Workers Motivation

Workers penurySince this day near theories grant back been developed trying to identify what lies behind the pauperism of imparters. What is it that pushes workers to purify their cognitive process, increase their effort and ultimately smack part of an organisation? Motivation is a conscious stopping point to perform one or to a greater extent activities with greater effort than other competing activities (Roberts and Corbett, 2009, Understanding Organisational demeanour IB1230 p.240). It could be interpreted that motivation being a conscious decision open fire non be forced, that exactly be triggered by managers using authentic methods. However, level off nowadays m all managers refuse to give up Taylorism and the use of the scientific management. As a result the idea of the rational economic man passive exists and managers still treat the workers as cogs in a machine presumed that they be locomoted only by tolerate. This essay volition argue that at prese nt crease has come to be a way to make a living, and concede is just the mean for a better living yet non what motivates passel to work (Gostick and Elton). Pay itself does not motivate sight to improve their performance or increase their effort. What people desire beyond their material well-being, that indemnify can stick out, is self-fulfilment and a smell of belonging.To begin with, the posture of the scientific management has been challenged many quantifys save the first fluff was the Hawthorne Studies conducted by Elton Mayo in the 1920s. Until then workers had mostly no saw on the decision-making or work process, and based on McGregors possibility X, were seen as genetically lazy, with no real ambitions. With his experiment Mayo wanted to salute the relation of productivity and the poor working conditions and how this could be controlled by alter some grammatical constituents of the working environment. However, productivity was increasing whatever the workin g conditions, tip to the conclusion that workers wanted to perform better in return of the occupy that the managers had shown to them. The results of this study challenged the established c at a timeption of the rational economic man and brought the period of the social man and McGregors Theory Y. Workers ar still human beings when they record the factory door with feelings and ambitions, in search of self-actualisation. So this leads to the conclusion that motivation is affected by social factors as well, and sometimes workers place to a greater extent greatness to these than catch up with itself.Self-actualisation needs were what Maslow considered to be the highest level in his hierarchy of Needs. Maslow support the view that people must(prenominal) firstly satisfy each(prenominal) before they can move on to the higher-order needs. It is believed that self-actualisation is what continuously motivate workers as it is never fulfilled but always prosecuted. However, what managers must understand is that once they offered to workers the taste of self-achievement and freedom it is difficult to then remove them. Also self-actualisation is not only achieved through work and individuals progress in this gain. It is achieved at polar times by individuals and using antithetical methods by their managers (Fincham and Rhodes). FIGURE 1.1-Source lecturing Notes Herzberg further developed this idea in his Two Factor Theory where he presented trading satisfaction to be a result of the motivators and job dissatisfaction as a result of the hygiene factors. Therefore it was fictional that different factors let to either job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. MotivatorsHygiene Factors consummation go with PolicyWork itselfSupervisionResponsibilityWork conditions feelerPayFIGURE 1.2-Source Lecture NotesIt can be argued that there ar similarities with Maslows Hierarchy of Needs as motivators satisfy the top needs of the pyramid whereas hygiene factors fulfil the basic human needs. Pay here is assumed to be a factor that leads to job dissatisfaction when is not met and thus include in the hygiene factors. It is broadly believed that workers with a satisfied pay will not necessarily be encouraged to perform better but only manage not to be dissatisfied. On the other hand, if the work itself is challenging and there is a potential of recognition, this is more than likely to commemorate workers motivated and devoted to the organisation. That is why Herzberg talks about job enrichment, a means to encourage motivation by building greater province and variety into a job (Roberts and Corbett, 2009, Understanding Organisational Behaviour IB1230 p.248). After all, as he argued, the very nature of motivators, as opposed to hygiene factors, is that they admit a much longer-term effect on employees attitudes (Herzberg, 2003, One More eon How Do You Motivate Employees? p. 70). Therefore it can be assumed that pay is just a short-term solution to the motivation riddle since when they bowl over a satisfies economic position then they will turn their precaution to the social factors.However, Herzbergs Theory did not come about without criticisms that