Motivation in the Workplace
According to Antony and McVicar (2011), motivation may be defined as a stimulus, workforce which can affect people’s action because of a need or desire. It should be linked with people’s performance and the goals of productivities. Usually, motivation plays an important role in achieving business goals in a workplace where is consist of workers. It could bring every employee enthusiasm in their work to gain the goals of productivities or the organization objectives if the managers motivate their staff well (Dysvik and Kuvaas, 2008). So, how to motivate the employees challenges the managers of the organizations or companies. High level of motivation could lead to high level of performance, and then good performance could cause high productivity. In contrast, low motivation perhaps makes turnover happen frequently. Motivating in the workforce is complicated and difficult due to many different reasons such as work itself, work conditions, relationship between supervisors and staff (Herrera, 2002). The managers probably need to motivate their employees by some motivational theories. The theories of motivational could help them to improve workers’ performance, reduce the turnover, make employee remain the right attitude towards the work. Consequently, the high level of performance usually can improve the productivity. This essay will describe three kinds of theories of motivation which are Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, Herzberg’s two factors theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory firstly and choose three companies which are Manpower, Tesco and Nokia to analyze how these three kinds of motivational theories are used by their managers.
First of all, Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is one of the most well known theories of motivation in the world. Maslow states that it could be used to explain most of human behaviour (Maslow, 1987). Many companies motivate their employees by this theory, for instance, Tesco, Starbucks and McDonalds. The need of human being was divided into five hierarchies like a pyramid-physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualisation (Antony and McVicar, 2011).The most basic needs located at the bottom of the pyramid. It represents the human basic physical requests such as water, food, shelter, warmth and sex (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2010). Once these physical requirements on the lowest level have been satisfied, people would chase the next level of pyramid which is safety and security (Antony and MacVicar, 2011). While the physical needs have been satisfied, the psychological requirements would attract people. They would yearn for love, belongingness and friendship. The next level of this pyramid is esteem needs which is including feelings of freedom and power and independence (Antony and MacVicar, 2011). Self-actualisation located at the top of the pyramid, which is emphasized as the most important needs that can actualize people’s potential (O’Neil and Drillings, 1994).
Manpower is one of the largest career seeking companies in the world. The former Managing Director of Manpower Scandinavia, Tor Dahl (1989) focused on how to manage an organization with the needs of the employees. He used Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory to make sure that the employees were satisfied, and then they could satisfy their customers. To the step social needs or love needs from the hierarchy of needs, the company provided a social environment at work with small working groups to make the staff have positive attention, openness and cooperation. In order to satisfy the employees’ needs for achievement and recognition, Manpower involve as many people as possible to contribute and take part in the making of the budgets and activity plans, provide performance assessments and give praise and criticism according to the esteem needs. For the last step in Maslow’s pyramid, the self-actualisation, Manpower read it as having a decentralized organization where the employees should...
References: Antony, F., & MacVicar, A. (2011). Contemporary Organisational Behaviour, McGraw Hill.
Dysvik, A. & Kuvaas, B. (2008). The relationship between perceived training opportunities, work motivation and employee outcomes, International Journal of Training and Development, 12(3), pp. 138-157.
Gawel, J. E. (1997). Herzberg’s theory of motivation and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation.
Herrera, F. (2002). Demystifying employee motivation, Employment Relations Today, 28(4), pp. 37-52.
Huczynski, A., & Buchanan, D. (2010). Organisational Behaviour, 7th edition, FT. UK Prentice Hall, Harlow
Mathibe, I. R. (2008). Expectancy Theory and its implications for employee motivation, Retrieved: 9th, November 2011 from http://www.academicleadership.org/article/expectancy-theory-and-its-implications-for-employee-motivation
Nokia. (2011). Rewarding performance, Retrieved: 9th, November 2011 from http://ncomprod.nokia.com/corporate-responsibility/employees/labor-practices/rewarding-performance
THE TIMES 100. (1995-2011). Motivational in action, Retrieved: 9th, November 2011, from http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/case-study-motivational-theory-in-practice-at-tesco--132-396-1.php
Please join StudyMode to read the full document