Introduction
to Motivation
Motivation
Defined
Motivational
Theories & Research
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs TheoryHerzberg’s Two-Factor TheoryExpectancy theoryEquity TheoryGoal-setting theory
Motivational Factors Influencing The Productivity
Role Of Motivation In Higher Productivity
Motivational Strategies To Encourage Productivity
At one time, employees were considered just
another input into the production of goods and services. What perhaps changed
this way of thinking about employees was research, referred to as the Hawthorne
Studies, conducted by Elton Mayo from 1924 to 1932 (Dickson, 1973). This study
found employees are not motivated solely by money and employee behavior is
linked to their attitudes (Dickson, 1973). The Hawthorne Studies began the
human relations approach to management, whereby the needs and motivation of
employees become the primary focus of managers (Bedeian, 1993).
Motivation involves a constellation of beliefs,
perceptions, values, interests, and actions that are all closely related. As a
result, various approaches to motivation can focus on cognitive behaviors (such
as monitoring and strategy use), non-cognitive aspects (such as perceptions,
beliefs, and attitudes), or both. For example, Gottfried (1990) defines
academic motivation as “enjoyment of school learning characterized by a mastery
orientation; curiosity; persistence; task-endogeny; and the learning of
challenging, difficult, and novel tasks” (p. 525). On the other hand, Turner
(1995) considers motivation to be synonymous with cognitive engagement, which
he defines as “voluntary uses of high-level self-regulated learning strategies,
such as paying attention, connection, planning, and monitoring” (p. 413).
Motivation Defined
Many contemporary authors have also defined the
concept of motivation. Motivation has been defined as: the psychological
process that gives behavior purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995); a
predisposition to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific, unmet needs
(Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995); an internal drive to satisfy an
unsatisfied need (Higgins, 1994); and the will to achieve (Bedeian, 1993). For
this paper, motivation is operationally defined as the inner force that drives
individuals to accomplish personal and organizational goals.
Motivation refers to “the reasons underlying
behavior” (Guay et al., 2010, p. 712). Paraphrasing Gredler, Broussard and
Garrison (2004) broadly define motivation as “the attribute that moves us to do
or not to do something” (p. 106). Intrinsic motivation is motivation that is
animated by personal enjoyment, interest, or pleasure. As Deci et al. (1999)
observe, “intrinsic motivation energizes and sustains activities through the
spontaneous satisfactions inherent in effective volitional action. It is
manifest in behaviors such as play, exploration, and challenge seeking that
people often do for external rewards” (p. 658). Researchers often contrast
intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation, which is motivation governed by
reinforcement contingencies. Traditionally, educators consider intrinsic
motivation to be more desirable and to result in better learning outcomes than
extrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999).
Motivational Theories &
Research
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
It is one of the most
well known motivational theories. Abraham Maslow’s theory identifies five
levels of hierarchical needs that every individual attempts to accomplish or
conquer throughout one’s life. The needs start with the physiological (hunger,
thirst, shelter) and then move upward in a pyramid shape through safety,
social, and esteem needs, to the ultimate need for self-actualization. This
final need for self-actualization is defined as one’s desire and striving
towards maximum personal potential. The pyramid shape to the theory is intended
to show that some needs are more important that others and must be satisfied
before the other needs can serve as motivators (Schermerhorn, 2003). Maslow
argued that lower level needs had to be satisfied before the next higher level
need would motivate employees. “According to Maslow, once a lower-level need
has been largely satisfied, its impact on behavior diminishes” (Hunsaker,
2005). One of the difficulties with using this theory to analyze organizations
is that although it may appear very easy to implement, it is difficult to
relate this distinct five-level hierarchy within an organization. Many times
when this theory has been used, the results show that the needs that contribute
to motivation more heavily vary according to the level of the individual, the
size of the organization, and even the geographic location of the company.
It explores the idea
that there are three major “needs” that one will acquire over their lifetime as
a result of the experiences in their careers or in their own personal lives
(Schermerhorn, 2003). McClelland
believed that in order to understand human behavior and how an individual can
be motivated, you must first understand their needs and inclinations. The Need
for Achievement encompasses the desire to do better, to solve problems, and to
master complex tasks. The Need for Affiliation is the desire for friendly and
warm relations with others. These are often those passive individuals that try
to avoid conflict at all times, even when it might be necessary to fulfill a
task. Finally, the Need for Power is the desire to control others and influence
their behavior. This is the need that carried a fairly negative connotation;
however it has been proven that successful, well-respected managers often lean
towards those power need tendencies. Managers who possess the Need for Power
tendencies in combination with the Need for Achievement can also be very
effective managers. A manager with both characteristics would not only try to
oversee the situation or environment, but also is continually looking for ways
to improve the current situation and is not afraid to take on difficult
projects or leadership roles. This theory may be very useful in an organization
as a predictor of future managers or project leaders; however it limits the
results to only three categories. In reality, all three of the needs
established in this theory define an individual’s personality, which need tends
to show itself in certain situations could be used as the predictor. Managers
should use this theory to identify the needs within themselves, their coworkers
and subordinates to create work environments that are responsive to those need
characteristics (Schermerhorn, 2003).
