MGTS 1601 Assignment- Low Motivation PDF

Preview

Summary

Got a 26/30 for this assignment. ...

Description

1

Low Motivation Benjamin Johnson 45312281

Word Count: 1642 Words

2

Employee motivation is defined by Terence R. Mitchell as the “psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed” (Mitchell, 1982). It’s our internal drive to satisfy unsatisfied needs (Higgins, 1994) and gives us the will to achieve (Bedeian, 1993) organizational and personal goals (Lindner, 1998). Therefore, when employees lack motivation they also lack the ability to perform at their best (Amabile, 1993). Low motivation is a major organizational concern for companies all over the world due to the negative effect that it has on both individual employee performance and the organizations. This essay examines the causes and effects of low motivation and evaluates possible solutions to the problem in relation to motivation theories and research-based analysis. Ultimately, it was concluded that the satisfaction of the four motivational drives through intrinsic and extrinsic factors was the most appropriate intervention.

Causes: Low motivation occurs when the factors that allow for motivation are absent or lacking. According to Employee Motivation: A Powerful New Model, there are four drives that underline motivation. These are the drive to acquire, bond, comprehend and defend (Nohria, Groysberg, & Lee, 2008). The drive to acquire is the desire to elevate one’s personal wellbeing. This can be through material acquisitions sourced through acquiring of wealth to intangible gains such as promotions and recognition. The drive to bond is the desire to form connections and relationships with both the organisation and the individuals involved. The drive to comprehend is the need to feel like the employee’s work is meaningful and important to the organisation. It also involves the desire for the job to be stimulating and challenging as well as giving them to facilities to grow and learn. Finally, the drive to defend is the employees desire to align with the company and connect with it on a personal basis. This is

3

done through an emphasis on fairness, transparency and an open exchange of ideas (Nohria et al., 2008). According to Herzberg’s two factor theory, motivation derives from factors that are taskrelated and intrinsic to the job itself (Ramlall, 2004), such as recognition, achievement, and fulfilling work (Tietjen, 1998). These factors are known as motivators and are the drives that motivate employees. Herzberg also argues that factors independent to the job itself such as salary, coworker relations, insurance, (Ramlall, 2004) fails to provide increased satisfaction or motivation (Tietjen, 1998). These factors, known as hygiene factors, cause contentment when present and dissatisfaction when absent. Herzberg argued that the elimination of dissatisfaction through hygiene factors would cause a neutral state (Herzberg, 1968) rather than a state of satisfaction. Effects: It has been found that when employee motivation is low, so is their organizational effectiveness (Manzoor, 2011). Organizational effectiveness is a measure of how successful an organization is at achieving organizational goals (Meyer, Vandenberghe, & Becker, 2004). This is because unmotivated employees are less productive, expend little to no effort in their work and have higher absence and turnover rates (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Essentially, an unmotivated employee produces unsatisfactory results (Emeka, Amaka, & Ejim, 2015). Low employee motivation is not just detrimental to the individual worker, but also to the organization’s efficiency and effectiveness (Zhang & Bartol, 2017). This reduction in the organization’s overall performance can cause a reduction in profits which negatively impacts business owners and shareholders involved. The primary workplace indicators that are affected by motivated are satisfaction, commitment and intention to quit, (Nohria et al., 2008). Engagement refers to the enthusiasm and effort of

4

an employee and the attitude in which they approach their tasks. Satisfaction is the extent to which an employee is satisfied with the organisation and the work that they are doing. Commitment reflects the degree that employees are engaged in corporate citizenship (Nohria et al., 2008) and intention to quit is the leading predictor of employee turnover. Essentially, low employee motivation results in reduced engagement and commitment, elevated dissatisfaction and a strong urge to leave the organisation. Alternative arguments: There is some scholarly debate over the extent to which low motivation is an organizational factor. The most common argument against the importance of motivation is over its significance. It is seen in some situations that natural ability is more influential to performance than motivation. An example of this can be seen school grades where the best predictor of high academic attainment is the student’s intellectual capacity rather than their hours spent studying (Mitchell, 1982). However, whilst the importance of genetic ability in relation to job performance is undeniable, it doesn’t make motivation any less relevant as a factor. For employees to get the most out of themselves and work at their maximum potential, they must be motivated and exert the maximum effort possible. Interventions: The first possible intervention for low motivation is the promotion of intrinsic factors, or ‘motivators’ (Herzberg, 1968), within an organizational arena. According to Herzberg’s two factor theory, factors intrinsic to the job itself are the main source of motivation, oppose to extrinsic factors (Nduka, 2016). Herzberg theory states that extrinsic factors or ‘hygiene factors’, do not increase motivation and if fulfilled, would only result in a neutral state. Some even argue (Deci & Cascio, 1972) that extrinsic incentives can sometimes reduce intrinsic motivation.

