Employee Motivation

Motivation is a very important factor within organisations. Many researchers remark on the relationship between motivation and job satisfaction. For instance, Roos and Eeden (2008) talk about how motivation differs from one individual to the other and that motivation is something that is within an individual which is capable of differing over time. Some early theories of motivation and their criticisms will be discussed throughout the following paragraphs. Methods of motivating employees will be discussed too by looking into several research findings.

There are many methods on how an organisation can effectively motivate its employees. However, many of these methods are found to be inaccurate or are opposed by other theories in the business world. This essay will critically discuss these methods and evaluate their effectiveness in increasing the levels of motivation within an employee.

Defining Motivation:

Just as many other terms, motivation, has been defined in many definitions by several authors. Pinder (2008), influenced by previous several scientists that defined work motivation, came up with a definition of work motivation. Pinder (2008) identified motivation as a group of energy forces that occur within and around an individual, they form up the individual’s behaviour in work and shape it. This definition has been used by many other scientists to develop a similar but simplified definition. For instance, Robbins and Judge (2017) defined motivation as the individual’s strength, path, and continuance of potential towards achieving a target.

There are several theories that have been introduced under motivation. There are three well-known theories that were introduced during the 1950s that represent a base of ideas; although these theories might not be applicable nowadays, managers still use their concept in the workforce (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Those three well-known theories are Hierarchy of Needs Theory (Maslow 1943, cited in Robbins and Judge 2017), Two-Factor Theory (Hertzberg 1959, cited in Robbins and Judge 2017), and McClelland’s Theory of Needs (McClelland 1961, cited in Robbins and Judge 2017).

Early Theories of Motivation:

Maslow (1943) has come up with the hierarchy of needs theory is the most well-known theory of motivation (Robbins and Judge, 2017). This theory discusses five needs that are essential to every individual, those five needs are physiological, safety-security, social-belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Maslow (1943) argues that upon satisfying the first need, satisfying the following need follows; however, the theory was validated only by a few researchers while most found it to be inaccurate (Robbins and Judge, 2017).

Hertzberg introduced the two-factor theory which is also known as motivation-hygiene theory (Robbins and Judge, 2017). The two-factor theory introduced linked intrinsic and extrinsic factors with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Robbins and Judge, 2017). The hygiene theory says that there are certain factors, such as the organisation’s rules and salary, when designed in a suitable way then they make workers feel neutral and the individuals won’t feel dissatisfied (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Robbins and Judge (2017) mentioned that to motivate individuals in their jobs, it would be beneficial to focus on factors that are relevant to the job itself or on the outcomes that resulted from that work; for example, promoting, developing, noticing, and achievements of the individual. However, the two-factor theory was not scientifically supported and criticised by many researchers.

The third well-known theory of motivation is McClelland’s theory of needs introduced three factors, the need for achievement, power, and affiliation (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Those three factors are for motivating an employee and they’re not essential for survival as the factors that were suggested in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Robbins and Judge, 2017). McClelland and other researchers gave greater attention to the need for achievement and noticed that great achievers perform best when their chance to succeed is not of a low probability (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Just like the previously mentioned motivation theories; the two-factor theory has some constraints, such as the high difficulty of measuring the previously mentioned needs, and that makes it difficult for managers to imply this theory (Robbins and Judge, 2017).

Aside from all of the invalidity and inaccuracy of the previously mentioned theories, those theories are referred to in many of the recent theories. The modern theories of motivation all relate to these early theories that were the generators and motivators for further research about motivation in the workforce and the ways organisations can motivate their employees. This is why knowing these theories would benefit a lot in understanding the following theories and strategies of motivating employees in organisations.

Methods of Motivating Employees:

There are several methods discussed by Robbins and Judge (2017) for motivating employees such as enriching their jobs, job redesign, job rotation, relational job design, flextime, flexible benefits, monetary rewards. The methods of motivating employees can be general and specific; for instance, some organisations might consider all employees equal and try to motivate them all using the same strategy while other organisations customise the way they motivate an employee upon his or her needs. Throughout the many different methods of motivation, there is a continuous argument on the validity and effectiveness between extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.

Enriching Jobs

One of the ways to motivate employees is enriching their jobs (Herzberg 1968, cited in Lazenby, 2008). Many managers have noticed that motivating employees can be achieved by multiple methods and that they should not stick to only one method, and that some methods such as job enrichment might work in motivating some employees but not the others (Lazenby, 2008). This proves that motivation is more of an individual thing and differs from one person to another. As a result, managers should not stick to one method and they shall have multiple flexible methods to use once they need their employees to be motivated.