This theory divides
motivation and job satisfaction into two groups of factors known as the
motivation factors and hygiene factors. According to Frederick Herzberg, “the
motivating factors are the six ‘job content’ factors that include achievement,
recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and possibility of
growth. Hygiene factors are the ‘job context’ factors, which include company
policy, supervision, relationship with supervision, work conditions,
relationship with peers, salary, personal life, relationship with subordinates,
status, and job security” (Ruthankoon, 2003). Basically the theory
differentiates the factors between intrinsic motivators and extrinsic
motivators. The intrinsic motivators, known as the job content factors, define
things that the people actually do in their work; their responsibility and achievements.
These factors are the ones that can contribute a great deal to the level of job
satisfaction an employee feels at work. The job context factors, on the other
hand, are the extrinsic factors that someone as an employee does not have much
control over; they relate more to the environment in which people work than to
the nature of the work itself (Schermerhorn, 2003). Herzberg identifies these
factors as the sources for job dissatisfaction. “Hertzberg reasoned that
because the factors causing satisfaction are different from those causing
dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of one
another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no
satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction.
While at first glance this distinction between the two opposites may sound like
a play on words, Herzberg argued that there are two distinct human needs
portrayed” (“Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory,” 2002). Therefore, the basic
premise of the Two-Factor Theory is that if an employer or manager is trying to
increase job satisfaction and ultimately job performance for an employee or
coworker, they need to address those factors that affect one’s job
satisfaction. The most direct approach is to work on the intrinsic, job content
factors. Giving the employee encouragement and recognition helps them to feel
more valued within the company, as well
as giving a sense of achievement and responsibility. Herzberg says, that “the
only way to motivate the employee is to give him [her] challenging work in
which he [she] can assume responsibility” (Leach, 2000). If the employee does
not feel some responsibility associated with a certain task or department,
he/she will not feel like their work is worthwhile. Also “people must believe
that they are capable of attaining a goal before they will commit serious
energy [or motivation] to it” (Hunsaker, 2005). Therefore, it is important to
include your employees in the decision making and at times the job assignment
or delegation. This will help the employee to feel more responsibility and in
turn a higher level of motivation. On the other hand, employers need to
consider the level of job dissatisfaction among their employees as well. To
directly approach the issue of dissatisfaction in the work place and to try and
revitalize the environment a bit, employers need to focus on the hygiene or job
context factors. For example if an employer brings in an ergonomic expert to
alter the workstations in some way or change up some of the work teams, they
might decide to turn the individual’s desk to face a certain direction or
change something as little as the height of the employees’ chair, or position
or style of the keyboard and computer monitor. In the two-factor theory, job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are totally separate dimensions.
Therefore, when trying to improve a factor that effects job dissatisfaction, an
extrinsic factor, such as the working conditions, this will not alter the
employees perception of whether they are satisfied with their work; it will
only prevent them from being dissatisfied (Schermerhorn, 2003).
The following is a brief
explanation of the factors and how they might apply to the work environment.
All of the factors, both motivation and hygiene, can have positive and negative
attributes; however, both will have an effect on the employee satisfaction or
dissatisfaction none the less. The following is a glance at each of the
motivation factors according to Herzberg.
An example of positive
achievement might be if an employee completes a task or project before the
deadline and receives high reviews on the result, the satisfaction the employee
feels would increase. However, if that same individual is unable to finish the
project in time, or feels rushed and is unable to do the job well, the
satisfaction level may decrease.
When the employee
receives the acknowledgement they deserve for a job well done, the satisfaction
will increase. If the employees work is overlooked or criticized it will have
the opposite effect.
Work
itself
This involves the
employees’ perception of whether the work is too difficult or challenging, too
easy, boring or interesting.
Responsibility
This involves the degree of freedom an employee has to make their own decisions and implement their own ideas. The more liberty to take on that responsibility 9 the more inclined the employee may be to work harder on the project, and be more satisfied with the result.
Advancement
This refers to the
expected or unexpected possibility of promotion. An example of negative
advancement would be if an employee did not receive an expected promotion or
demotion.
Possibility
of Growth
This motivation factor
includes the chance one might have for advancement within the company. This
could also include the opportunity to learn a new skill or trade. When the
possibility/opportunity for growth is lacking or if the employee has reached
the peak or glass ceiling, as it is sometimes referred to, this could have a
negative effect on the satisfaction the employee feels with their job and
position.
The following are the
hygiene factors, which work in the same way with positive or negative attributes;
however these factors can only have an effect on the dissatisfaction one feels.