compromise its say-so in motivating the workers. It is argued that his research was not objective as it only included accountants and engineers, occupations that were considered to be profitable. In addition, as it is clearly illustrated by Heiders attribution Theory people tend to attach successes to internal factors and externalise any failures. As a result the interviewees blamed the managers for feeling dissatisfied from their job and on the other hand, recognised themselves as the main factor stellar(a) to job satisfaction. Another strong criticism involves the fact that the workers may not have been honest of what really motivates them, offering therefore a tenableness why pay is included as a hygiene factor (Fincham and Rhodes). It was argued that this doings may e xist because workers want to be socially reliable and thus portrait themselves to be motivated by a more noble factor than pay (Rynes, Gerhart and Minette). Recent studies still draw the analogous conclusions as the one carried out by Herzberg more than 50 years ago. Workers are more likely to contribute to the work process if they feel comfortable in the work environment, close to their managers and have a sense of achievement. Once more, pay did not play a major parting in motivating people since the pursue of self-actualisation remains the major maintenance of workers and their ultimate goal (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd).Moreover, pay has a major role in Adams Equity Theory where workers are presented to be motivated by pay in relative terms alternatively than in absolute. Money can be amountd and thus it allows comparisons to be made leading to the importance of candor and fairness as a factor of motivation. Therefore it is argued that workers are more likely to improve thei r performance if they consider their pay to be fair relative to the effort they had put and the effort of the others. This idea is supported by the experiment held out by Adams where the students who they receive higher pay relative to their efforts were motivated to work harder in order to restore equity in the exchange (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005, Principles of Organisational Behaviour p.203). However, there is the risk that conflict perhaps arise because workers and managers have different perceptions of what the effort the workers must be and the pay that is considered to be fair for that effort. Beyond the theories the managers can put in practice, they must firstly realise that the workers are individuals with different needs, measure outs, experiences, that have an impact on what finally motivates them. As said before, people are on different levels on the Hierarchy of Needs pyramid and place different value on different hygiene factors and motivators (see figures 1.1 and 1. 2). In order for this obstacle to be overcome the managers must concentrate on the individuals who work in the organisation. What drives the motivation of the each worker may change, because of different circumstances. Known the worker on a personal level gives the advantage to change the behaviour towards them. It is square that with the current crisis and the growing fear of the unemployment many workers do not have the feeling of security in their job. Thus this is their motivation for the specific time and what the managers must try to restore. However it could be argued that in this decision-making process the workers must have the chance to be heard and a compromise decision to be stooled in order for any organisation to have a brighter future.On the other hand, inter- multitude conflict may be aroused because of managers expectations concerning certain groups. What managers expect of subordinates and the way they treat them largely determine their performance and rush prog ress (Livingston J.S, 2003, Pygmalion in Management p.176). Therefore if a manager expects a group to perform baldy and not be able to reach a certain target, this demotivates the individuals of the group and their performance is declined as expected. However, this may not always be the case since the individuals desire to prove the manager amiss(p) may drive them to improve their performance and thus enhance the expectations which the manager previously had. It could be argued that the conflict is sometimes desirable as it changes the behaviour of the workers to the best which it is in line with the interactionist approach. In this example pay did not play the major part in motivating workers even though it could be claimed that the individuals improve their performance in order to receive a better reward. However Herzbergs followers would argue that what really motivated the group was the job that became more challenging and gave the opportunity of self-achievement and recogniti on.Of course, the behaviour of the workers is affected by the organisations twist and culture. According to Maslow workers pursue their self-actualisation through work and therefore it could be argued that the organisational performance will depend ultimately on the extent to which individuals are provided with the opportunity to satisfy their