the individual is an X type of employee as they are focus on just economic security and therefore cannot be motivated. Overall there is too much evidence disclaiming the statement that it is impossible to motivate and in fact managers can motivate employees for a committed workforce.