Motivation Theory Practice

Motivation Theory

I. Defined: There are many widely varying definitions of motivation. One of them involves the “push” from inside a person: The tension, the want, the discomfort from inside to do or accomplish something. A desire to satisfy ones self by learning, doing, accomplishing, or experimenting.

This document is not intended to be a complete summary of what a student should know of motivation theory. It explores only some highlights of motivation theory and practice; please refer to the course textbooks and necessary outside readings/research.

II. Practical Motivation: How Management Should Act at Workplace

Be Strong: Emphasize authority and the need for people to have a constantly applied KITA to make them work. Uses Douglas McGregor’s Theory X-Y, but focuses on the X part of the theory to guide its approach to the situation. Emphasizes authority, the constant threat of layoffs, takes advantage of a tough labor market for the unemployed.

Be Good: Herzberg’s Hygiene management (satisfiers). Expressed as Paternalism—where the boss “takes care” of his employees as he would take care of his children. Provide not only the basics, but shower the employees with fringe benefit “goodies” to make them work harder.

Keep the Implicit Bargain: Management lets workers know they have an implied or understood bargain with each other: Management will pay a reasonable wage in reasonable working conditions for which employees will turn out a reasonable amount of work. The problems arise when each side has a definition of what is reasonable that differs widely from the other side. Each side will push until a reasonable accommodation is achieved. If not, workers quit or are fired.

The Workplace is a Competitive Field: All employees compete with each other to retain their jobs in bad times and to get pay raises or promotions in good times. Stresses survival of the fittest—the weakest are separated from the organization.

The Workplace Must Generate an Internalized Motivation: Management provides the means (job surroundings, resources, work challenges) for employees to self-actualize. Employees then generate their own motivation to work and achieve. This is coupled with careful selection of the types of applicants allowed to join the particular workplace. Fosters self-selection of candidates for separation because they have lost their internalized motivation.

III. Practical Use of Major Theories

ERG Theory: Clayton Alderfer. Groups Maslow’s needs into three areas: Existence (needs 1 and 2), Relatedness (needs 3 and 4), and Growth (need 5). A person’s makeup may be described like a Pie chart –the degree to which a need drives that person’s decisions and actions is expressed by the relative size of that segment of the Pie.

A terrific theory to “test” whether a person’s motivation problems are due to the person or to the characteristics of the job—shows immediately whether there is a mismatch between needs of person and how well the job and its challenges can satisfy those needs.

Assume, for example, Mr. Jones’s need distribution is as follows:

[pic]

But, suppose he is in a job whose characteristics require the following type of individual:

[pic]

Mr. Jones wants to self actualize and wants to be with people. The job he has, however, is quite probably routine, sitting by himself in a cubicle, doing unimaginative work. It does not take very much imagination to see that Mr. Jones will be a very unhappy person in that job.

Victor Vroom Motivation Theory

Vroom’s theory is excellent for going into an operating business and analyzing what is going on—it provides a “structure for analysis.” It provides guidance as to what data to collect, areas to investigate, questions to brainstorm.

Vroom’s "expectancy theory" needs a bit of modification to be used, but it can then be expressed as follows:

Motivation = f{Effort, Performance, Valence}

Expectancy Instrumentality

1) Effort ( Performance (E ( P) 2) Performance ( Outcome (P ( O) 3) Valence

E ( P The individual's perception that effort will lead to job performance.

P ( O The individual's perception that performance will lead to certain outcomes or rewards.

Valence The value or attractiveness of a given outcome or reward to an individual.

Example

An electronics manufacturing firm had problems in its servicing operations. It was not a new problem for the firm but its effects had become much more damaging over the past year. A new line of tough, industrial instruments had gone into the market and many of them were now coming back for repair (they get badly beaten up in such industrial usage).

Instruments coming in for service were being returned to customers poorly repaired, improperly documented, and totally neglected as to appearance (they were not being cleaned, or the paint touched up properly). Cosmetic refurbishment is a small added piece of work that is vital to maintaining customer tolerance for a hefty service bill.

A large part of the problem was traced to the service technical personnel. The Vroom motivation model was used by the consultant called in to structure his investigation.

(E ( P) The question the investigator asked: Were employees making an effort to do the job properly? After interviewing the workers themselves, their foremen, and watching operations, he found that the answer was [Yes]. They were making an effort to do the job.

Did their efforts result in proper performance? The answer was [NO]. The instruments were not coming off the bench in the proper condition and the workers knew they were not really doing a complete, finished job on each instrument.

