Organizational Behavior - Case Study Example

Motivation Motivation is one of the most frequently researched topics in organizational behavior. In spite of the facts that manager’s continue to search for innovative ways to motivate their employees and that a significant proportion of today’s workers seem to be unmotivated, we actually know a great deal about how to improve employee motivation. We could define motivation as the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction and persistence of effort towards attaining a goal (Mitchell, 1997). In the last 50-60 years numbers of motivational theories have been developed. In these theories two very basic approaches have been considered. The first one is the Content approach and the second is the Process approach. The content approach mainly focuses on the very basic needs of the human being. Individuals as an employee are motivated through the fulfillment of their desires & needs, whereas the Process theory is based on the fact that why people behave in a certain way to achieve their personal goals. Process theories focuses on the impact of external influences on the behavior of the people and how they choose to meet their needs. Content theories of motivation generally consists of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Alderfer’s ERG, McClelland’s learned needs, Herzberg two factor theory and McGregor’s theory of X and Y, whereas process theory mainly consists Vroom’s expectancy theory, equity theory & reinforcement theory. Content theories, which has been developed on the basis of person’s need, heavily attached and now questionable in terms of validity, are probably still the best known explanations for employee motivation. These theories must be studied for at least two reasons: They represent a foundation from which contemporary theories have grown, and Practicing managers still regularly use these theories and their terminology in explaining employee motivation. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory based on five needs, first two lower needs and later three upper needs (Physiological, Safety, Social, Esteem & Self Actualization) has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. This can be attributed to the theory’s intuitive logic and ease of understanding. Unfortunately, however research does not validate the theory. Maslow provided no empirical substantiation and several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support to it (Rauschenberger, Schmitt & Hunter, 1980). Old theories especially ones that are intuitively logical, apparently die hard. Although the need hierarchy theory and its terminology have remained popular with practicing managers, it has minimal empirical support for its prediction (Korman, Greenhaus & Badin, 1977). McGregor proposed two distinct views labeled as Theory X (negative) and Theory Y (positive). The answer is best expressed in the framework presented by Maslow. Theory X assumes that lower level/order needs dominate individuals. Theory Y assumes that higher order needs dominate individuals. McGregor himself held to the belief that theory Y assumptions were more valid than theory X. Therefore he proposed such ideas as participative decision making, responsible and challenging jobs, and group relations as approaches that would maximize an employee’s job motivation. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to confirm that either set of assumptions is valid or that accepting theory Y assumptions and altering one’s actions accordingly will lead to more motivated workers. The two factor theory (sometimes also called motivation-hygiene theory) was proposed by psychologist Frederick Hertzberg. According to Hertzberg, the factors leading to job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Therefore, managers who seek to eliminate factors that can create job dissatisfaction may bring about peace but not necessarily motivation. They will be placating their workforce rather than motivating them. As a result conditions surrounding the jobs such as quality of supervision, pay, company policies, physical working conditions, relation with others and job security is characterized by Hertzberg as hygiene factors. When they are adequate, people will not be dissatisfied; neither will they be satisfied. If we want to motivate people on their jobs, Hertzberg suggested emphasizing factors associated with the work itself or to outcomes directly derived from it, such as promotional opportunities, opportunities for personal growth, recognition, responsibility and achievement. The two factor theory is not without detractors (Phillipchuk & Whittaker. 1996). The criticisms of the theory include the following: The procedure that Hertzberg used is limited by its methodology. The reliability of Hertzberg methodology is questioned. No overall measure of satisfaction was utilized. A person may dislike part of his or her job yet still think the job is acceptable. This theory ignores situational variables. Regardless of criticisms, Hertzberg’s theory has been widely read and vertically expanding jobs to allow workers greater responsibility in planning and controlling their work can probably be attributed largely to Hertzberg’s findings and recommendations. In the later years, Alderfer has reworked Maslow’s need hierarchy to align more closely to empirical research. It is revised need hierarchy is labeled ERG theory (Alderfer, 1969). Alderfer argues that there are three groups of core needs- existence, relatedness & growth. The existence group is concerned with providing basic requirement, which Maslow considered to be physiological and safety needs whereas relatedness considered