Job Design

Job design is where organisations can start the motivation process of their employees by designing jobs that make employees feel motivated. Within job design, managers can shape what and how their employees will be going through tasks within their jobs. A good way of designing a job could be done by taking the job characteristics model, known as JCM, into consideration. JCM classifies jobs according to five core aspects which are skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Robbins and Judge (2017) discussed several concepts of designing jobs that are relevant to JCM theory. Some of these concepts have been previously criticised and their drawbacks have been spotted, yet they’re used by managers within organisations.

Using job design, organisations could develop a job in a way that satisfies their employees and generates motivation. Organisations could benefit a lot from job design by adding value to those jobs using organisational concepts. For instance, one of the ways to motivate employees is enriching their jobs (Herzberg 1968, cited in Lazenby, 2008). Many managers have noticed that motivating employees can be achieved by multiple methods and that they should not stick to only one method, and that some methods such as job enrichment might work in motivating some employees but not the others (Lazenby, 2008). This proves that motivation is more of an individual thing and differs from one person to another. As a result, managers should not stick to one method and they shall have multiple flexible methods to use once they need their employees to be motivated.

Each of these organisational methods that were discussed by Robbins and Judge (2017) have their criticisms as much as they’re supported and used by managers within organisations.

Job Rotation:

Some employees do not enjoy jobs that involve repetitive tasks and feel like a routine; for example, a cashier has to go through the same tasks every day and for some people having such a job is boring. Job rotation is a way of preventing employees from getting bored of their same repetitive tasks, it is a temporary role switching of employees at the same level within an organisation (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Research suggests that job rotation increases the employees’ job satisfaction (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Job rotation might be a good way of preventing employees from getting bored and increasing their job satisfaction, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is going to motivate them. Robbins and Judge (2017) mention a few drawbacks of job rotation, but a drawback for job rotation that is worth looking at is the impact it has on teams. Not all employees would enjoy being in teams with continuously different members; as a result, designing jobs that include job rotation might not be the solution for all employees and it might not lead to their motivation.

Relational Job Design:

Relational job design is a way of designing a job in a way where employees can be motivated by showing them their job’s positive impact on other people’s lives (Robbins and Judge, 2017). This might be a good way of motivating employees, but what if some jobs don’t have a positive impact on other people’s lives? And what if the negative impacts on other people’s lives are more than the positive ones? For example, employees working in weaponry factories might be convinced that they’re producing weapons that might lead to killing other innocent people’s lives when misused. How could such jobs be designed using relational job design? Employees might be misled and biased when they are shown what they’re doing helps others and ignore the negative impact their work has on society.

Flextime:

Flexible work time, known as flextime, is another concept that was discussed by Robbins and Judge (2017), it is the opportunity for employees to work with variable working times in which employees choose their working shifts between different working hours. Now, this might be a good method that helps employees feel more comfortable with their jobs; however, feeling comfortable doesn’t mean that the employee feels motivated. Can’t work in the same working shift be part of the unwanted routine that was discussed under job rotation? Robbins and Judge (2017) suggest that further research about flextime and its relevance to motivation should be conducted to know the concept’s impact on the motivation of employees.

Flexible Benefits:

The flexible benefit is discussed in Robbins and Judge (2017), the concept of that idea is that employees have different lives and different needs; as a result, an organisation should customise its rewards or ways of motivating each employee according to the employee’s background. For instance, a married employee has different needs than a single employee, hence the way of motivating each employee shall be customised to meet their needs (Robbins and Judge, 2017). Flexible benefits could be very similar to intrinsic rewards, in which they both target the individual and spot the importance of focusing on what each employee, as an individual, wants and needs rather than considering all employees the same and ignoring their differences.

Monetary Rewards:

Money might be one of the good ways to motivate people; however, it is probably not the best way to motivate people. Monetary rewards could be a strong motivator, and it can have other beneficial impacts on the organisation such as a lower turnover rate in which the employee stays more with the organisation (Jewell and Jewell 1987, cited in Aguinis et al., (2013). Although monetary rewards have positive impacts, it is not the best way to motivate employees since it’s under extrinsic rewards; as Robbins and Judge (2017) mentions the cognitive evaluation theory and suggests that extrinsic rewards might not be the best way to motivate employees. A good theory that can make monetary rewards invalid is the law of diminishing marginal utility also called Gossen’s first law, which states that the individuals’ attraction and pleasure from a certain thing decrease over time until their feelings become constant (Gossen, 1854 cited in Chand, 2013). The law of diminishing marginal utility might spot an error for the whole motivation concepts in organisations, but it would have a very negative impact on both organisations and individuals if individuals don’t get enough from monetary rewards.