own goals by contributing to the goals of the organisation (Mullins J., 2008, Essentials of Organisational Behaviour p.355). People are more likely to be motivated and feel part of an organisation when they share the same values, beliefs and attitudes. Therefore the organisation form _or_ system of government may focus on the pay as a measure to reward better performance and to the individual needs of the workers. It is true that some workers will be motivated through this but for the wrong reasons. The organisations structure encourages them to behave unethical in order to gain a raise in their pay or a promotion (Luecke, 2006). Indeed the ideas that people work for money and that more money rewards mean better performance are only just myths. As argued before, people look for something deeper in doing their work and managers who ignore that and continue to bribe their employees in fact they pay the price in a lack of loyalty and commitment(Pfeffer J., 2003, Six flagitious myths about pay p.99). Of course the policy of the organisation and its structure depends on which country it operates as there are different perceptions of what motivates people. This is evident from a survey in 2000 where among eight countries U.K valued good pay the highest. However, this is a result of the different methods used in these countries from which British companies may perk in order to rely less on pay to motivate their workers. In conclusion, pay does motivate people but this will not last in the long-run. Money is the means for a better living but is mostly seen as a condition to work rather than related to particular effort (Han dy C., 1993, Understanding organisations p.52). Once the workers achieve their material well-being they will try to satisfy their desire for self-fulfilment. As a result pay does motivate to some extent and mostly at the beginning of someones career but then he/she will pursue recognition, achievement and finally self-actualisation. Therefore managers must strive to learn their workers on a personal level, consider their worries and needs in order to wear out what ultimately motivates them to give their best effort. The Tandem Computer took this tread, and moved out from offering money for better performance to being more touch on of keeping their workers satisfying through the work itself. Therefore it would not even tell you your salary before expecting you to accept the work (Pfeffer J., 2003, Six sober myths about pay p.93). More organisations must take this difficult step in order to depend less on money and offer their workers greater opportunities for personal growth.Bib liographyRoberts, Ashley and Corbett, Martin,2009. Understanding Organisational Behaviour IB1230 Warwick melody School McGraw-Hill practise createFincham, Robin and Rhodes, Peter,2005. Principles of Organisational Behaviour 4th rendering. Oxford Oxford University PressMullins Laurie J.,2008. Essentials of Organisational Behaviour second base Edition. Harlow England new(a) York Financial ms/Prentice Hall Timpe Dale. A, 1986. Motivation of Personnel. Aldershot Gower Publishing Company LimitedGostick Adrian And Elton Chester, 2009. The Carrot Principle. London Simon Schuster UK LtdHandy Charles, 1993. Understanding Organisations Fourth Edition. London England Penguin GroupGrey Chris, 2009. A Very Short, Fairly interest and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Organizations Second Edition London SAGE Publications LtdHerzberg Frederick, Mausner Bernard, Snyderman Barbara Bloch, 1993. The motivation to Work Second revised Edition. New Brunswick New Jersey Transaction PublishersLa tham Gary P., 2007. Work Motivation History, Theory, Research, and Practice. Thousand Oaks calcium Sage Publications, Inc.USB LECTURESManville Brook and Ober Josiah, 2003. Beyond Empowerment Building a Company of Citizens Harvard patronage Review, 81(1), pp. 48-53Fryer Bronwyn, 2003. Moving Mountains Harvard Business Review, 81(1), pp. 41-47Herzberg Frederick, 2003. One More Time How to you motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), pp.86-86Luecke Richard, 2006. Harvard Business Essential Performance Management. Boston milliampere Harvard Business School Press Kerr Steve, 2003. The Best-Laid Incentive Plans Harvard Business Review, 81(1), pp.27-37Nicholson Nigel, 2003. How to motivate your problem employees Harvard Business Review, 81(1) pp.57-65Livingston Sterling. J, 2003. Pygmalion in Management Harvard Business Review, 81(1) pp.97-106Levinson Harry, 2003. Management by whose objectives? Harvard Business Review, 81(1) pp.107-116 McClelland David C., Burnham David H., 2003. Power is the great motivator Harvard Business Review, 81(1) pp.117-126Goleman Daniel, 2000. Leadership that gets results Harvard Business Review, 78(2) pp.78-90Manzoni Jean-Franois, Barsoux Jean-Louis, 1998. The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome Harvard Business Review, 76(2) pp.101-113Pfeffer Jefferey, 1998. Six Dangerous Myths About Pay Harvard Business Review 76(3) pp.109-119Goffee Rob, Jones Gareth, 1996. What holds the late Company together? Harvard Business Review, 74(6) pp.133-148