Maslow’s social needs and the external component of esteem classification. Finally Alderfer isolates growth need includes the intrinsic component from Maslow’s esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization. Here ERG theory has been thought as improved version of Maslow’s theory. Though Maslow’s theory has rigid, step like progression but ERG theory does not assume that there exists a rigid hierarchy in which a lower need must be substantially gratified before one can move on. ERG theory also contains a frustration regression dimension. ERG theory is more consistent with our knowledge of individual differences among people. Several studies have supported ERG theory but there is evidence that it doesn’t work in some organization (Wanous & Zwany, 1977). One of the important theories of needs has been developed by David McClelland. The theory focuses on three basic needs: achievement, power and affiliation. From research into the achievement need, McClelland found that high achievers differentiate themselves from others by their desires to do things better (McClelland, 1961). The need for power is the desire to impact, to be influential and to control others. The third need for affiliation received least attention from researchers. Individuals with high need to prefer job situations with personal responsibility, feedback and an intermediate degree of risk when these characteristics are prevalent, high achiever will be strongly motivated. A high need to achieve does not necessarily lead to being a good manager, especially in large organizations. People with high achievement need are interested in how will they do personally and not in influencing others to do well. The need for affiliation and power tend to be closely related to managerial success. The best managers are high in their needs for power and low in their need for affiliation (winter, 2002). In fact, a high power motive may be a requirement for managerial effectiveness. Of course, what the cause is and what the effect is are arguable. It has been suggested that a high power need may occur simply as a function of one’s level in a hierarchical organization. The latter argument proposes that the higher the level an individual rises to in the organization, the greater is the incumbents’ power motive. As a result, powerful positions would be the stimulus to a high power motive. In the mean time, different other theories of motivation have been developed based on the explanation for why people behave in a certain way to motivate. Process theory includes various theories like expectancy, equity and reinforcement theory. All these theories basically emphasize on certain type of behaviors a person do to achieve certain goals. In the process of study about motivation, it has been found that intrinsic rewards like all the content theories provided may not motivate the employees but it has been argued that when extrinsic rewards are used by organizations as payoffs for superior performance, enhances the motivation. It has been a long debate that when organizations use extrinsic motivators like pay & promotions to stimulate worker’s performance, they do so at the expense of reducing intrinsic interest and motivation in the work being done. Further, research is needed to clarify some of the ambiguity; the evidence does lead us to conclude that the interdependence of intrinsic and extrinsic reward is a real phenomenon. But as the behaviorist approach to motivation, the reinforcement theory has come into existence which argues that reinforcement conditions behavior. Reinforcement theorists see behavior as being environmentally caused. They argue that what controls behavior are reinforcers. But the reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens to a person when he or she takes some action. Because it does not concern itself with what initiates behavior. It is not strictly speaking, a theory of motivation. In its pure form, however reinforcement theory ignores feeling, attitudes, expectations and other cognitive variables that are known to impact behavior. Reinforcement is undoubtedly an important influence on behavior, but few scholars are prepared to argue that it is the only influence. One of the major motivation theorists Jane Pearson propounded the equity theory. The theory indicates that the referent chosen is an important variable in equity theory. Employees mighty compare themselves to friends, neighbors, co-workers or colleagues in other organizations or compare with present job with past jobs. Which referent an employee chooses will be influenced by the information the employee holds about referents as well as by the attractiveness of the referent. This has led to focusing on four moderating variables- gender, length of tenure, level in the organization and the amount of education or professionalism (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). It’s important to note that while most research on equity theory has focused on pay, employees seem to look for equity in the distribution of other organizational rewards. Recent research has been directed at expanding what is meant by equity or fairness (Coloquitt et al, 2001). Historically, equity theory focused on distributive justice or the perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among individuals. But equity should also consider procedural justice- the perceived fairness of the process used to determine the distribution of rewards. The evidence indicates that distributive justice has a greater influence on employee satisfaction than procedural justice, while procedural justice tends to affect an employees or organizational commitment, trust in his or her boss, and