5

Herzberg argues that the most effective way to motivate employees is by facilitating their own desire to achieve and accomplish (Bedeian, 1993). When an employee is intrinsically motivated they do work-related tasks because they want to, not because they have been instructed. This proposed intervention would involve the implementation of skill variety, task identity and importance, autonomy and feedback into workplaces, 5 jobs characteristics that have been found essential for the occurrence of intrinsic motivation (Higgins, 1994). However, numerous studies suggest that some extrinsic factors actually provide just as much or if not more motivational value than intrinsic factors do. For example, after Locke, Feren, McCaleb and Shaw (Locke, Feren, McCaleb, & Shaw, 1980) conducted their study on motivational interventions they concluded that “money is the crucial incentive” and that “no other incentive or motivational technique comes even close to money with respect to its instrumental value” (Locke et al., 1980: 378) An explanation for why money is undervalued as a motivational factor is provided by Rynes, Gerhart and Minhette’s journal article. They suggested that people tend to underreport the importance of pay as a motivational factor. This is because of the social stigma that working for money is dishonorable when compared to reasons such as interesting work and contributing to society (Rynes, Gerhart, & Minette, 2004). They, like Locke, Feren, McCaleb and Shaw, also concluded that on average employees respond better to monetary incentives than any other motivation intervention. Therefore, the second proposed intervention is for low motivation is through extrinsic incentives such as performance bonuses, salary increases and additional job benefits. However, as stated by Cong and Vat (Cong & Van, 2013), employees are only motivated by extrinsic factors if it’s good relative to their fellow employees or people in the field. J.S Adams Equity Theory explains that employees are more concerned with how their extrinsic rewards stack up verses others than the absolute value of them (Ramlall, 2004). The solitary administration of extrinsic rewards to motivate employees is not the optimal intervention, as

6

it is costly and unsustainable, with employees only receiving motivation from them if the incentives they received are greater than that of their co-workers. (Amabile, 2008). The final proposed intervention for low motivation is the use of both intrinsic and extrinsic devices to fulfil the four drives that underline motivation. (Nohria et al., 2008). The first organizational lever is the reward system, an extrinsic mechanism mentioned in the previous intervention, which aims to fulfil our drive to acquire. However, what enables reward systems to be effective is establishing a clear link to performance which motivates employees to work harder in pursuit of these rewards. This organizational lever also demands organization’s pay their employees as well or if not better than their competitors (Nohria et al., 2008). The second organizational lever is culture which involves creating a strong sense of friendship within an organization and aims to fulfil our drive to bond. By promoting teamwork and comradery, employees will be more inclined to share ideas amongst co-workers and will be happier in the workplace, increasing motivation and subsequently productivity (Nohria et al., 2008). The third organizational lever is job design, an intrinsic factor that involves ensuring the tasks are enjoyable and empowering for the employee which aims to fulfil our drive to comprehend. Motivation is developed when the employee feels the work is interesting and challenging and when they feel they are contributing meaningfully to organization. The final organization lever is Performance-Management which involves an emphasis on fairness and transparency and aims to fulfil our drive to defend. This allows trust to be developed between the employee and the organization, which increases motivation. Research demonstrates that if a baseline average firm was to satisfy the four drives through these levers, it would skyrocket from the 50th percentile to the 88th percentile in employee motivation (Nohria et al., 2008). Filtvedt’s master thesis on employee motivation argues against the validity of the Herzberg two-factor model. This is because the research conducted showed that intrinsic and extrinsic factors are equally important for employee motivation (Emeka et al., 2015). It was ultimately

7

concluded that the most effective way to manage employees was through a balance of both types of factors. This intervention was decided as the most appropriate choice of intervention for low motivation. The research showed that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors are important for employee motivation as are the fulfilment of the four motivational drives. Obviously, a complete implementation of these organizational levers is easier said than done, however, if correctly employed a massive improvement to employee motivation would be seen. In conclusion, this paper has discussed the causes of low employee motivation and the effect that it has on employee and subsequently organizational performance. It has also explored the potential interventions to low motivation to which it was concluded that the satisfaction of intrinsic and extrinsic factors to satisfy the four motivational drives was the most suitable choice. This was because it was found that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors are equally as important to employee motivation and are both needed to be achieved to ensure maximum motivation. In this essay I learnt that employee motivation is important for organizational efficiency and that humans are complex creatures that are motivated and driven by multiple different aspects.

8

Reference List: Amabile, T. M. 1993. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3): 185-201. Amabile, T. M. 2008. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 48-58. Bedeian, A. G. 1993. Management: Dryden Press. Cong, N. N. & Van, D. N. 2013. Effects of Motivation and Job satisfaction on Employees’ Performance at Petrovietnam Nghe an Construction Joints Stock Corporation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4 (6). Deci, E. L. & Cascio, W. F. 1972. Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative feedback and threats. Emeka, N., Amaka, O., & Ejim, E. P. 2015. The Effect of Employee Motivation on Organizational Performance of Selected Manufacturing Firms in Enugu State. Journal of Management and Behavioral Studies, 3(1): 1-8. Herzberg, F. 1968. One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review: 53-62. Higgins, J. M. 1994. The Management Challenge: An Introduction to Management. Chicago. Latham, G. P. & Pinder, C. C. 2005. Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century. Annual Review of Psychology 56(1): 485-516. Lindner, J. R. 1998. Understanding Employee Motivation Journal of Extension, 36(3). Locke, Feren, McCaleb, & Shaw. 1980. The relative effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee performance. , Changes in working life.

9

Manzoor, Q.-A. 2011. Impact of Employees Motivation on Organizational Effectiveness. Business Management and Strategy 3(1). Meyer, J. P., Vandenberghe, C., & Becker, T. E. 2004. Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 991-1007. Mitchell, T. R. 1982. Motivation: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 7(1): 80-88. Nduka, O. 2016. Employee Motivation and Performance. Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., & Lee, L.-E. 2008. Employee Motivation: A Powerful New Model. Harvard Business Review: 78-84. Ramlall, S. 2004. A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and their Implications for Employee Retention within Organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2): 52-67. Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. A. 2004. The Importance of Pay in Employee Motivation: Discrepancies Between what People Say and What They. Human Resource Management 43(4): 381-394 Tietjen, M. A. 1998. Motivation and Job Satisfaction. Management Decision, 36(4): 226231. Zhang, X. & Bartol, K. M. 2017. Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1)....