Key Aspects of Organisational Behavioral - Coursework Example

Organizational Behavioral Name: College: Course: Lecturer: Date: Introduction Motivation has been researched for numerous decades beyond the nineteenth century. Consequently, several theorists have accumulated their own findings resulting in a wide array of motivational theories. In the 1950’s, Frederick Herzberg identified a motivation theory that centers on the work and on the surrounding where tasks are accomplished. He researched different aspects connected to the work and their effect to worker motivation and found that they can be categorized into motivational factors and hygiene factors. These factors include safe and comfortable working conditions, job security, fair organization policies and adequate wages. Unlike other theories, Herzberg’s premise is uncomplicated to remember, easy to use and easy to explain (Waiguchu, 1999). However, Herzberg’s premise is considered to be simplistic because what motivates one employee may be a source of dissatisfaction for somebody else. To overcome this problem, this paper asserts that employees should be considered as an array of persons, not as a group which is homogenous with one set of needs and wants. Another theory which has been useful in explaining motivation is the expectancy theory. The expectancy premise of motivation which was created by Vroom has indeed become a commonly accepted premise of elaborating how employees make their decisions concerning different behavioral options. This paper evaluates the fundamental philosophy of this premise which is the need for instrumentality, expectancy and valence in order for the premise to function. It reveals both strength and weakness of the theory and asserts that although the premise provides an important insight into the research of motivation among employees, it is also too vague to be applied seriously as a human behavior model. Overview of Herzberg’s two-factor Theory Frederick Herzberg identified a motivation theory that centers on the work and on the surrounding where tasks are accomplished. Herzberg assumed that an employee’s relation to job is fundamental and that one’s approach to work can largely determine failure or success. According to Herzberg’s findings, varying sets of aspects were linked to two kinds of feeling concerning work. For example, a person who viewed low pay as a source of dissatisfaction would not essentially indicate high pay as a source of motivation and satisfaction. Rather, individuals linked entirely varying causes including achievement or recognition with motivation and satisfaction. Motivation factors including recognition and achievement were frequently cited by individuals as primary sources of motivation and satisfaction (Herzberg and Snyderman, 1959). When these factors are present in a job, they apparently cause motivation and satisfaction; when lacking, the outcome was feelings on no contentment. Herzberg researched different aspects connected to the work and their effect to worker motivation and found that they can be categorized into motivational factors and hygiene factors (Herzberg and Snyderman, 1959). Hygiene factors relate to work surrounding and not the work content. These factors include safe and comfortable working conditions, job security, fair organization policies and adequate wages. These factors do not essentially motivate workers to do extremely well, but their nonexistence may be a probable source of high turnover and dissatisfaction. Overview of Expectancy Theory Victor Vroom’s premise of motivation has been one of the broadly accepted elaborations of motivation. This theory stipulates that the potency of an anticipation that the action will be trailed by a specific result and on the magnetism of that result to a person. In other terms, expectancy premise asserts that workers are likely to be motivated to put a superior effort when they assume that effort will result to a superior performance appraisal; that a suitable appraisal will then result to organizational rewards including a promotion, a salary increment and a bonus; and that the incentives will gratify the worker’s personal objectives. Strength and Weakness of Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory Easy to Use Unlike some employee motivation premises, Herzberg’s premise is uncomplicated to remember, easy to use and easy to explain. By taking into account Herzberg’s tow-factor premise, a manager can realize what dissatisfies the workers, what inspires them and most significantly, what can be done to enhance job satisfaction. When the expectancy theory is evaluated more closely, the premise can elaborate why many employees are not psyched and only perform lowly just to get with their jobs (Waiguchu, 1999). Expectancy framework is very constructive for management because the structure assists them to comprehend better and react to individual workers’ points of view in the job situation. He can react by attempting to maximize instrumentalities, valences and expectations that promote attainment of organizational goals. In other terms, management should aim to establish a work surrounding within which job contributions serving the company’s requirements are also seen by subordinates as means toward highly advantageous rewards. Unlike most other premises, Hertzberg explicitly described how management could utilize his theory. He described and developed a tool known as job enrichment for arranging employee tasks. Suitable Framework for Managers The theory provides managers with framework for influencing employee’s expectations using three conditions. The management can influence the expectation of workers by choosing employees with the appropriate capabilities, train them on how to utilize these abilities, offer them right resources and make clear their performance objectives (Herzberg and Snyderman, 1959). Instrumentality may be shaped by clarifying