Another aspect of monetary rewards is that not all organisations are financially capable of offering that, especially during an economic crisis. For instance, Dewhurst et al. (2009) discuss how organisations are cutting monetary rewards, which are the extrinsic rewards, and that monetary rewards motivate employees for a short-term period only. One survey’s findings show that individuals consider three non-monetary rewards’ value equal to monetary rewards’ value if not more valuable (McKinsey Quarterly, 2009 cited in Dewhurst et al., 2009). This survey’s findings prove that monetary rewards are not the most valuable thing to individuals and they’re not the best generators of motivation. Another possible obstacle with monetary rewards is the fairness of these rewards is that employees might get the task done just for gaining that reward, but they’re not actually happy and self-motivated to do that task. Herzberg (2003) discussed that a positive KITA can be used to make employees get their tasks done for a reward in return, but that doesn’t mean that those employees are motivated. These rewards are just to encourage employees on getting tasks done, but continuously offering them is not a solution for either organisations or their employees.

Intrinsic Rewards:

Robbins and Judge (2017) suggest that an employee recognition program is an intrinsic reward where an employee’s outstanding performance is noticed and in return, appreciation is shown to that employee. A good example given by Robbins and Judge (2017) is the “employee of the month” concept where an outstanding employee is rewarded by noticing his or her work and remarking them to the public. This program and programs that are similar to that idea where the organisation incurs no costs for arranging might be an effective way of motivating employees. It is a way of making that employee work for the benefit of gaining notice rewards whether from his or her colleagues or the public. However, the durability of this method might not last for too long; for example, after a certain period of time the employees might consider it as a normal thing and the levels of motivation and excitement might decrease. That is why varying ways of motivating employees are needed.

Merit-Based Pay:

A possible extent for the previously mentioned method is the merit-based pay plan which was discussed by Robbins and Judge (2017); however, this plan would drift away from the intrinsic rewards method where money is being paid for increasing motivation between employees. The merit-based method is very similar to the employee recognition program, but the difference is that the employees are being rewarded for their outstanding performance by giving them higher raises. As a result, merit-based pay falls under extrinsic rewards and it is similar to the monetary rewards method. However, this method can be utilised with the intrinsic rewards method. For instance, an organisation could design the employee recognition program in a way that after being awarded several times as “the employee of the month”, an employee would receive a raise in his or her monthly salary. Combining both methods might increase the level of competition between employees within an organisation which increases their levels of motivation.

Motivation in Workforce:

Employees are one of the most valuable factors within an organisation. However, not all organisations show their employees how valuable they are to them and how much they care about their emotions and wellbeing. Ganta (2014) discusses how motivation is a key thing for making the employees more productive, and according to Oxford (2019) employees are more productive when they’re happy. As a result, it can be analysed that happiness and productivity are both relevant and connected to motivation. Here comes the big question; how do organisations motivate their employees? What are the examples from real life? And are successful organisations using one of the previously mentioned methods to motivate their employees?

One of the most famous organisations that motivated its employees in the twenty-first century is Google. For instance, according to Glassdoor (2020), Google is classified by employees as the best place to work in the UK. Aside from monetary rewards that are offered by many organisations, including Google, Google adapts several methods for motivating its employees. For instance, Cleverism (2019) discusses that Google uses unique ways to motivate its employees such as offering them food meals for free, a gym within the organisation, carwash, hairstylist, and other luxury facilities. Google uses the previously mentioned flextime concept but in a different way, which is that Google allows its employees to have one day a week where they can do whatever they want whether it is relevant to work or to the employee’s personal interest.

Since Google is continuously progressing and growing, it is definitely successful in motivating its employees and making them have higher job satisfaction levels. Although Google seems to be effectively motivating its employees, it can be seen that Google is not following one of the previously mentioned methods of motivation. Google motivates its employees by other strategies and methods of motivation. This proves that there is no standard way of motivating all employees, instead, motivation is something that changes over time and differs from one person to another. Google’s investments in developing its facilities on-site should be considered to an extent part of the monetary rewards method because Google is spending all that money on motivating its employees.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, from the previously discussed arguments, it can be inferred that motivation is not a standard thing and there is no right or wrong method to enhance motivation within employees. However, many methods are preferred and recommended over the others by researchers. Organisations should understand that motivation is an individual thing and that it changes from one person to another; furthermore, organisations should be aware that motivation might decrease over time and that what’s valuable to a person might not be valuable to him or her period later. Finally, organisations should create their own method of motivating employees by mixing methods of motivation. Organisations should continuously target their individuals’ motivation levels for enhancing productivity.