Company
Policy or Administration
An employee’s
perception of whether the policies in place are good or bad or fair or not,
changes the level of dissatisfaction that employee will feel.
Personal
or Working Relationships
This is those
relationships one engages in with their supervisors, peers, and subordinates.
How someone feels about the interaction and discussions that take place within
the work environment can also effect dissatisfaction.
Working
conditions
This includes the
physical surroundings that one works within, such as the facilities or
location.
Salary
This factor is fairly
simple, the increase or decrease of wage or salary effects the dissatisfaction
within a company a great deal.
Although people try to
separate the two, work and personal life, it is inevitable that one will affect
the other. Feeling a Job Security. This is a pretty significant factor. The
sense of job security within a position or organization as a whole relates to
the dissatisfaction as well. (Ruthankoon, 2003)
According to expectancy
theory, employees choose to invest effort in courses of action by weighing
their relative utilities—i.e., their probabilities of achieving desired
outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Effort is a function of three beliefs:
Expectancy (effort will
lead to performance),
Instrumentality
(performance will lead to outcomes), and
Valence (these outcomes
are important or valued).
These beliefs are
thought to interactively influence effort, such that if any one of the beliefs
is missing, the course of action will not be selected (Porter & Lawler,
1968). Without expectancy beliefs, employees feel that effort is futile;
without instrumentality and valence beliefs, employees question whether
performance is worth
the effort. Critically, expectancy theory is designed to account for the
within-person decisions that employees make about whether, where, and how to
invest their time and energy, rather than for differences in effort between
employees. Expectancy theory has been tested in many studies, but is more often
used as an organizing framework for generating and testing context-specific
hypotheses. For example, researchers have applied expectancy theory to guide
the development of models to explain variations in DUI arrests among police
officers (Mastrofski, Ritti, & Snipes, 1994), efforts by middle managers to
champion issues for senior executives to pursue (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit,
& Dutton, 1998), home runs hit by major league baseball players (Harder,
1991), and strategic decisions in competitive markets (Chen & Miller,
1994). In a meta-analysis of 77 studies, Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) found
that expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs were better predictors of
psychological indicators of motivation (intentions and preferences) than of behavioral
indicators (performance, effort, and choices), which may be an artifact of
common method and source biases. Supporting one fundamental tenet of the
theory, they found that expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs were
more accurate predictors of within-person than between-person differences in
criteria. However, they found that the multiplicative model explained little
variance over and above the additive model. This may be an artifact of the low
reliability of multiplicative measures. Moreover, the meta-analysis provided
little information about causality, as most studies have been correlational
rather than experimental. Nevertheless, the overall results suggest that
expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs do take a valuable step toward
explaining variance in. Research on expectancy theory has generated several
controversies and unanswered questions. In light of evidence that expectancy,
instrumentality, and valence beliefs leave considerable variance in motivation
unexplained (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996), it is critical to understand other
forces that influence motivation. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991)
takes a productive step in this direction. According to this theory, planned
actions are directly caused by intentions as micro-mediators of the
belief-behavior relationship. Intentions are in turn a function of perceived
behavioral control over the behavior, attitudes toward the behavior, and
subjective norms about the behavior. Comparing the planned behavior and expectancy
theories reveals both similarities and useful distinctions. Perceived
behavioral control, which is akin to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) ,
corresponds to expectancy beliefs, as both describe employees’ judgments about
whether they are capable of performing if they expend effort. Attitudes, which
capture the extent to which an employee evaluates the behavior favorably,
appear to overlap with both instrumentality and valence beliefs, which—in
tandem—connote that the behavior will lead to favorable outcomes. Moving beyond
expectancy theory, the theory of planned behavior adds subjective norms, or
social expectations and pressure to engage in the behavior. The underlying
premise is that employees derive utility not only from personal outcomes, but
also from social rewards that convey approval, respect, and community and
social punishments that convey disapproval, disrespect, and alienation. In a
meta-analysis of 185 studies, Armitage and Conner (2001) found that perceived
behavioral control, attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions combined to
explain 27% of the variance in behaviors (31% when self-reported and 21% when
objectively measured or observer-rated) and 39% of the variance in intentions.
Both subjective norms and intentions explained unique variance in behaviors
after accounting for perceived behavioral control and attitudes, which
highlights the potential value of including these two psychological constructs
to expand the predictive validity of expectancy theory. A second limitation of
expectancy theory is that it is often viewed as overly calculative (Ashford et
al., 1998; Mitchell & Daniels, 2003; Staw, 1984). Although the theory is
reasonably effective in predicting motivation and behavior, it creates a
caricature of how employees actually make decisions and experience motivation.
