Motivation in the Work Place
Varying employee needs lead to different kinds of motivation. Different kinds of motivation influence employees’ job satisfaction. Employees’ motivation will be affected by factors such as occupation, gender, social culture and organisational structure. This study will attempt to explore the differences in motivation between core-workers and periphery workers, and whether these differences in motivators are distinctive.
The literature revealed that similar motivators may not be necessarily applicable to employees working at different levels but most of the literary work did confirm that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation leads to job satisfaction in the work place. Hence, the aim of this study is to investigate and ascertain whether there are distinctive motivators for employees working at different levels in the work place.
The literature review enabled the researcher to understand the various theories of motivation and the environmental and cultural influences on motivational approaches. The research paradigm which is primarily derived from the positivists’ philosophy helped the researcher to test the formulated hypothesis based on the literature review. The researcher developed an online questionnaire to collect primary data regarding the motivational levels in the work place, with the intent of exploring each individual’s motivation in their respective positions. The questionnaire was distributed using email in the UK.
The responses from the survey revealed that the motivators for the core and periphery workers are indeed distinctive. This finding is in agreement to what is suggested in the literature. The study also revealed that intrinsic and extrinsic motivators do lead to job satisfaction irrespective of the status of the employee in the organisation. Hence, it is very important for the managers and practitioners to devise separate motivational strategies for the core and periphery workers.
1.1 Introduction
The increasingly competitive business environment of the 1980s, which continued throughout the early 1990s, remains a dominant factor today (Williams 1998). Most enterprises attempt to improve organisational performance to fit this competitive trend. Poor performance of managers and workers decreases the organisation’s productivity and contributes to slow economic growth. Hence, the effective utilisation of human resources for productivity improvement should be the primary concern of all organisations (Williams 1998). Motivation in organisations as one of human resources managerial practices has been paid more attention in recent years among both practicing managers and organisational researchers.
Previous researchers have directed most of their attention towards the questions like, why people behave as they do on the job and what can be done to influence employees’ work motivation? Several theories of work motivation have been formulated to identify factors that influence work behaviours and factors that contribute to the maintenance and termination of these behaviours (Maslow, 1954; Herzberg, 1966). Although motivation as a concept represents a highly complex phenomenon that affects, and is affected by a multitude of factors in the organisation (Kanungo, l994), it is accepted by most scholars and practitioners that thereisa positive relationship between motivation and job satisfaction, individual performance, and physical and mental health. They believe that behavioural influences, such as job satisfaction, have a very important impact on quality of service, organisational commitment and total organisational effectiveness (MacRobert, et al. 1993; Beall 1994; Joseph and Deshpande 1997; cited: Lewis et al.2001; Morgan et al. 1995).
Based on the statements made above, it can be said that most studies focus on investigating what factors motivate employees and whether there is a positive relationship between motivation and behavioural influences. Scholars seldom investigate whether different status can lead to different needs and motivational approaches in the work place. Deci and Ryan (1985) argue that some people will be more likely to experience intrinsic motivation, while others will be more oriented toward the extrinsic motivation. Hence, this research will aim to investigate the need for different motivational approaches in the work place depending of the status of the employees. The main aim and objectives are mentioned in the next section.
Aims and Objectives
Mitchell (1987) concludes that motivation is regarded as an individual phenomenon. Traditional motivation approaches are usually based on the research on individual demand, which not only involves the content theories, but also the process theories. Although modern researchers suggest that the content of work as a main factor can motivate most employees (Deci, 2000), there is no single approach that can work well on all employees. In practice, it is impossible for employers to draw distinctive policies in accordance with individual demands. If employees can be classified into several groups, according to their uniform characteristics, it will be easier for practitioners to formulate motivational policies. Recently, a huge number of companies have divided their employees into core- workers and periphery workers. These two groups of employees have dramatic status differences in their respective companies. Hence the main aim of the research will be to try and establish whether there is a clear distinctive motivational approach between the two groups. The main objectives of the research may be listed as:
1. To investigate what are the differences in motivation between core workers and periphery workers in an organisation.
2. To investigate whether core workers expect to get more intrinsic motivation, and whether extrinsic reward is regarded as a better approach for periphery workers.
3. Lastly the research will try to explore and analyse whether high motivation leads to high job satisfaction.
This chapter presents an extensive summary of the literature review conducted by the researcher. The chapter concerns with motivational approaches, the theoretical dimensions for the implication of new organisational forms and theories of cultural influence on motivation. This chapter also includes relevant theories and research on employee’s motivation. This chapter is divided into four parts. In the first part, the concept of motivation and relevant research are introduced. In the second part, two new organisational forms, namely: core-worker/periphery worker and project-based team and their implications on motivation are illustrated. Cultural influence on motivation in the work place is reviewed in the third part.
