Motivation_Theories

For ages, people charged with managing others have sought ways to motivate people. The need to find out the link between motivation and performance became imperative during the industrial revolution. Managers needed to know what would drive their workers to work effectively. Not only did they have to understand the needs of their workers but they also had to find the ways to satisfy those needs. “What motivates people'” Despite the complexity of motivation, researchers interested in this topic attempted to give a better understanding of human behaviour and motivation. These attempts were developed and reflected in a wide variety of experiments and theories. Motivation theories are grouped into two categories; the content and process theories. Despite being aimed at providing answers to the question above, content and process theorists had different ideas and consequently used different approaches in developing each of their theories. And I am going to bring this forth using Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory, and J. Stacey Adams’ equity theory of motivation. Frederick Herzberg, a content theorist used what is known as the critical incident technique to interview a sample of 203 engineers and accountants from the Pittsburgh area in order to discover what factors influenced job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). The basic interview question asked them to recall events which made them feel exceptionally good about their work and events which made them feel exceptionally bad about it. Analysis of the results showed that the factors which led to job satisfaction where different and independent from those that brought dissatisfaction to workers. Since separate factors led to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, he concluded that these two feelings are not opposite of each other. That is, the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction and vice versa (Nord. 1976, p. 69). He called his theory ‘the two-factor theory of motivation’ with the two sets of factors being motivator factors and hygiene factors. Motivator factors were described as those aspects of work which led to high levels of satisfaction, motivation and performance, including achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, growth and the work itself. While the hygiene factors were described as being the aspects of work which remove dissatisfaction, but do not contribute to motivation and performance, including pay and company policy, supervision, status, security and working conditions. (Huczynski & Buchanan. 2007, p. 258) “... He suggested that whereas previously any job factor, such as recognition, pay or conditions had been assumed to act on a continuum, from high satisfaction through high dissatisfaction, his own findings suggested that factors where bipolar. One set of factors, called hygiene factors, e.g., pay, supervision and work conditions, created dissatisfaction when absent, but when present only removed this dissatisfaction. The generation of dissatisfaction itself was the product of another different set of factors called motivators: when present they created satisfaction but when the factors were absent, employees lacked feelings of satisfaction but did not experience feelings of dissatisfaction” (Kelly. 1982, p. 147) Using the results from the interview Herzberg identified the hygiene or organisational context factors as: pay, company policy, supervisory style, status, security and working conditions. These factors relate with basic needs and their absence will consequently result to unhappiness and their satisfaction to content but not in motivation. Similarly, he identified motivator or job content factors as: achievement, advancement, growth, recognition, responsibility and the work itself. He explained that these were sources of satisfaction and would motivate and enhance job performance but their absence will however not cause dissatisfaction. Contrary to Herzberg who developed his two-factor theory of motivation by looking at various job factors and how they relate to needs and from who’s theory we could infer that we all have the same needs, J. Stacey Adams a process theorist developed what is known as the equity theory. He based his theory on how we perceive fair treatment and he strove to explain our behaviour towards inequity and unfair treatment. In the equity theory Adams assumed that we are all concerned with fairness and equity and because of that, we often tend to compare our effort to reward ratio. The theory starts with an exchange whereby the individual gives something and gets something in return. What the individual gives may be regarded as inputs/efforts, to or investments in the relationship. In order to function, such inputs must be recognised as existing by the individual and must be considered relevant to the relationship. They may not be recognised and perceived as relevant by the other party, for instance an employer. If they are not, a potential for inequality exists. On the other side of the exchange are various things the individual may receive; the rewards/outcomes of the exchange relationship. As with inputs, these must be recognised by the individual who receives them and considered relevant to the exchange if they are to function effectively. (Miner. 2007, p. 95) “Inequity occurs when you get either more, or less, than you think you deserve” (Huczynski & Buchanan. 2007, p. 248) Like the two factor theory, the equity theory identifies two variables as being responsible for our perception of inequality at work; inputs/efforts and rewards/outcomes. Remarkable differences in input to reward ratio of individuals with that of their reference source will bring inequity. The theory suggests that in inequitable situations such as where effort to reward ratio is less than that of a specific ‘reference group’ individuals will feel over-rewarded and will be motivated to achieve those same inputs in order to reduce the inequity and bring it to balance. In the same way, when people consider themselves much harder workers than other employees but are paid the same as everyone else they feel under-rewarded and will alter their inputs to their perceived equitable level. Adams suggestion that employees evaluate their treatment in relation to a ‘reference group’ can be related to the growth or motivator factors responsible for achievement, recognition for achievement and responsibility in Herzberg’s two-factor theory. According to Adam, “... First, employees may compare their earnings with their level of effort and performance and increase their effort if they believe their rewards are excessive or reduce their effort if they regard them as niggardly. Second, employees will compare their own ratio of effort to reward with that of co-workers and act to raise or reduce effort if they believe their own treatment by management is out of line...” ("equity theory"  A Dictionary of Human Resource Management. Edmund Heery and Mike Noon. Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Aston University.  28 November 2009  http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html'subview=Main&entry=t162.e387 ) It argues that, the more intense the impression of inequity, the higher the tension, and the stronger the motivation to act. (Huczynski & Buchanan. 2007, p. 248) Generally, when people perceive a ratio of effort to reward that either favours other people or themselves they experience inequity, and it is assumed to be a sufficiently unpleasant experience to motivate changes in either behaviour or perceptions, or both. In the same way, when people perceive others enjoy a similar ratio of effort to reward to themselves, they experience equity. (Fincham & Rhodes. 2005, p.203) Though Adam believed that employees will all become de-motivated both in relation to their job and employers if they feel as though their inputs are greater than their output or if they feel they are unfairly treated. It is important to note that unlike Herzberg, who implied that, “what motivates me is what motivates you, and that which brings me dissatisfaction will also do the same to you”. He stressed out the fact that like our notion of effort/input is different, so is that of ‘under-reward’ and ‘over-reward’. Consequently it should be expected that employees could respond to this in different ways. Adams proposed that our rewards and contributions could be compared with others outputs and inputs as follows: * (Huczynski & Buchanan. 2007, p. 249) *Partner here refers to any reference source. And like Herzberg, he conducted series of studies to support his theory. Adams conducted five studies dealing with over-reward inequity which included that with Rasenbaum in 1962 and with Jacobsen in 1964. (Miner. 2007, p. 100) Both the equity theory and the two factor theory promote the fact that for employees to be content there has to be a healthy balance between the two factors on which they are based. That is to say between inputs and outcomes for the equity theory and between motivator factors and hygiene factors for the two factor theory. The balance lying in favour of the employer will lead to de-motivation, anger and even result to staff turnover. Because people are the most important asset of organisation and the main determinant of organisational success, managers are constantly faced with the chore of understanding what motivates them. “The indeterminate nature of the typical employment contract makes motivation a central feature of the employment relationship, and the need to motivate others to ‘get things done’ is a running theme of management.” (Bratton et al. 2007, p. 248) “How do I get someone do what I want him to do'” Herzberg’s and Adam’s motivation theories and related research give managers a better understanding of their employees’ attitudes and behaviours at work. With the help of which they are able to design jobs in a way that will enhance satisfaction to the employee and raise productivity levels in the organisation. In the first place, as we know from Herzberg’s findings that employee dissatisfaction will occur only in the absence of basic needs i.e. hygiene factors, managers’ primary aim should be to tackle and avoid employee dissatisfaction by catering for them. This is because when these job factors, such as wages, working environment, rules and regulations, and supervisors are poor, employees are not motivated. However, the presence of these factors does not motivate employees either but only keeps them from being dissatisfied. The second aspect of Herzberg’s two-factor theory (motivators) accounts for the factors that actually motivate people. These are the factors that satisfy higher-level needs such as recognition for doing a good job, achievement, and the opportunity for growth and responsibility. Therefore in order to achieve employee motivation and satisfaction, managers have to find ways to address each of these areas successfully. In this light managers should restructure or redesign jobs in ways that will meet some of employees’ motivational needs. From the motivator factors discussed above, we can put a distinction between several motivational needs and see how each can be met. Some of which are; flexibility, independence, provision of feedback and growth or development. Flexibility, doing a task repeatedly in the same way tends to be boring and is likely to de-motivate an employee. To avoid that, managers should let their employees use a variety of methods to do their job. This will keep them interested in the job and hence more motivated. Another way to overcome boredom and further enhance motivation is through job rotation i.e. moving employees from job to job within the company. Independence, this entails freedom, decision making and responsibility. As identified by Herzberg, people have the need to be responsible for something and also the need for power. Enabling an employee have this independence will show the manager’s trust in him and he will then be motivated to live up to that trust. When people do work, they need to know how they perform. With the provision of feedbacks workers will know if they are doing things correctly or not. Furthermore, positive feedbacks from managers motivate workers by recognising their work and make them feel they are doing well. However as we are aware of the complexity of man’s behaviour, managers should constantly seek to motivate their personnel. This brings us to the aspect or need for growth. As discussed previously, when people are given an opportunity to develop and learn new skills they tend to be motivated. Not only will this satisfy their growth need and motivate workers, but it will also increase their productivity which is good for managers and the organisation as a whole. This can be achieved through managers sending workers on training, promoting group work and promotion. These can all be grouped under reward. Using knowledge from Adams’ equity theory, for rewards to bring about motivation they have to be seen as ‘fair’ or ‘equitable’ from an employees’ point of view. This is so that people should not feel either under-rewarded or over-rewarded. Therefore when writing a job description and the rewards that come with it such as pay, managers should evaluate the fairness of these in relation to applicable reference groups. In conclusion, due to individual differences and the fact that people’s behaviours is complex it should be a continuous management task/duty to seek for new ways that will enable them bring about employee motivation at work.