The Motivation of People in the Workplace - Assignment Example

Motivation Analyse and discuss the impact that individual personality, perceptions, and attributes can have on the motivation of people in the workplace. You should consider both positive and negative issues in your answer. Introduction Individual personality, perceptions and personal attributes can have significant effects on the level of motivation a person can have while working for an organisation (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2001). There are quite a few facets involved in this discussion ranging from the personality type of the individual to the level of recognition s/he receives from his/her peers. Of course, monetary rewards for performance also come into the equation as do the effects of leadership since a good enough leader can motivate a lot more people than a below average leader (Senior, 2002). To better understand this correlates of motivation, it would be useful to examine them individually with practical examples of their use in real world situations. Individual Personality In terms of psychology, it is understood that certain personality types are better at handling certain positions than others and even though personality itself is rather complex to define but the generally accepted notion has been the collection of emotional and behavioural properties as well as the thoughts and ideas of a person (Erdogan, 2005). This idea points towards the notion that certain individuals can be better managers and leaders based on their personal life experiences while others could find it difficult to work effectively if placed in a situation which requires leadership skills (Rosenfeld & Wilson, 1999). The earlier work in the field of personality study is attributed to Jung which was later on expanded by others. While we may say that person X has a cheerful personality, scientists prefer to classify personality in three different models including Factorial models, typologies and circumplexes which are directly connected with how they perform in given situations (Clarke & Robertson, 2005). Depending on the needs of an organisation, certain personalities and behavioural tracts can be more useful for the company than others. A personality evaluation profile can be created to screen candidates for some positions but there is a negative point associated with such a procedure since the ethics of such an approach can be questioned. There is a significant amount of research and information which shows that there is a definite link between personality and certain job roles. Of course much of the evidence presented is based on anecdotes and observations by individuals but scientific research into the field also supports this position. On an individual level, it has been shown that having a proactive personality can have a positive effect on an individual’s performance and career (Erdogan, 2005). As research continues both in terms of organizational behaviour and personality studies, we might have to consider additions or alterations to the ethics of human resource management. There is a newly discovered higher order personality trait called Honesty-Humility which impacts the tendency towards antisocial behaviour at work (Lee, et. al. 2005). Perhaps the accounting scandals which have rocked the globe in recent times might not have taken place had the companies used such criteria to evaluate mangers placed in powerful positions. Recognition and Rewards Motivating individuals is never an easy task since there are several aspects to how a person can be motivated to do more for an organisation as they move higher up along Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. While the theory of the hierarchy of needs suggests that people will have needs that change with time and place as well as the social context, Welch (2005) reports that in practice there are only two types of motivators for individuals. The first type is a monetary reward which includes performance and target based additional compensation related the salary of the individual. The second is a reward for the soul which comes from peer recognition and appreciation. He describes the situation of rewarding the highest performing employees at GE by saying, “The top 20 percent of employees are showered with bonuses, stock options, praise, love, training, and a variety of rewards to their pocketbooks and souls (Welch, 2005, p. 41)”. Monetary Rewards GE gives a substantial bonus to their stars to motivate them towards further achievements and greatness. Jack Welch (2005) discusses the case where a scientist working for GE won an award for his achievements in science. Mr. Welch asked that the GE board immediately connect the scientist’s achievements with a large cash bonus since even the Nobel peace prize comes with a significant dollar figure attached to it. Kerr (1996) is in complete agreement with this idea and states that variable compensation and bonus awards are unlikely to change a person’s behaviour permanently unless the sums are at least 10-12% higher than what their base salary would get them. GE is also generous with stock options and does not reserve them for members of the board or for employees who rise above a certain level in the company. Most importantly, the heaviest rewards are not given for the duration of time a person spends with the company or how many people they have working for them; instead, they are given only to those who show the best results. This system ties in with the theoretical motivational premise that efforts which are heavily rewarded tend to be repeated by those who get the reward. The values of the company as given by Welch (2005) come across clearly with this compensation and reward system since it shows that GE gives more importance to performance as compared to seniority