Research Methodology:
This chapter outlines the various paradigm and approaches that were reviewed by the researcher before adopting a particular paradigm or approach. This section also elaborates the research instrument used for the primary research in the form of a questionnaire.
Research Analysis:
This chapter provides a detailed analysis from the responses of the survey conducted using the questionnaire and the semi-structured interviews. Tables and wherever possible graphs have been used to elaborate the results. An analysis of the findings is presented at the end of the chapter.
Discussion and Conclusion:
This chapter presents a brief discussion and the conclusive findings from the study. It also provides shows whether the formulated hypotheses was correct or not. Depending on this appropriate conclusions are drawn. The researcher also includes few limitations of the study and suggests further work that may be carried out.
This chapter summarises and critically appraises the relative strengths and weaknesses of the ideas expressed in the literature associated with the subject area of motivation in work place. Through investigation of various texts on motivation and human behaviour at work place, the author of this report is of the view that the available literature is very diverse and needs careful review to achieve full understanding behind the various associated concepts.
The first section of this chapter provides a general overview and discussion on motivation, providing a background to the study and building the foundation of the research. The following section provides a deeper insight into environmental and cultural influences on motivation.
Motivation Defined
“Motivation” comes from the Latin term, meaning “to move”(Smith, 1999). Many social scientists suggest that motivation is the psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction and persistence of behaviour (Atkinson, 1964). Vroom (1964) defined motivation as an internal force, based on an individual’s conscious and unconscious requirement which drives people to achieve.
Although motivation is defined from different perspectives, there are some common characteristics in almost all and specifically the above mentioned definitions. Firstly, motivation is traditionally considered as an individual phenomenon. Each individual is unique, which means that different people have different needs, expectations, values, attitudes, reinforcement histories and goals. Secondly, motivation is usually described as intentional, i.e. motivation is supposedly under the employee’s own control. Any changes in behaviour that are seen as influenced by motivation are typically viewed as actions that the individual has chosen to engage in.
Thirdly, motivation is multifaceted. The two factors of greatest importance have been the arousal and direction of behaviour. Finally, the purpose of motivational theories is to predict behavior. Motivation is concerned with action and the internal and external forces that influence one’s choice of action. Motivation is not the behaviour itself, and it is not performance (Mitchell, 1987). In fact, motivation is a need-satisfying process, which reveals when one’s needs are satisfied or motivated by some factors (motivators) due to which one will exert high levels of effort towards organisational goals (Robbins, 1993).
Traditional Motivational approaches
Traditionally, work motivation theories have been categorized as ‘content’ and ‘process’ theories (Campbell and Pritchard, 1976). Content theories (e.g. Herzberg, 1968; Maslow, 1954) on the one hand, explain work behavior as the employee’s attempt to satisfy some needs. They explain employee behavior as being initiated and sustained by a deprived need, and stopped when the need is satisfied. Content theories can be used to answer the ‘what’ of the motivation process. Process theories (e.g. Lawler, 1973), on the other hand, explain work behavior in terms of the cognitive process, which the employee goes through before and during the behaviour.
Content Theories
Maslow’s ‘Need Hierarchy Theory’ (Maslow, 1954): Maslow’s model consists of two fundamental premises. The first premise states that individuals are primarily, wanting creatures, motivated by a desire to satisfy certain specific types of needs. Maslow (1954) points out that most individuals pursue, with varying intensities, five needs, namely: ‘physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness needs, esteem needs and self-actualization needs’. The second premise of this theory is that what individuals pursue is universal across various populations and arranged sequentially in hierarchical form. That is, once the lower-order needs are satisfied, the individual moves up one level in the hierarchy and attempts to satisfy the next higher-order needs (Maslow 1954). Maslow’s theory has been widely accepted and remains dominant in the management and organisational behaviour fields. However, there is a lack of evidence to prove that human needs are classified in five distinct categories, or that these categories are structured in a special hierarchy. Some support does however exist, for the existence of possibly two types of needs - deficiency and growth needs, and self-actualization needs occasionally emerge as an independent category (Wahba and Bridwell, 1976; cited Smith 1999).
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, 1966): Herzberg (1966) extends the work of Maslow and identifies two factors, which should lead to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Herzberg suggests that job-related factors, which he called motivator factors, such as career advancement, recognition, sense of responsibility, and feelings of achievement lead to satisfaction. Other factors he called hygiene factors, which are related to job security, company polices, interpersonal relations, and working conditions that lead to; dissatisfaction. Herzberg argues that motivator factors had the potential to motivate workers to higher levels of performance because they provided opportunities for personal satisfaction. Hygiene factors, such as improving physical working conditions, may help to reduce worker discontent, but will not provide sufficient incentive for most workers to strive for superior performance.