intention to quit (Konovsky, 2000) apart from distribution justice, employees perception of fair treatment is that they will be more satisfied and reciprocated by volunteering for extra job activities. So in conclusion, equity theory demonstrates that, for most employers, motivations are influenced significantly by relative rewards as well as by absolute rewards but some key issues are still unclear. For instance, how do employers handle conflicting equity signals, such as when unions point to other employee groups who are subsequently better off, while management argues how much things have improved? How do employees define inputs and outcomes? How do they combine and weigh their inputs and outcomes to arrive at totals? When and how do the facts change over time? Yet regardless of these problems equity theory continues to offer us some important insights into employee motivation. Currently one of the most widely accepted explanation of motivation is Vroom’s expectancy theory. Although it has critics, most of the evidence is supportive of the theory. It argues that the strength of the tendency to act in certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will followed by a given outcome and on the attractive ness of that outcomes to the individual. Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers are not motivated on their jobs and do only the minimum necessary to get by. The key of expectancy theory is the understanding of individuals goals and linkages between effort and performance, between performance and rewards and finally between rewards and individual goal satisfaction. As a contingency model, expectancy theory recognizes that there is no universal principle for explaining everyone’s motivation. Does expectancy theory works? Attempts to validate the theory have been complicated by methodological, criterion, and measurement problems. Some critics suggest that the theory has only limited use, arguing that it tends to be more valid for predicting in situations in which effort-performance and performance- reward linkages are clearly perceived by the individual. Because some individuals perceive a high correlation between performance and rewards in their jobs, the theory tends to be idealistic. However, rather than invalidating expectancy theory, criticism can be used in support of the theory, because it explains why a significant segment of the workforce exerts low levels of effort in carrying out job responsibilities. So it has been evident from the above discussion that no motivation theory could fully explain the theory of motivation. Many organizations today finds that flexibility in job design and reward has resulted in employees increased longevity with the company, increased productivity and better morale. According to extensive research, motivation includes a variety of tactics designed to address the issues of emotion, support, capability and alignment that results in increasing performance. To achieve an organizational goal and to motivate persons / employees, one must do the expansion of a job horizontally which is called job enlargement. Representative participation basically redistributes power within the organization, putting labor on a more equal footing with the interests of management and stockholders. This also motivate employee to achieve organization goals. Quality circles are small groups of employees work to address quality control, cost reduction, production planning etc. References: 1. Alderfer, C. P. 1969, An empirical test of a new theory of human needs, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, May, Pp. 142-175. 2. Coloquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C.O.I.H. and Ng, K.Y. 2001, Justice at millennium: A meta-analytic review of the 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal of Applied Psychology, June pp. 425-445. 3. Konovsky, M. A. 2000, Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No.3, pp. 489-511. 4. Korman, A. K. Greenhaus, J. H. & Badin, I. J. 1977, Personal attitude and motivation in M. R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter (eds.) Annual review of psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Annual reviews, Pp. 178-179. 5. Kulik, C.T. & Ambrose, M. L. 1992, Personal and situational determinants of referent choice, Academy of Management Review, April pp.212-237. 6. Mcclelland, D.C., 1961, The achieving Society, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 7. Mitchell, T. R. 1997, Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts, in L. L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds.) Research in organizational behaviour, Vol.19, Greenwich, CT: JAI press, Pp.60-62. 8. Phillipchuk, J. & Whittaker, J, 1996, An inquiry into the continuing relevance of Hertzberg’s motivation theory, Engineering Management Journal, Vol.8, Pp. 15-20. 9. Rauschenberger, J., Schmitt, N. & Hunter, J. E. 1980, A test of the need hierarchy concept by Markov model of changes in need, strength, Administrative Science Quarterly, December Pp. 654-670. 10. Wanous, J. P. & Zwany, A. 1977, A cross sectional test of need hierarchy theory, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, May, Pp. 78097. 11. Winter, D. G. The motivational dimensions of leadership: Power, achievement and affiliation in R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy and F. J. Pirozzolo (eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 2002, Pp. 119-138. Bibliography: 1. Huczynski, Andrzej and Buchanan, David, 2007, Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, 6/E, Pearson education. 2. Robbins, S.P., 2003, Organizational behaviour, 10th edition, Pearson Education Inc. Read More