to make their compensation system be a variable system rather than a static one. Recognition The rewards themselves are made public and members of the company are motivated by knowing who they need to emulate in order to be successful, this also inspires people to stay on with the company so they can get the rewards they see others getting (Morris & Colvin, 2006). The idea of rewards being based on the overall merit of an employee is not a new one but GE applies this idea to the letter by heavily rewarding the top 20% and normally rewarding the mid level performers. Their review and evaluation process ensures that no person gets rewarded for mediocre performance and every star in the company if given the attention s/he deserves. At the same time, to keep the bottom of the barrel on their collective toes, GE has the policy of removing the bottom 10% of its employees every year (Welch, 2005). The most interesting aspect of GE’s motivation plan is the public nature and disclosure which follows the evaluation at GE. All divisions at the company are required to list by name, position and compensation the amount of money and bonuses given to the top 20% of the management as well as the bottom 10% (Schmitt, 2001). So if an employee is given some stock in the company as a reward for creating a new product, the information will be disclosed to all member of his/her department to publicly celebrate his/her achievement. This is a good idea if there is no element of jealousy involved and those who see it happening know that the reward was justified. Perceptions While this public disclosure may be seen as difficult to swallow, Jack Welch defends this by saying that even though we may seek to protect the reward system from criticism by not letting others know about the bonuses and rewards given to their co-workers, people seem to know this information anyways. By making it public, the information can be used as a motivational factor and it lets all employees see which persons are the stars of their divisions and who are facing the risk of being let go (Welch, 2005). Therefore, as recommended by Boxall and Purcell (2003) GE is using rewards as a tool for strategic management as well as motivation. Another key factor about the system of rewards at GE is the response time for the reward to come as a result of performance. The calendar is a useless tool for rewards at GE since a delayed reward loses its effects. Kerr (1996) uses the example of rewarding rats in a cage for pulling a lever and says that if a sugar cube comes 9 months after the lever was pulled there would be little association between the two actions. In certain companies, the reward process is so far delayed that when an extra sum comes up in the employee’s account, they are not sure why it has happened. Good companies make their HR policies effective and practical as well as quick (Senior, 2002). Kerr (1996) gives an inside view of what happens at GE where a program called “Quick Thanks!” is in place. This system allows employees to nominate other employees (even across departments) with a $25 gift certificate for certain stores and restaurants in appreciation of their work. In 1995, ten thousand such certificates were handed out by GE employees to their peers. Even though it may seem like a huge number, the rewards are only given for exemplary performance and the peers are not free with their recognition. They often have stricter personal criteria for giving these certificates and the receiver often gets the award from the employee who nominated them in person (Kerr, 1996). It is to GE’s credit that their differentiation system for creating motivation and managing the rewards given to employees has been respected, tested and accepted by some of the biggest names in the world. This ranking system for bonuses etc is used by Microsoft, Cisco, HP, Sun, Capital One, PepsiCo and Intel amongst many others. Sun exactly mirrors GE’s system to discriminate employees by saying that 20% are superior, 70% are “Sun Standard” and 10% are underperforming. On average a quarter of all the companies in the Fortune 500 list have established this practice of division as a reward management standard (Grote, 2002). Since following the example of the leader is a good practice in business, it is also important to look at how business leaders motivate individuals within their own companies. Motivation and Leadership Leading from the front is not only a dictum of leadership it is also a requirement for a leader of an organisation that seeks to get the best out of his/her employees. A prime example of leadership comes from Steve Jobs who has a unique style of leadership that has worked wonders for his company and helped Apple turn itself around from a borderline player in the computer industry to a giant in the media wars. By working in a method which can be described as anti-organisational, Steve Jobs working tactics have been discussed by Deutschman (2000) who discusses his working style by saying: “He had total disregard for the hierarchical chain of command. He would remember what several hundred people did and call on whomever he needed, always bypassing their managers. It was as though everyone in the company reported directly to Steve himself (Deutschman, 2000, Pg. 1).” A story given by Hertzfeld (1984) discusses how the human potential of the team was unleashed by Steve Jobs stubborn refusal to give up even when the situation seemed drastic. In 1983, the Macintosh system was about to be launched and the people working on the project were going at it round the clock even forgoing their Christmas break. Despite their hard work there were quite a few problems with the software which needed fixing before the computer could be launched (Hertzfeld, 1984). However the launch date was approaching and it seemed useless to continue