With the possible exceptions of mathematicians, engineers, financial analysts,
and economists, rarely have we seen an employee sit down and calculate the
probabilities of effort leading to performance and performance leading to
outcomes and the utility of these outcomes. It would be even more uncommon for
an employee to perform these calculations for multiple possible courses of
action. With this limitation in mind, scholars have begun to incorporate “hot”
affective components into expectancy theory (Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek,
2004). For example, Erez and Isen (2002) demonstrated that positive affect can
increase expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs, but only under task
conditions that are supportive of these beliefs (e.g., working on a task in
which performance is based on effort rather than chance). This research takes a
step toward capturing the real-time, affect-laden processes through which
expectancy, instrumentality, and valence judgments are made (see also Seo et
al., 2004). Expectancy theory has also been criticized for failing to specify
the nature and sources of variations in employees’ beliefs and judgments.
Employees can attach valence not only to outcomes of performance, but also to
effort and performance as ends in and of themselves. For example, Eisenberger’s
(1992) theory of learned industriousness explains how, when employees are
rewarded for effort over time, hard work can take on secondary reward
properties, such that employees naturally enjoy the very experiencing of
expending effort. In addition, employees tend to view performance as a reward
in and of itself when they are growth-oriented (Hackman & Oldham, 1976),
conscientious (Grant, 2008b), and achievement-motivated (McClelland, 1961),
suggesting that they will place valence on performance even when there are no
external outcomes attached to it. Finally, expectancy theory falls short of
explaining how employees update and change their beliefs over time (Mitchell
& Biglan, 1971). For example, valence beliefs can change as employees
realize that their actual satisfaction with an outcome is different (e.g.,
lower or higher) than the satisfaction that they anticipated (e.g., Wilson
& Gilbert, 2005). As an endogenous process theory (Katzell & Thompson,
1990), the focus has been on identifying the key psychological forces that
guide decisions about effort and understanding their consequences, rather than
specifying their causes or fluctuations. Despite these limitations, expectancy
theory is appealing in its theoretical parsimony and its applications to
diagnosing and resolving motivational problems in organizations, and thus
remains a popular and widely-used theory.
Equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965) takes a step toward placing motivation more squarely in a social context. The central assumption of equity theory is that employees are motivated when their inputs (e.g., effort, knowledge, skill, loyalty) are matched by outcomes (e.g., pay, bonuses, benefits, recognition), which creates a sense of equity or fairness. When outcomes do not match inputs, the resulting perceptions of inequity lead to distress, which motivates employees to take action to reduce it. When employees feel under-rewarded, they may restore perceived equity by reducing their inputs (slacking off), attempting to reduce others’ inputs (convincing coworkers to do less work, or sabotaging their efforts to be productive), seeking to increase their outcomes (asking for a raise or vacation time), or aiming to decrease coworkers’ outcomes (asking them to take a pay cut or lobbying the boss to standardize salaries). When employees feel over-rewarded, they may restore perceived equity by increasing their inputs (working harder) or reducing their outcomes (requesting a pay cut or redistributing their salaries to coworkers). How do employees make judgments of equity? To evaluate input-outcome ratios, employees can make a range of comparisons (Adams, 1963, 1965). One set of comparisons is between outcomes and inputs such as effort (the time and energy that I invested), ability (my knowledge, skills, and talents), seniority (my tenure and loyalty). Another set of comparisons is of the input-outcome ratios to other input-outcome ratios, including my own past input-outcome ratios (what I have received elsewhere or before, relative to my contributions) and others’ input outcome ratios (are mine appropriate in light of the ratios of similar others?). This last comparison, the social comparison, is often viewed as the central theoretical insight offered by equity theory (Weick, 1966): even when employees receive outcomes that match their inputs, their motivation can suffer when they perceive others as maintaining more favorable input outcome ratios. For example, studies have shown that higher pay dispersion—the disparity in compensation between the highest-paid and lowest-paid employees in an organization—predicts greater manager and employee turnover (Bloom & Michel, 2002), lower job satisfaction, productivity, and collaboration (Pfeiffer & Langton, 1993), and in major league baseball teams, fewer runs scored, more runs given up by pitchers, and more losses (Bloom, 1999). Equity assumes that both under-rewarding employees and over-rewarding employees can be detrimental to motivation. Although research has consistently shown negative motivational and behavioral effects of under-reward inequity, evidence reveals mixed results about the consequences of over-reward inequity: some employees appear to decrease their motivation, others increase it, and still others show no significant changes (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). One approach to resolving these conflicting findings has involved understanding individual differences in equity sensitivity. Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles (1987) proposed that employees can be classified into one of three categories of equity preferences: benevolent (preferring a lower outcome/input ratio than comparison others), equity sensitive (preferring an equal outcome/input ratio to comparison others), and entitled (preferring a higher outcome/input ratio than comparison others). Accordingly, under-reward inequity leads to higher motivation among benevolent employees than equity sensitive and entitled employees (Miles, Hatfield, & Huseman, 1989). While benevolent employees are willing to work hard even when they receive lower outcomes than others, equity sensitive and entitled employees find this distressing. A key controversy in work motivation research concerns competing predictions between equity and expectancy theories in situations characterized by the combination of perceived under-reward inequity (Harder, 1991). According to equity theory, when instrumentality is high, employees who feel under-rewarded will be distressed by perceived inequity, and may reduce their effort in order to create a more appropriate balance between their inputs and outcomes. On the other hand, expectancy theory predicts that when instrumentality is high, employees who feel under-rewarded will be motivated to achieve higher performance, as they are confident that this will result in the rewards they feel they deserve. Harder (1991) provided a theoretical and empirical resolution of this controversy in a study of major league baseball free agents. He found that under low instrumentality, negative performance effects of inequity were visible, but under high instrumentality, individuals maintained their performance: “individuals faced with inequitable under reward will choose the avenue of decreased performance to the extent that it does not affect future rewards. If decreasing performance will adversely affect future rewards, then alternative avenues for restoring equity will be undertaken” (Harder, 1991, p. 463-464). Another issue facing equity theory concerns how organizations and employees handle inconsistencies in equity that emerge between different types of comparisons. For example, when pay dispersion is high, star performers making self-comparisons perceive high equity, but average and low performers making social comparisons may perceive low equity. In general, research suggests that in some circumstances, the costs of perceived inequity among the latter group can outweigh the benefits of perceived equity among the former group (Bloom, 1999). However, this research has yet to identify conditions under which organizations can create Work Motivation 10 favorable perceptions of equity for different groups of employees. One practical solution, pay secrecy, appears to be a mixed bag, as employees often view it as a signal of inequity and resist by going out of their way to publicize their salaries (Colella, Paetzold, Zardkoohi, & Wesson, 2007).
One criticism of both expectancy and equity theories is that they focus primarily on psychological processes involved in work motivation, providing little explicit theory and guidance for explaining the role of contextual forces (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). Goal-setting theory overcomes these limitations by focusing on the motivational effects of goals, or targets for action. Extensive research has shown that difficult, specific goals motivate high performance by focusing attention, increasing effort and persistence, and encouraging the development of novel task strategies (Locke & Latham, 1990). For instance, classic studies showed that setting specific, difficult goals—relative to “do your best,” easy, or no goals—for 36 truck drivers transporting logs led them to increase from 60% to 90% of legal allowable weight, saving the company approximately $250,000 in less than a year (for a review, see Locke & Latham, 2002). In another study, Latham and Saari (1982) gave 39 truck drivers the goal of enhancing the number of daily trips that they took to the mill, which yielded 15% average daily increases in trips, and saved the company approximately $2.7 million in less than four months. Difficult, specific goals are most likely to produce these effects when employees are committed to them, when they receive feedback, and when tasks are simple rather than complex. Without commitment, employees question whether it is worthwhile to work toward difficult goals. Without feedback, employees cannot gauge their progress and adjust effort, persistence, and task strategies accordingly. When tasks are simple, effort is a key determinant of performance, but when tasks are complex, ability and task strategies become more influential, reducing the performance effects of goal-setting as a motivational technique (Locke & Latham, 2002). At first glance, the principle of difficult goals motivating higher performance than easy goals appears to conflict with expectancy theory. From an expectancy theory standpoint, easy goals yield greater effort-to-performance expectancy beliefs, and thus greater motivation and performance, than difficult goals. Researchers have resolved this tension by showing that when goal difficulty is held constant, higher expectancy beliefs are associated with higher performance, but when goal difficulty varies, more difficult goals are linked with higher performance, as the attention, effort, persistence, and task strategy benefits of difficult goals appear to outweigh the costs of lower expectancy beliefs (Locke, Motowidlo, & Bobko, 1986). Furthermore, expectancy beliefs moderate the effects of goal difficulty on performance, such that setting difficult goals only motivates employees to take action if they believe such action has the potential to achieve the goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). As goal-setting theory gained prominence, scholars began to raise concerns about managers using goals as manipulative tools, and expressed growing interest in understanding the motivational effects of goals that were self-set by employees. This yielded a major controversy emerged about whether participation in goal-setting increases motivation and performance. Holding goal difficulty constant, studies by Latham and colleagues showed null effects of participation, whereas studies by Erez and colleagues identified significant benefits. The authors collaborated, with Locke as a mediator (not a moderator), to jointly design experiments to resolve the dispute. They discovered that the effects of participation in goal-setting depend on goal commitment. When the purpose of the goals is clear, participation offers little benefit, but when the purpose is unclear, allowing employees to participate serves the function of increasing goal commitment, and thereby motivates higher performance (Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). Subsequent studies suggested that participation may achieve these benefits not only through motivational mechanisms, but also through cognitive mechanisms of enabling employees to share information about task strategies and building self-efficacy (Locke & Latham, 2002). Moreover, employees who have high self-efficacy with respect to assigned goals tend to set higher goals, experience greater goal commitment, choose better task strategies, and maintain