Process Theories
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964): Vroom’s (1964) theory suggests that people’s behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives, and these choices are systematically related to psychological processes, particularly perception and the formation of believes and attitudes. The purpose of choices, generally, is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. In other words, this theory assumes that people make rational decisions, based on economic realities. It tries to bring together both personal and situational influences (Vecchio, 1987).
Motivation and Job Satisfaction
More and more practitioners find that poor performance of managers and workers makes the organisation less productive and contributes to slow economic growth. Some studies conclude that there is a positive relationship between motivation and job satisfaction, individual performance, physical and mental health. They believe that behavioural influences, such as job satisfaction have a very important impact on quality of service, organisational commitment, and total organisational effectiveness (MacRobert, et al. 1993; Beall 1994; Joseph and Deshpande, 1997; cited: Lewis et al.2001; Morgan et al. 1995). Blegen (1993) conducted a meta-analysis, which included forty-eight studies looking at work satisfaction and included more than 15,000 nurses. The results of this analysis revealed that job satisfaction was associated strongly with reduced work stress, organisational commitment, communication with supervisor, autonomy and recognition. Furthermore, a large number of studies attempt to find what motivational factors result in job satisfaction. Herzberg (1968), in his two-factor theory, argues that the content of the job has a significant influence on motivation and satisfaction, and concludes that only motivational factors can have a lasting impression on a worker’sattitude,satisfaction,and work performance. Bavendam Research Incorporated (BRI, 2000) provides six factors, namely: opportunity, stress, leadership, work standards, fair rewards and adequate authority that influenced job satisfaction. Job satisfaction will change according to these six factors’ change. This dissertation will try to measure what major motivators lead to employee’s job satisfaction for different status employees.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Motivation varies as a function of several factors in the work environment, including evaluation expectation, actual performance feedback, reward, autonomy, and the nature of the work itself. Recently, both theory and empirical research suggest that human motivation toward work can be categorized into two distinct types, namely intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic reward arises from the intrinsic value of the work for the individual and includes traits specific to the work done, skill levels, autonomy and challenge (Lewis, 2001). Extrinsic motivation arises from the desire to obtain some outcomes that are apart from the work itself. Extrinsic motivators include anything coming from an outside source that is intended to control the initiation or performance of the work, for example: promised reward, praise, critical feedback, deadlines, surveillance, or specifications on how the work is to be done (Amabile, 1993).
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can both motivate people to do their work. Different motivation can have very different effects on subjective feelings about the work, eagerness to do the work, and the quality of performance. Recently, the link between the two motivational approaches has been investigated by most scholars. It seems there is no, absolutely opposite, relationship in practice. Deci and Ryan (1985) suggested that, under some circumstances, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation does not work in opposition. Amabile’s research also proves this relationship (1994). McGraw (1978) suggests that performance on algorithmic tasks should be enhanced by increases in extrinsic motivation, but that performance on creativity tasks should be adversely affected (cited: Amabile, 1983). Thomas (2002) argues that extrinsic incentives can have a greater influence on behaviour when intrinsic motivation is moderate to low. But if intrinsic motivation is already high with self-managing and highly energized people, monetary incentives provide little or no additional force. Wiersma (1992, cited: Wily 1997) points out that extrinsic rewards, such as good pay, can increase intrinsic motivation if they are perceived as providing information about competence.
However, it seems that scholars seldom classify employees, based on their different identity to investigate whether some employees tend to be motivated by intrinsic approaches whereas others are likely to be motivated by extrinsic approaches. Some researches are based on different statuses. Wiley (1997), for example, argues that there is a dramatic difference in the motivational value placed on working conditions, based on two different statuses, namely, full-timer and part-timer. According to this research, he points out that full-time workers pursued personal loyalty and interesting work, and part-time workers placed the emphasis on interesting work and good working conditions. Smith (1995) points out that the largest differences exist between those who work full time and those who work part time. Part-time workers were noticeably less satisfied with their pay, promotion prospects and the type of work they were doing. However, they did not provide a detailed analysis on this aspect.