working on problems for which there simply was not enough time. The team estimated that they needed a few weeks more to correct the issues and needed to inform Steve Jobs of the delay. After Steve had been told of all the problems connected with the launch he responded by saying: “No way! Theres no way we’re slipping! You guys have been working on this stuff for months now, another couple weeks isnt going to make that much of a difference. You may as well get it over with. Just make it as good as you can. You better get back to work! (Hertzfeld, 1984, Pg. 1).” By working harder and not sleeping for three days before the launch, the programmers eventually managed to launch the computer half an hour before the deadline. They stayed awake on coffee and chocolate covered espresso beans and after the launch they could only sit on sofas in the lobby to stare at each other in disbelief. Hertzfeld recalls, “We must have been quite a sight; everybody could tell that we had been there all night (actually, I hadnt been home or showered for three days). I finally drove home around 9am and collapsed on my bed, thinking that Id sleep for the next day or two (Hertzfeld, 1984, Pg. 1)”. Changes in the Company While the company was being run by previous CEOs like Scully, it had developed a leisurely atmosphere which was good for morale but it was hurting production and output. Deutschman (2000) describes the conditions before Steve’s return to the company and says that before Steve’s takeover, the campus had a very leisurely air about it. Employees loved to hang around smoking and talking in the courtyard to the extent that, “Some employees seemed to spend most of their time throwing Frisbees to their dogs on the lawns (Deutschman, 2000, Pg. 3).” Steve changed that for the better with new rules that prohibited smoking anywhere on Apple property. Dogs were banned from the campus and it looked like, “Steve were pushing his own lifestyle on 10,000 others (Deutschman, 2000, Pg. 3).” These steps made quite a few employees unhappy since smoking in the courtyard allowed individuals of different departments to interact with each other and people who worked nights and weekends for Apple had hardly any time left to be with their pets (Deutschman, 2000). Given the nature of the company it would seem that the decisions were wrong and could lead to disaster because such changes can affect individual psychological contracts quite negatively. While these steps appear to go against the norms of the company, with the aid of Steve’s leadership qualities, he was able to build a perception of trust with other employees. The company began turning itself around with record breaking profits, the sale figures and the brand value appreciated as Steve Jobs returned to Apple (Deutschman, 2000). From behaving like members of a civil service that did what it wanted without paying attention to short lived CEO’s at the top, the company became proactive and employees began to interact with the boss at the top on a deeper level as discussed by Deutschman (2000) who says: “People started to realize that Steve could assert his authority over seemingly any aspect of the companys life. Apple was going to follow the vision of a single person, from the no-smoking rules to the editing of the TV advertisements. Steve was clearly in charge, and Steve was seemingly everywhere (Deutschman, 2000, Pg. 3)”. A change in the perceptions of individuals certainly helped in making them more motivated towards following one person’s vision for the company and this was also experienced by Jack Welch at GE when he cajoled other managers of the company to come to terms with his dictates (Welch, 2005). Conclusion Clearly, individual personalities, perceptions about work and the attributes of a leader have a substantial impact on the motivation of employees. However, the methods of creating motivation can have positive and negative effects depending on how an employer seeks to create motivation and how individuals working for the company feel about the motivation being given to them. Despite these issues, a good leader who understand and follows established principles of motivating others can get the job done without too much trouble. Works Cited Boxall P. and Purcell J. 2003, Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave & Macmillan. Buchanan & Huczynski, 2001, Organizational Behaviour, FT/ Prentice Hall. Clarke, S. and Robertson, I. 2005, ‘A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings’, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, vol. 78, no. 3, p. 355-376. Deutschman, A. 2000, ‘The once and future Steve Jobs’, Salon.com, [Online] Available at: http://archive.salon.com/tech/books/2000/10/11/jobs_excerpt/index.html Erdogan, B. 2005, ‘Enhancing Career Benefits of Employee’s Proactive Personality’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 58, no. 4, p. 859-891. Grote, D. 2002, ‘Forced Ranking: Behind the Scenes’, Across the Boar, vol. 39, no. 6, pp, 40-46. Hertzfeld, A. 1984, ‘Real Artists Ship’, folklore.org, [Online] Available at: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Real_Artists_Ship.txt&topic=Management&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium Kerr, S. 1996, ‘Risky business: The new pay game’, Fortune, vol. 134, no. 2, p. 94-97. Lee, K. et. al. 2005, ‘Personality Correlates of Workplace Anti-Social Behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 54, no. 1, p. 81-98. Morris, B. and Colvin, G. 2006, ‘The GE Mystique’, Fortune, vol. 153, no. 4, p. 98-104. Rosenfeld, R. and Wilson, D. 1999, Managing Organisations, McGraw Hill Schmitt, J. 2001, ‘Welch has a lesson, even for small shops’, Contractor Magazine, vol. 48, no. 10, p. 16-17. Senior, B. 2002, Organisational Change, Pitman Publishing. Welch, J. 2005, Winning, HarperCollins. Read More