goal pursuit in the face of negative feedback (Locke & Latham, 2002). Of course, if employees’ goals are not aligned with organizational goals, goal-setting can reduce rather than increase performance (Locke & Latham, 2002). This raises important ethical issues, as employees can take shortcuts to achieve goals that violate important moral and legal standards. For example, Schweitzer, Ordoñez, and Douma (2004) conducted a laboratory experiment showing that when participants had unmet goals, they were more likely to cheat by overstating their productivity than when they were simply asked to do their best. These effects were observed for goals with and without monetary incentives, and were particularly pronounced when participants narrowly missed goal accomplishment (Schweitzer et al., 2004). A heated debate has ensued about whether goal-setting theory adequately addresses and accounts for these and other risks of goal-setting, such as tunnel vision, stress, reduced learning and intrinsic motivation, and excessive risk-taking and competition (Ordoñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009a, 2009b; Latham & Locke, 2009; Locke & Latham, 2009). We are sympathetic to the arguments of both sides. On one hand, goal-setting theorists have acknowledged many of these risks, and demonstrating that goals can increase unethical behavior is consistent with a premise of goal-setting theory that when employees are committed to goals, they will be motivated to discover and create task strategies for achieving them (Locke & Latham, 2002). On the other hand, although much is known about the motivation and performance effects of goalsetting, substantially less theory and research has addressed the conditions under which goals are more versus less likely to encourage unethical behavior and other unintended consequences (e.g., Barsky, 2008). This represents an important direction for future research: scholars should systematically build and test theories about the factors that amplify and mitigate the negative effects of goal-setting.
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORSINFLUENCING THE PRODUCTIVITY
1. Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation
Recently reported a study where intrinsic
motivation strengthened the relationship between prosocial motivation and
employee outcomes such as persistence, productivity and performance. Grant
claims that employees experience prosocial motivation as more autonomous when
intrinsic motivation is high because intrinsically motivated employees feel
that performing well is beneficial to their own self-selected goals, as they
enjoy their work and value the outcome of helping others. Drawing on concepts
from research on prosocial personality, prosocial motivation should be pleasure
based rather than pressure-based, because employees feel volition, autonomy and
free choice in their efforts to benefit others by way of in-role and extra-role
work performance when prosocial motivation is accompanied by intrinsic
motivation. When intrinsic motivation is low, however, employees will
experience prosocial motivation as more controlled because they do not enjoy
their work or benefiting others through their work. Then, prosocial motivation
will be better characterised as pressure-based and involving ought
representations, and possibly result in stress and role overload and other
psychological costs that may impede or diminish any positive effects on work
performance.
Extrinsic motivation is
also important in performance of workers. Extrinsic motivation like pay, wages,
bonus and other incentives play a significant role in productivity of workers.
Cognitive theories of
motivation, on the other hand, suggest that our experiences generate internal
cognitions (such as desires and beliefs). These cognitions, in turn, determine
current performance (e.g., Clark, 1998; Ford, 1992; Maslow, 1954; Vroom, 1964).
However, the question arises: Where do cognitions come from? They are the
results of past interactions with our environment. For these cognitions to be
useful, they must relate to the person’s environment. We call people whose
cognitions are not related to their environment, maladjusted, neurotic, or
schizophrenic. We learn from our past experiences that we can successfully
perform in some environments and not so successful in others. Behavior analysis
postulates that the ultimate sources of our behavior, including verbal
statements such as beliefs, wishes, or desires, can ultimately be traced to the
consequences of our behavior in (past and) current environments. Cognitions are
nothing more than our ability to describe particular reinforcement
contingencies of our own behavior based on our own past experiences (Mawhinney
& Mawhinney, 1982).
Recent models of work motivation are
addressing the role of the environment as one determinant of behavior. For
example, Keller (1999) performance factors model includes antecedents and
consequences as influences on performance. Locke and Latham’s (1990) goal
setting theory centers on goals as antecedents and feedback as consequences of
performance. This focus on empirical events makes goal setting theory one of
the more practical cognitive theories of motivation that exists today. In
summary, conceptualizing motivation as an internal construct places the causes
of behavior inside the person. The environment provides the backdrop against
which motivational mechanisms and processes determine appropriate courses of
action. These internal events are difficult to observe and measure which can
lead to a number of independent models of the causes of behavior. Furthermore,
when behavior or performance does not meet societal or work standards, we tend
to assume that something is wrong with the person, rather than looking for
deficits in the person’s environment. Behavior analysis attempts to explain
behavior and performance by understanding the context in which it occurs.
Role of Motivation in Higher Productivity
It is a truism that
employees are an organization’s most valuable assets. This highlights the
importance of understanding the theory and application of motivation to manage
human resources (Amar, 2004). One then wonders what the basic prerequisites of
workers’ productivity are. Although this question cannot be answered with a
definite statement, but among other factors, motivation is important for
enhancing level of job commitment of workers, which invariably leads to a
higher productivity of the workers. It is then necessary for motivation of the
workers in organization to be enhanced in order to increase productivity.