(P ( O) Was performance yielding an outcome for the employee? [YES]—they were clearing repaired instruments off their benches.

Was the Valence of their “reward” positive or negative?

The company was not happy with the technicians’ outcomes. The technicians found that they were being “rewarded” with disciplinary warnings, suspensions, firings, and other forms of punishment whenever customers complained. The employees became worried about their jobs. The valence of the technicians’ outcome “reward” was negative!

Analysis of the situation

When there is a break between Effort and Performance, it usually means that someone does not know how to do the job or is incapable of doing the job. It means that the job must be taught to the employee, the job must be redesigned to fit the employee, or the employee reassigned to a different job. In this case, employees had not been given the proper training or even time to learn to repair (not build) the instruments.

The incoming workload was so heavy, that production workers, moved from the assembly lines into technicians’ jobs, and were “thrown” at the repair job without having been properly trained in the servicing of the instruments. Repairing an instrument is not the same as building it, but management told the employees who asked too many questions that they were “stupid.” And technicians were constantly told to get instruments “off their benches and out the door.” Management counted how many repairs each man made—quantity was key. As a result, technicians did what they could to make the highest numbers--they cut corners on repair procedures and totally avoided the cleaning or cosmetic repair of the instruments.

When there is a break between performance and outcome, it usually points to faulty equipment, faulty job design, improper procedures. In this case, no one knew the proper procedures for repair because there were no good manuals and there was no time to study those which were available. The repair job had never been properly structured, there was no specialized test equipment for a repair, and there was not even a setup for cleaning or doing the refurbishing of the instruments’ appearance.

Finally, the firm was counting numbers of instruments going out the door when it should have been counting numbers of customers satisfied. And the negative valence of the rewards the firm was meting out (punishment) chased the best people off the repair benches either back to production or out the door.

The solution of the problems required managerial policy changes, technician training, and job redesign.

Herzberg Two Factor Theory:

Looks at what people require in order to be a) satisfied with their jobs and b) motivated to produce and achieve above minimal levels. The hygiene factors are those basic elements of what the employer provides on the job: A clean, comfortable work station, a living wage, appropriate fringe benefits. Hygiene factors do not motivate employees, but must be present in order to allow the Motivator factors to take effect on the employees. These are such things as job challenge, promotional opportunities, bonuses, and others which produce increased output of a higher quality standard.

In conducting an investigation of a workplace with motivation problems, it is necessary to check that the firm has not neglected the hygiene factors while providing at least some motivating factors. A big mistake that many firms make is to assume that hygiene factors are motivators. They may take the attitude that an employee getting a paycheck should be motivated by it alone. They forget that once the paychecks come reasonably regularly, and an employee becomes “settled in” on a job, the paycheck is taken for granted, as a “given,” for simply being on the job. It loses its usefulness as a motivator.

Rensis Likert

Developed theories on four different types of management style.

1. Exploitive/authoritative style where there is no freedom, no input or confidence in the subordinates.

2. Benevolent/authoritative style where leadership allows a little freedom and very little input.

3. Participative style where the leader has confidence in the subordinates, where they are free to discuss topics, and are usually allowed input to the decision process.

4. Democratic style, where subordinates freely discuss and have input to decisions with their bosses.

Likert also put forward theory regarding the first level of management which he called the most strategic to accomplishing the firm’s work: the foreman. This position is a linking pin between the workers and management. The foreman is looked down at from the upper ranks of management as their linking representative to the production employees and the employees look at the foreman is their link to management.

Likert’s theories help an investigator examine the power/authority structure of the manager vs. the employees. The style of the manager must be compatible with one the employees will accept. For example, style 4 might work well with college professors, but would freeze the operations of a fire or police department. Style 2 might work with the run-of-the-mill ordinary blue collar worker, but would create terrible problems with engineers or other professionals in the firm.

Next, the relationship between the foremen and the hierarchy as well as the relationship between the foremen and their subordinates must be examined. The foreman (or group supervisor) must be an effective liaison between the managerial hierarchy and the production workers. If the foreman is perceived as fighting for his workers, he will be supported by them. At the same time, the foreman who fights too hard for the workers is seen as not representing management’s interests wholeheartedly. The foreman cannot ally himself too closely with the interests of the workers in the eyes of management nor can he ally himself too closely to the interests of management in the eyes of the workers.

Finally, workers who see that upper management is backing the foreman will play their subordinate roles much better than they will for someone who appears to have lost the hierarchy’s backing.
-----------------------
Effort

Performance

Outcome