Theories of Motivation - Essay Example

?Assignment Motivation Essay Why is it important to focus on motivating employees who survive a layoff? Motivating employees is a key leadership function in a business organization. Without a motivated workforce, productivity, efficiency and overall morale of the organization will fall. The challenge for managers lays in identifying motivation strategies that suit a particular group of workers as there are no hard-cast and universal rules governing motivation strategies. In other words, much as management thinkers such as Frederick Herzberg, Abraham Maslow, etc, have attempted to theorize the psychological, financial and sociological aspects of motivation, there is an elusive factor that evades theorizing. This intangible factor accounts for such facets of employee motivation as charismatic leadership, collective cultural sensibilities, conditions of the broader economy, etc. Just as motivating employees has its share of challenges, it can be equally as rewarding. This is so, because a motivated workforce transforms the internal dynamics of an organization and produces a synergistic effect on its performance. The sum of a group of motivated employees is greater than its constituent parts. While motivation theory discourse tends to focus on outcomes for the organization, an employee-centric evaluation is also relevant, for employees are what comprise the labor market. Without the constant supply of human resources from the labor market, no industry could survive. (Murphy, 2009) Coming to the question of motivating employees who survive a layoff, the challenges are compounded due to the atmosphere of employee insecurity. Top management’s leadership skills will be thoroughly tested while handling this particular scenario. The threat of job loss would have shaken the workforce’s commitment to the company and its cause. Seeing their colleagues being laid-off would have disillusioned survivors about principles of team ethic and team spirit. One cannot blame lay-off survivors to grow distrustful of the management, for it is always those in lower ranks who lose their jobs first, while most of the top management remains unscathed. Given this environment of distrust and insecurity, it is not uncommon for the relations between management and workers to turn antagonistic. In the case of General Electric, the relations between top management and entry level workers turned fractious during the 2008 Wall Street collapse and its aftermath. In contrast, East Asian automotive companies such as Nissan and Toyota espouse a strong support system for employees during times of economic distress. Situations like this test the skills of managers and separate the great ones from mortals. Those managers who see opportunity in adversity will be the ones who see the ship sail through turbulent waters to calmer shores. (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) 2. To what extent is Conaty’s advice consistent with equity and expectancy theory? Coming to the case study in question, the observations made by Bill Conaty, former HR Manager at General Electric, are very pragmatic. Conaty is someone who believes in an equitable and compassionate mode of management. In this spirit, the difficult process of layoffs can be handled by upholding basic principles of fairness. These three steps for managing the equity process are consistent with Conaty’s vision of equity and fairness: “Recognize that an equity comparison will likely be made by each subordinate whenever especially visible rewards such as pay, promotions, etc are being allocated. Anticipate felt negative inequities. Communicate to each individual your evaluation of the reward, an appraisal of the performance on which it is based and the comparison points you consider to be appropriate.” (Motivation Theories, p.185) The truly great leaders will make surviving employees see opportunity in the apparent adversarial situation. This is factually true as well, for a reduced workforce makes the chances of promotion and career progress easier for the surviving members. Although it sounds Darwinian it is also a matter of fact that surviving workers have less competition in the race to determine the fittest. The better managers will make surviving employees see their own worth in terms of how they out-survived their fellow journeymen/journeywomen. To give an example, Google, which is one of the major software companies in the world, is excellent in its handling of human resources – both during periods of boom and bust. Bill Conaty’s advice thus makes sense, as he asks managers to focus on the surviving talent as opposed to spending is proportionately high time in the layoff process will bring greater rewards. Conaty notes, “Those survivors need to be recognized and rewarded. Yes, they’ll pay close attention to how humanely layoffs are carried out, but they’re also aware that their own workload and stress level has just been stepped up. You want this group to play offense, not to fret over when the next shoe will drop or feel that they’re being overburdened.” (Conaty, as quoted in Kreitner & Kinicki, p.234) Inputs from Expectancy Theory is also helpful for dealing with worker layoffs. This theory assumes that motivation or effort is a “function (multiplicative) of three components: 1) an effort –> performance expectancy, 2) a performance -> outcome expectancy and 3) valence. The E->P expectancy refers to the individual’s perception of the chances that increased effort will lead to good job performance. The P-> O expectancy refers to the individual’s perception of the chances that good performance will lead to certain outcomes or rewards. Valence refers to the value or attractiveness of a given outcome or reward to the individual.” (Terpstra, 1986, p.376) Hence, for an employee to be motivated, he or she must believe that extra effort will result in higher performance. The individual must also believe that better performance will be associated with greater rewards or outcomes. Also, those rewards or outcomes must be valent – in other words, valued by the individual. 