Motivation

“People management represents the catalytic condition – the essential “X-Factor” – that combines other factors into a formula for high performance” (Raising UK Productivity: Why People Management Matters. (2001) CIPD.) Critically analyse and evaluate a particular element of people management which you feel might contribute to the “essential X factor”. Introduction “The real purpose of management is motivation of the group to use its energy to achieve objectives” this quote by John Harvey-Jones, chief executive of ICI (cited by Islam & Ismail, 2008) has influenced the decision to select motivation as the X-factor for discussion in this piece of work. The emphasis on motivation as a fundamental factor in maximising the outcomes of an organisation, is shared by Osteraker (1999) who suggests that the inability to motivate limits an organisation’s ability to survive, and Amabile (1993) who claims that motivated employees as persistent, creative, productive, and purveyors of quality work. Through analysis, critique and discussion this piece of work will present an overview of the development of motivation theory from Taylor’s (1911) Scientific Management and Maslow’s (1943) theory of human motivation, through to the more recent perspectives on motivation driven by the complexities of the globalisation of business. The modern business world is being challenged by, amongst many other aspects, the demoralising effects of downsizing (Gee & Burke, 2001), career path barriers (Baker, 1990) and the progressive increase in proportion of workers involved in knowledge or service industries as opposed to the historic emphasis on the production of goods (Gutek, 1995). Taylor’s (1911) assumption that money is the workers only motivator is investigated through the review of theory and research findings, with consideration in terms of the modern world. If Taylor is correct then it would negate motivation as a managerial X factor, in that a manager would only need to deliver the motivating level of remuneration and not be required to possess the skill set and talent required to nurture motivation in the workforce. Exploring the theme of motivation sets out to highlight the crucial need for today’s managers to have amongst their essential attributes (X factors) the understanding of and ability to motivate. Firstly, one must consider the history and evolution of motivation in the work/ business sense. As mentioned in the introductory paragraph one of the key pioneers of the concept of work motivation was F. W. Taylor and his Scientific Management Theory (Wiley, 1997), however Taylor considered that money was man’s only motivation and that monetary reward was the fundamental incentive to impel motivation and job performance (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). It was E. Mayo and his Hawthorn Studies during 1924-32 that first threw light on the possibility that money was not the only or key factor in workforce motivation (Rai, 2004), these studies showed evidence that human relations and job enrichment were motivators. Mayo altered various factors in the workplace including lighting, rest, conditions, refreshments and increased attention from supervisors. All of these factors had some effect on the level of work, performance and productivity, i.e. motivation. Mayo’s studies opened the arena for the development of the theory on work motivation to a new era (Mullins, 2002). Following the ground breaking revelations of Mayo, many of the paradigm defining theorists appeared in the literature, the first of significance was A. H. Maslow, Maslow (1943) argued that humans have 9 innate needs/motivations which move higher through a narrowing triangle, with basic (biological) needs at the bottom and the highest need (self actualisation) at the pinnacle. Maslow suggests that we need to attain the needs in an ascending scale in order to be motivated. There are shortcomings in Maslow’s theory (Aungles & Parker, 1988), however, Maslow himself did not intend for his model to be an all encompassing theory on motivation, but as a typical illustration of motivational requirements in an ideal world (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2001). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory inspired other theorists to develop the concept (Alderfer, 1972), Alderfer’s modified theory suggested there were 3 levels of need; existence, relatedness and growth (ERG theory), again like Maslow this theory stated that one must progress through the levels in order to be motivated. A developing theory challenged Maslow’s idea that one must progress through levels of motivation in order to remain motivated. Herzberg et al (1959) published The Motivation to Work in 1959, in it they proposed that motivation was determined by 2 sets of factors. The first factor was not to do with actual motivation but the limiting of dissatisfaction of the worker through environmental and extrinsic elements i.e. the job/job context. These elements if not in place led to dissatisfaction and if present, led to, simply no dissatisfaction - a zero state of motivation (Mullins, 2002). These are referred to as hygiene factors. The second set of factors are the motivational aspects of work, elements that if present can satisfy/motivate but if missing lead to one being not satisfied, as opposed to dissatisfied, these elements are related to the content of the work and are named motivational factors (motivators). Herzberg et al challenged the former