Environmental Influences on Motivation
Recently, some scholars found that the environment will impact significantly on worker’s motivation. Studies (Wiley 1997; Hartley 2002) focus on the influence of environments and the interplay between an individual’s personal motivation and his social environment. Hartley (2002) argues that beyond a variety of changes in many organisational forms and processes, there has also been substantial restructuring in pay and conditions, and in the psychological contract between employees and their organisations. Wiley (1997) in his research illustrates four different results about factors that motivate employees due to the impact of diverse environments, from the research in, 1946, 1980, 1986 and 1992. Over these years the industries and economies changed, and so did the workers’ values. All change has implications for employee motivation. In 1946, the top motivator selected by employees revealed their need to be appreciative of work done, whereas in 1980 and 1986 the top concern was interesting work, good wages, and job security are near the middle. Since the 1990s, good wages and job security head the list of motivational factors for employees (Wiley, 1997). He mentions five factors, which might motivate employees in an environment of uncertainty and insecurity. These are: good wages, full appreciation for work done, job security, promotion and growth in the organisation, and interesting work. These factors reflect the current state of affairs in terms of employee needs and imply that reward systems and job redesign strategies may be used to reinforce and motivate employees to exhibit productive behaviors.
The competitive market, on one hand, leads employers to attempt to recruit and keep skilled and knowledge employees, in order to maintain innovation abilities. On the other hand, organisations realize the approach of reducing labour cost, which will also lead to competitive advantage. Labour flexibility has been widely advocated. Atkinson’s (1984) suggests that employers are meeting new market conditions by dividing their workforces into two distinct segments- a core and a periphery that are regulated by very different employment conditions.
The drive to increase flexibility among these employees would largely take the form of increased functional flexibility. For example, in Japanese companies, job rotation is advocated. This requires employees to master every part of the work in one group. Due to the flexible function, the whole group can work well, in case of emergency. The employment of a peripheral workforce, had poor terms of employment and, above all, can be easily disposed of in times of economic difficulty. These are employees on non-standard contracts, in particular part-time employees, temporary workers, and the self-employed. The principal economic advantages of periphery workers for employers concern the more cost effective use of labor. Periphery workers are used for tasks requiring discrete and short-term periods, for matching labor inputs to the peaks and demand, or to extend opening or production hours, without incurring the additional cost of overtime rates of pay (Atkinson 1984). The flexibility afforded by periphery working used in this manner reduces overhead costs and increases flexibility, without compromising productivity (Rogers, 1995; cited: Wheeler, 2001). Part-time or temporary jobs also provide opportunities for women who can balance the requirement of work and family (Atkinson’s 1984).
However periphery workers usually are associated with bad work conditions and low pay. Most periphery workers do not receive benefits accorded to permanent employees. Statistically, the mean hourly earnings of part-time employees in 1998 were approximately two-thirds the average of the full-time rate (Galliel, 998). Employers may also hire temporary workers to avoid paying raises to permanent employees, which might lead to a further stressing of the relationship between temps and permanent employees (Galup et al., 1997). Organisations reduce their training costs by hiring specialized temps, rather than training current employees (Galup et al., 1997). In particular, most part-time workers seldom have skill development and promotion opportunities, compared with full-time job workers. The temporary workers feel no exchange of trust and loyalty between the organisation and themselves (Rogers, 1995; cited: Wheeler2001). Since this approach had been introduced into western countries, proportions of part-time workers in Europe increased significantly. During 1998 in the UK, 6.1 million people worked on a part-time basis, and this proportion is expected to grow (Edward et al. 1999).
Gradually, with the expansion of part-time and temporary workers, many better-paid jobs, such as supervisory and managerial positions also become available to part-time and temporary workers. Many of these employees were formerly considered only suitable for full-time employees. Edward et al (1999) point out that expansion is particularly noticeable for skilled, non-manual occupations, where in Britain 39% of employees currently work part time, and there is a steady increase in the proportions of part-timers in professional, managerial and administrative technical work. As organisations continue to rely on temporary employees to fill vital positions within the organisation, some problems have been arising. An individual’s motivation to perform, whether they are permanent or temporary employee, becomes a primary concern for the organisations. However, as Wheeler (2001) argued, it becomes increasingly obvious that research mostly ignores the motivational processes of temporary employees.
Motivating two segments of employees to achieve the aims of the organisation’s strategy as well as providing different policies to treat different employees’ demands is seen as a serious problem. Due to the changing structure, it seems that many factors which traditionally provided value to motivate professional staff are no longer available. Turner (1999) argues that, with flatter hierarchies being adopted by project-based organisations, individuals have less opportunity for career advancement, as there are fewer levels to occupy. However, money still remains a common yardstick by which individuals can measure that growth. Hence, in general people can be motivated by the development of their career in terms of pay rise.
Tags: behaviour, employees, employment, Herzberg, Maslow, motivation, occupation, satisfaction, survey