3. Do you believe that recognition will motivate layoff survivors? Explain. It is a fact that surviving members owe it to the managers for retaining their presence in the employee rolls. The task of management is to make employees feel gratuitous for this recognition. This, in turn, could aid in their renewed commitment to their own careers as well as appreciation for the managers who have made this possible. Another interesting approach to workforce size reduction that is not contradictory to the essence of Conaty’s message is Job Enrichment as formulated by Frederick Herzberg. Herzberg’s contribution to motivation theory adds wit and light-hearted humor to the subject. His conception of KITA (Kick In The Pants) as an ineffective form of employee motivation is well articulated in his article titled One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? His thesis is that raising salaries, improving work conditions and shuffling tasks are passe in terms of motivating employees. He instead advocates new and out-of-the-box ideas for keeping employee spirits up – most of which consistent with Bill Conaty’s approach to HRM. Negative KITA strategies that work on a punitive basis are outright ineffective. Even Positive KITA programs such as Reducing Time Spent at Work, Spiralling Wages, Fringe Benefits, etc, have only limited efficacy. In this context, the process of Job Enrichment (positively contrasted to Job Enlargement) proposed by Herzberg will alleviate some of the management’s problems. Herzberg notes that there are various methods toward Job Enrichment and their underlying philosophy is this: “If you have someone on a job, use him. If you can’t use him on the job, get rid of him, either via automation, or by selecting someone with lesser ability. If you can’t use him and you can’t get rid of him, you will have a motivation problem”. (Herzberg, 1968) 4. Do you agree that managers should find ways to have fun in the work environment after a layoff? Why or why not? While a vibrant workplace will be one that encourages humor and fun, reaching business goals is ultimately serious business. Moreover, the mood is not conducive to the idea of ‘fun’ immediately after a layoff. Here, again, there are no rules of thumb for managers to follow. Motivation theories can offer a guideline to tackle these situations, but the unique considerations differ in each practical case. Ideally, strong leaders are those who take difficult economic and business conditions in their stride and maintain a semblance of calm in the most turbulent of times. It then follows that the work environment retains the element of fun and excitement which are key ingredients for creativity and enhanced productivity. Indeed, much of Google and Apple’s successes could be attributed to the creative and intellectually stimulating atmosphere inherent in their premises. The role of the top management would then be to make the retained workforce feel they are special and encourage them to fill the void created by the lay-offs. (Murphy, 2009) Creating a personal stake for the retained workforce is the best method to achieve this end. This could be accomplished by offering stock options or an attractive incentive program. A visible career path with quantitative milestones in between is also a proven method of motivation. Companies such as Microsoft and Cisco are excellent in this regard. The best of managers would take into consideration the sensitive nature of lay-offs and create an impression that the losses are felt. Otherwise, it would appear sadistic to find fun in an environment when many livelihoods are disrupted. Conaty certainly would agree with this assessment, for he says “It’s a mistake to legislate fun out of the workplace. You need to continue to celebrate, especially in tough times…We need to dial down how we celebrate, yes, but it’s not natural to have to continuously wear a deadly serious game face.” (Conaty, as quoted in Kreitner & Kinicki, p.234) References: Terpstra, David E, Theories of Motivation – Borrowing the Best, Personnel Journal (pre-1986); Jun 1979; ProQuest Central, p.376. Herzberg, Frederick, One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?, Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb 1968. The Effective Manager, Chapter 6: Motivation Theories, p.185 – p.189. Kreitner, R & Kinicki, A 2013, Organisational Behaviour , 10th edn, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York. Kreitner and Kinicki, OB in Action Case study (HOW Should Managers handle Tough Employment Decisions?): 10th ed. Page 234. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Murphy, Jim (2009), Inner Excellence, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0-07-163504-2 Read More