belief that dissatisfaction through to satisfaction was a continuum; they recognised the importance of the lower level needs (Hygiene Factors) which are similar to the lower level needs of Maslow, but that it was the addressing of the motivators that drove work motivation (Jones & Jordan, 1982). Herzberg et al claim that although financial reward is a key to avoiding dissatisfaction it is not a motivator. It is this assumption that will be looked at in this piece of work forthwith. Amabile (1993) highlights some key elements of both factors well, suggesting that pay, security and working conditions are examples of hygiene factors, and that satisfaction through accomplishment, autonomy, and responsibility are motivators. These two sets of factors can be described as extrinsic (hygiene) and intrinsic (motivators) influences (Manolopoulos, 2008). Intrinsic motivators are an endogenous part of ones engagement, arising from feelings and are tied in to the work itself. Extrinsic motivators may sometimes be contingent to the work but are not inherently tied to the work itself. Herzberg et al proposed their theory upon analysis of their study on 14 factors on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, they found two distinct clusters of response, such was the pronounced distinction Herzberg and his collaborators considered them as separate, as factors that had the ability to satisfy (or not) and those that could dissatisfy (or not). Many criticised the conclusions (Vroom, 1964; Hardin, 1965; and Hulin & Smith, 1965) however, they had difficulty explaining the consistency of replicated studies (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). What seems to have torn theorists to a greater extent is the value of money as a motivator as opposed to simply a hygiene or lower need. Using Herzberg et al’s techniques to consider their validity and efficacy in the modern world Bassett-Jones & Lloyd (2005) study was responded to by 3,209 workers from 32 organisations in the UK. The study used a suggestion scheme as a tool to derive the motivators that induce the sample group to contribute. The findings of the study showed that although money can move some participants to contribute, the numbers are considerably lower than those contributors that did so for some intrinsic means such as contributing to organisational success. The modern findings did throw up some interesting changes since Herzberg’s initial studies, most notably the importance employees put on recognition from managers. Bassett-Jones & Lloyd (2005) concluded that this change had arisen in part due to the shallower pyramid and reduced opportunity for promotion that has developed globally due to pressures on the modern organisation. Amabile (1993) echoes the reduction of opportunities to progress suggesting that downsizing is occurring across most segments of industry on a massive scale, and that job security in decline. Maslow, Adelfer and Herzberg et al fall into the bracket theorists call content theory, this means that they try to explain what motivates an individual to work (Mullins, 2002). In contrast to content theory’s emphasis on the nature of what motivates, process theories attempt to highlight how behaviour is directed. Process theories emphasis the actual process of motivation, theorists from this camp include Vroom (1964), Porter & Lawler (1962) Adams (1965) and Locke (1968). These theories are called Expectancy Theory, Expectancy Model, Equity Theory and Goal Theory, respectively. These Process Theories are extrinsically driven. Vroom’s expectancy theory is based on the premise that some individuals prefer certain outcomes from their behaviour to a greater extent than others. Feelings of satisfaction from the desired outcome are seen as motivation. Porter and Lawler’s expectancy model develops Vroom’s idea further and suggests that job satisfaction is more dependent on performance than vice versa and that rewards are an intervening factor. Meudell and Rodham (1998) state that both ideas on expectancy suggest that money will motivate by satisfying a personal goal and will be perceived as being dependant on performance. Although much of the motivational theory in literature comes from the 1960’s and 70’s (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005) there are some more modern ideas developed upon them, Reactance Theory (Bowey, Thorpe & Hellier, 1986) takes this reward system one step further and suggests that the rewards be agreed upon after consultation with employees. Returning to the introduction’s claim that the modern business environment is influencing motivation and the satisfaction of workers needs, a study by Whymark (1998) showed evidence that downsizing and rationalisation have a great demoralisation effect, and Cooper (1996) found that change, and high workload due to such factors are causing employee stress. Cooper estimates that 360 million working days per annum are lost in the UK alone through stress. Smith (1997) concurs that employees are affected by the reduction of job security. There are many other factors relevant to the current business climate that are difficult to equate to in terms of the motivational theories of the mid 20th century (Cascio, 1995), for instance, the rise of service and the exchange of knowledge which is increasing proportionally compared with the production of goods (Cascio, 1995). These styles of business also take the focus off individuals to some extent and lay greater emphasis on teamwork (Vecchio, 1995), this requirement for groups of employees to support each other in pursuit of common goals makes it difficult to assess individual productivity unambiguously (Ellemers et al, 2004). Erez et al (2001) argue that the contemporary working environment places a growing requirement on workers to sacrifice individual goals/needs in order to better contribute to long term collective outcomes. This developing trend in modern business is little understood, in a review of over 200 empirical studies on work motivation Ambrose & Kulik (1999) concluded that workgroup motivation is vastly underrepresented and that a gap in research is apparent. In one such study of group motivation Ellemers et al (2004) argue that their findings show that there is no one best way to motivate individuals or groups and that more research is required. A picture is building through this review of literature that is drawing much attention to the complexity on the question of motivation and motivating. Reflecting on the introductory themes of ‘money as a motivator’ and the developing contemporary environment it is plain to see that money is a factor amongst many, and that the fast changing global business place is creating organisations which demand more work from fewer workers, flexibility and emphasis on team work (Vecchio, 1995), these increased pressures along with the diminishing expectation of life long employment have led researchers to study how the value of money as a motivator has changed through the decades (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969 & Kovach, 1980, 1987, 1995). Hershey & Blanchard conducted one of the first surveys on motivation in 1946 (Wiley, 1995), Kovach’s (1980, 1987, 1995) three subsequent studies followed in a similar vein. The 1946 study asked workers to rank ten ‘job reward’ factors in order of preference. The 1946 study found that appreciation for work was ranked top, 1980 and 1987 gave top ranking to interesting work, whereas in 1992 good wages had risen to the top spot. The first 3 studies provide support for Herzberg’s theory that workers are motivated by their own inherent need to succeed, but what of the switch to monetary motivation in 1992' Wiley (1995) suggests that the beginnings of globalisation and the pressures that have been discussed in this review thus far have created an environment of insecurity and that this has stimulated the importance of basic needs, hence the rise of monetary importance. On closer scrutiny of the data, sub groups have been examined. This has thrown up some interesting points; firstly those over the age of 50 did not rank financial reward as their top motivator, and those on $50,000.00 plus only ranked it 5th. These findings go some way to show that perhaps money does only motivate/move to a certain level and once workers are satisfied with their remuneration other factors become more important to their motivation, this too echoes Herzberg’s theory. Therefore the evidence from the studies discussed suggest that money is an important aspect of motivation, and that business’s need to ensure that workers are satisfied with their pay and feel that the work they produce is fairly rewarded, a study in 1993 used by Kalra (1998) supports this theory, the study using workers earning well above the average wage placed personal growth as their key motivator and money only 4th. Here some case studies will be offered to draw in some practical evidence of the business world to support this literature reviews growing support that money whilst a motivating factor is certainly not “THE” motivating factor suggested by Taylor or many theories based on extrinsic influences. Aon Consulting, a Chicago based company reported that employees had high levels of absenteeism even though they received high pay levels and perks, this was attributed to the low levels of recognition given to staff for their work (Shellenbarger, 1998). Asda have built job variety in to reward schemes to bring intrinsic influences into the historically extrinsic reward system (Acland, 1998). Eurostar have brought in a policy which pairs workers from different sections in order to vary their work and to allow them to explore potential skills in other areas (Eurostar (UK) Ltd, 1998). These organisations obviously contend with the theory that workers need to be stimulated, given opportunity, and have their higher needs tended to in order to motivate. In conclusion to the literature reviewed in this piece of work, it is evident that today’s business environment is indeed complex and that money certainly is not the panacea for workforce motivation. The obvious climatic changes of the modern world (Whymark, 1998) may be bringing more emphasis on monetary reward in light of reduced job security (Kovac, 1995), but the huge emphasis on the intrinsic stimulation of the workforce in terms of motivational factors shines through as paramount in acquiring the best out of the workforce. In terms of motivation as an essential managerial X Factor, Bassett-Jones and Lloyd (2005) capture its significance very nicely indeed; they argue that the skill and emotional intelligence of managers plays an important role in recognising and sustaining the motivation of their staff. J. C. Dingley of Ulster University (1986) reinforces the criticality of motivation in an organisation with this statement: “Motivation is important – even crucial – to any economic (or non-economic) organisation for one simple reason, because the source