Productivity literarily means the rate of power to produce, but productivity
from the management or economic point of view is the ratio of what is produced to
what is required to produce it. Usually, this ratio is in the form of an
average; expressing the total output of some category of goods divided by the
total input of, say labour or raw material. In principle, any input can be used
as the denominator of the productivity ratio. One can speak of the productivity
of land, labour, capital or sub-categories of any of these factors of
production. Simply put, productivity is the act of producing or bringing into
being commodities of great value or adding to the wealth of the world. It can
be used to measure the index of growth, efficiency, economic standard etc. On
the other hand, motivation is a word that is rather cumbersome to define in a
meaningful manner. Adams and Jacobson (1964) suggest that motivation deals with
all the conditions that are responsible for variation in the intensity, quality
and direction of behaviour. From an organization point of view, motivation
deals with everything that a manager knows or can use to influence the
direction and rate of individual’s behaviour towards commitment. An
overwhelming amount of energy is expended in trying to get people to do what we
want them to do. We all have a task to motivate ourselves to do what we think
we should do. It is widely believed that when a worker is highly motivated,
this goes a long way in improving organizational productivity, effectiveness
and efficiency. Against this background it is necessary to look for a way
through which the morale of workers can be improved which will at the end, enhance
job commitment with an improvement on the standard of living of people, and
increase in wealth of individuals and development of the society. This study is
therefore designed to find out the link between the extent to which various
motivation strategies encourages the workers to improve their job commitment
and increase their productive capacity. The relationship between motivation and
productivity is more substantial than simply a psychological connection.
It is found in research
that women were mainly motivated by other factors in the workplace not by job
role itself and had fewer primary needs met at work. Women were also more
dissatisfied in their job than men.
(B)
Age Differences
The research indicated
that the older generation was more productive than their younger colleagues.
However, research in other fields has suggested that research productivity
declines with age (Over, 1982; Over, 1988), and that there is a negative
association between age and scientific productivity and creativity (Cole,
1979).
It is investigated in
that those with no dependants spent more hours on work, and consequently had
higher counts than their colleagues with caring responsibilities. Those with dependants
were far less interested in work for its own sake, had less satisfaction from
working as output was less important and felt less need of work in order to
succeed.
The results of
researches clearly indicate that those that spent more hours on work were
mostly those that were motivated by their job role, and had greater job
satisfaction than those spending less time on work (either because they were
not motivated by their job role or because their job role did not permit it).
It is indicated in
research that the majority of workers are primarily motivated by their job role
rather than workplace or extra workplace factors. Interestingly, those that
were motivated by factors external to workplace had lower job satisfaction.
Perhaps not surprisingly, those that were primarily motivated by the job role
had a higher output than those with other sources of motivation. The research
also showed that having one’s primary needs met at work was key to job
satisfaction and the higher the job satisfaction level, the higher the output.
MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGIESTO ENCOURAGE PRODUCTIVITY
Pay-for-performance
incentives are often utilized in the private sector to encourage competition
among and within team, but such a model may not be directly applicable to the
public sector, as resources are often tighter, and money may not be the primary
source of motivation for those with an ethos of public service. Research
suggests that individuals are motivated to perform well when the work is
meaningful and individuals believe they have responsibility for the outcomes of
their assigned tasks. Following suggestions may help to improve productivity
among workers.
1.Promote Challenges and Accomplishments
Specific and
challenging goals can lead to higher levels of performance, productivity, and
creativity which in turn are linked with an overall stronger commitment to the
organization (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006). We propose developing
challenging goals and timelines together with employees. By setting goals,
employees obtain a clear strategy for their own professional development, which
creates greater satisfaction and motivation (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Goals
should be challenging but also attainable. Complex and abstract goals may lead to
decreased work performance and negatively impact employee morale. Accomplishing
goals that challenge employee creativity and problem-solving skills can improve
performance, enhance employee self confidence, and improve job satisfaction
which can outweigh a one-time monetary award (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg,
2006). Goal setting should be followed by regular and thorough feedback given
by supervisors on employee’s goal achievements.
2.Create Organizational Learning Opportunities
Goal setting should be
challenging and achievable, goals can also promote learning opportunities.
Organizations can integrate learning opportunities through setting goals that
allow employees to engage in problem solving and knowledge acquisition. We have
found that merit pay and pay-for performance systems yield little positive
results on employee performance or learning opportunities, yet a system of
progressively giving employees more complex tasks can stimulate employee
learning and consistently improve employee performance. Organizational learning
opportunities can also challenge an employee to think more expansively about
their own personal goals (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006).