of all wealth and value is human labour. There is no other source but people and what they invest through their labour”. Therefore it is clear that a manager’s understanding of and ability to motivate is as was suggested in the introduction, an essential X Factor. References Acland, H. (1998), Morale boosters, Marketing (UK), Vol. 24, Page 37. Adams, J. S. (1965) Injustice in social exchange, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press. Alderfer, C. P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness and Growth: Human needs in organisational settings, Free Press, New York, NY. Amabile, T. (1993), Motivational Synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, Pages 185-201. Ambrose, M. L. & Kulik, C. T. (1999), Old friends, new faces: Motivational research in the 1990’s, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, Pages 231-292. Aungles, S. B. & Parker, S. R. (1988), Work Organisation and Change, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, NSW Baker, G. P. (1990), Pay for performance: Causes and Consequences, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 3, Pages 50–61. Bassett-Jones, N. & Lloyd, G. C. (2005), Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power' Journal of Management and Development, Vol. 24, No. 10, Pages 929-943. Bowey, A. M., Thorpe, R. & Hellier, P. (1986), Payment Systems and Productivity, Macmillan. Cascio, W. F. (1995), Whither industrial and organisational psychology in a changing world of work, American Psychologist, Vol. 50, Pages 928-929. Cooper, C. L. (1996), Mental health and stress in the workplace: A guide for employers, HMSO, London, Pages 1-3. Dingle, J. C. (1986), Recent developments in the area of motivation, IMDS, Emarald Backfiles. Page 21. Ellemers, N. Gilder, D. & Haslam, S. A. (2004), Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, Pages 459 -478. Erez, M. Kleinbeck, U. & Thierry, H. (2001), Work motivation in the context of a globalising economy, Mahwah, NJ. Eurostar (UK), Ltd. (1998), Can you outline ways that employees are motivated, University of Bristol, Bristol. Gee, C. & Burke, M. (2001), Realising potential: the new motivation game, Management Decision, Vol.2, Pages 131-136. Gutek, B. A. (1995), The dynamic of service: Reflections on the changing nature of the service industry, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hardin, E. (1965), Perceived and actual changes in job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 49, No.2, Pages 363-367. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1969), Management of organisational behaviour, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Pages 34-35. Hulin, C. L. & Smith, P. C. (1965), A linear model of job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.49, No.2, Pages 209-216. Huczynski, A. & Buchanan, D. (2001), Organizational Behaviour: An introductory text, 4th Edition, Financial Times, Prentice Hall, London. Jones, N. & Jordan, P. (1982), Staff Management in Library and Information Work, Gower Publishing, Aldershot. Kalra, S. K. (1998), Human potential management: time to move beyond the concept of human resources management, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21, No.5, Pages 1-4. Kovach, K. A. (1980), Why motivational theories don’t work, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2, Pages 54-59. Kovach, K. A. (1987), What motivates employees' Workers and supervisors give different answers, Business Horizons, Vol. 30, No.5, Pages 58-65. Kovach, K. A. (1995), Employee motivation: addressing a crucial factor in your organisational performance, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 30, Pages 58-65. Locke, E.A. (1968), Towards a theory of task motivation and incentives, Organizational behaviour and human performance, Vol. 3, Pages, 157-189. Manolopoulos, D. (2008), Does the board know whether it is the money, or the love' Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol.16, No.3, Pages 14-16. Maslow, A. H. (1943), A theory of human motivation, Psychological Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, Pages 370-396. Meudell, K. & Rodham, K. (1998), Money isn’t everything...or is it' A preliminary research study into money as a motivator in the licensed house sector, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10, No. 4, Pages 128-132. Mullins, L. J. (2002), Management and Organisational Behaviour, 6th Edition, Financial Times, Prentice Hall, London. Osteraker, M.C. (1999), Measuring motivation in a learning organization, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 11, Pages 73-77. Porter, L. W. & Lawler, E. E. (1968), Managerial attitudes and performance, Irwin. Rai, S. (2004), Motivational theories and incentives approaches, IIMB Management Review, December, Pages 43-50. Shellenbarger, S. (1998), Time off is workers answer to stress, Marsworks, Ontario. Smith, V. (1997), New forms of work organisation, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23, Pages 315-339. Taylor, F.W. (1911), Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Vecchio, R. P. (1995), Organisational Behaviour, Dryden, Hinsdale. IL. Vroom, V. H. (1964), Work and motivation, Wiley, New York, NY. Whymark, K. (1998), Managing relationships: is this a quality issue' Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8, No.5, Pages 158-162 Wiley, C. (1997), What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys, International Journal of Manpower, Vol, 18, No.3, Pages 263-280.