3.Utilize Group Incentives as Well as Individual Incentives
Organizational learning and employee personal
growth are impacted by the incentives offered in the work environment. It is
recommended, implementing a variety of awards such as team awards, individual
recognition based on extraordinary performance, and rewards for all employees
for their achieved goals. In order to strengthen teamwork, praise employees for
performance that benefits the team. Awarding only a few people with rewards
might be counterproductive. According to Bob Behn, some hard working employees
might feel treated unfairly and lose their work spirit or develop resentments
to other employees and the team (Behn, 2000).
Incentives are just one
method used to promote motivation in the work environment, another method is
job design. It is advised, implementing a job design in an organization in
which employees rotate job positions (if possible), gain more responsibility over
their work and resources, and engage in trainings and organizational learning
opportunities. Research has shown that job design is a central element in
motivation. Employees work better if they are involved in the organizations
decision-making process, and if they have control over their own professional
development (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Jobs designed with a sense of
challenge and task significance can facilitate a sense of meaningfulness,
leading to better work performance and personal growth in the work setting
(Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006).
There is little
research showing a significant relationship between merit-pay and performance,
yet motivating factors such as job design and positive reinforcement has
improved employee performance (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006). It is
strongly suggested, using positive reinforcement as a key tool for motivation.
The latest research about motivation in the public sector has shown that
traditional approaches, such as incentive pay systems, do not lead to more
motivation or better performance on the job.
6.Promote a Healthy Work Environment:
Organizational practices that motivate employees and improve performance may be ineffective if little attention is paid to the working environment. It is recommend, eliminating dissatisfactory work conditions. Create an environment which your employees feel is fair and safe. Install motivators such as acknowledgment, responsibility, and learning opportunity to improve the employees’ performance. There are two elements, crucial for motivated workers: the absence of dissatisfaction about the work environment and salary, which creates a neutral attitude towards work, followed by motivators to generate extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Contingent upon above suggestions, success requires a comprehensive strategy implemented thoughtfully. By working together, it can build a highly motivated and empowered team of talented, top performing professionals.
References:
Dickson, W. J. (1973). Hawthorne experiments. In C. Heyel (ed.), The
encyclopedia of management, 2nd ed. (pp. 298-302). New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees?
Workers and supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons, 30. 58-65.
Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human
motivation. Psychological Review, July 1943. 370-396.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press.
Ball, Dr. J. (2003).
Understanding Herzberg’s Motivation Theory. Retrieved 20 February 2005. http://www.accaglobal.com/publications/studentaccountant/1010721
Schermerhorn, J.R.,
Hunt, J.G., & Osborn, R.N. (2003). Organizational Behavior: Instructor’s
Resource Guide. (8th ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hunsaker, P.L. (2005).
Management: A Skills Approach. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Salancik, G. R., &
Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Adler, P. S., &
Chen, C. X. (2009). Beyond intrinsic motivation: On the nature of individual
motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity. Social Science Research
Network. Accessed on April 2, 2010 at http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1471341
Bunderson, J. S., &
Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the
double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly,
54, 32-57.
Campbell, D.J., &
Pritchard, R. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Campion, M. A., &
McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-up and extension of the interdisciplinary
costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
339-351.
Chen, G., Kanfer, R.,
DeShon, R. P., Mathieu, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). The motivating
potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen & Kanfer’s (2006)
cross-level model of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 110, 45-55.
Mawhinney, T. C. and
Mawhinney, R. R. (1982). Operant Terms and Concepts Applied to Industry. In
O’Brien, R. M., Dickinson, A. M. and Rosow, M. P. (Eds.), Industrial behaviour
modification: A management handbook (115- 134). New York: Pergamon Press.
Locke, E. A. and
Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Keller, J. M. (1999).
Motivational Systems. In Stolovitch, H. D. and Keeps, E. J. (Eds.), Handbook of
human performance technology: Improving individual and organizational
performance worldwide (2nd ed.; 373-394)
Adams, J. S. (1965).
Inequity in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental
social psychology, 2, 267-299. New York: Academic Press
Adams, U.S. and
Jacobson, P.R. (1964). Effect of wage inequalities on work quality. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 3(4), 12- 25
Amar, A. (2004). Motivating knowledge workers
to innovate: A model integrating motivation dynamics and antecedents. European
Journal of InnovationManagement, 7(2), 89-101
Ambrose, Maureen, L. and Kulik, C. T. (1999).
Old friends, new faces: Motivation. Research in the 1990s. Journal of
Management, 25(3), 231-292
Over, R. (1982). Does
research productivity decline with age? Higher Education, 11(5), 511-520
Over, R. (1988). Does
scholarly impact decline with age? Scientometrics, 13(5-6), 215-233
Cole, S. (1979). Age
and scientific performance. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958-977
Cole, J. (1971).
Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the
science citation in
Patterson, M., Warr, P.
and West, M. (2004). The organizational climate and company productivity: The
role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 193- 216(24)