responsibilities and expectations, conveying performance-results possibilities particular to a given condition, and by demonstrating that desired outcomes will be provided once exemplary performance is attained. Management in contemporary organizations can greatly influence valence by being appreciative and sensitive to the requirement of workers. Nevertheless, they need to comprehend personal needs and accordingly adjust the incentives to suit them. Limitations of Two-factor Theory Herzberg’s framework of motivation, like other premises, has been disparaged. Opponents of the theory are of the view that although the conclusions of this theory are applicable to employees who search for creativity in their duties, they are not applicable to other categories of workers. Most researchers have often concluded that the premise is solely method bound; that is, when Herzberg’s method of study is followed, the premise is supported, but when this premise is not followed, it totally fails (Ebrahim, 1991). Despite these shortcomings, Herzberg’s premise is quite useful as a general channel to comprehending motivation at work. The major weaknesses of the premise are the claims that money is by and large a maintenance aspect and that achievement and recognition are source of motivation. In fact, money can be a strong motivator when utilized as a reward for and recognition of achievement (Ebrahim, 1991). Absence of recognition might result to noticeable dissatisfaction when an employee is convinced that his performance which deserves recognition is not identified. In contemporary organizations, most of the hygiene factors identified in Herzberg’s two-factor premise do not exist. The physical working environments are outstanding, as are many of the managers and the eminence of supervision. Nevertheless, an opening for communication which is more open would result to reduced job satisfaction. Workers cannot relate to or comprehend how and where they fit into the company without open interaction with the management. This deficiency in communication can result to dissatisfaction and frustration. Additionally, without an appropriate channel of communication to articulate corporate financials as well as other non-specific details, it becomes increasingly hard for a worker to assess the organization’s well being and his role in ensuring the successfulness of the company. Herzberg’s premise is considered to be simplistic because what motivates one employee may be a source of dissatisfaction for somebody else. For instance, increased accountability for one individual may turn out to be a motivator as they can develop and grow in their duties, permitting them to advance their profession. But to another individual, increased accountability can be a source of discontent, especially if salary does not mirror the new responsibility or if they are already over-stretched. In order to overcome this problem, employees should be considered as an array of persons, not as a group which is homogenous with one set of needs and wants. Each individual should be questioned concerning their source of satisfaction and by the time the manager has worked through the team, a comprehensible idea on what needs to be done to improve job satisfaction will have been formulated. Some factors might be and might not be within manager’s control. For instance it may be impossible to influence organization holiday policy, but the manager can decide how holidays are shared within the panel. Therefore, a manager should use what can be changed while those factors which are unchangeable should be highlighted through the organization’s employee feedback program. Suggestions on How to Implement the Two Factor Theory In applying this theory in contemporary organizations, a two-phase process should be adopted. During the first phase, the management should attempt to eradicate factors that lead to dissatisfaction. For instance, suppose the management wishes to utilize the tow-factor theory to improve motivation in an array of several employees. The first objective would be to attain a condition of no discontent by dealing with hygienic factors. If for example, the management becomes aware that the pay being provided to the employees is far below that present market rate and those employees are concerned about job security. The management’s reaction should center on offering the employees a pay increment and alleviating fears concerning job security (Swinton, 2006). After the management is convinced that issues relating to hygiene have been properly dealt with, it should then search for openings to enhance advancement, growth, responsibility and recognition. In accomplishing this, the management is helping the employees to feel motivated and satisfied. The employees are likely to get motivated because they find these attributes intrinsically rewarding. Strengths and Weaknesses of Expectancy Theory Strength of Expectancy Theory For employees to be motivated, Vroom’s theory identifies three important conditions expectancy, instrumentality and valency. This implies that for any incentive structure to motivate workers, it should provide incentives which are greatly valued. The practical strength of this premise lies in the examples that can be deduced for the creation of incentive structures. Thus, it is important that incentive systems provide considerable incentive payments, utilize performance benchmarks which are under the control of employees and function in open manner, such that any change in employees’ behavior which results in superior performance results to higher rewards. Expectancy framework projects that the foremost query the worker in a particular situation will put across is if it is possible to attain the better performance target. The theory clarifies that the feedback to the expectancy query asked will rely heavily on the worker’s sense of proficiencies in relation to his capability and the nature of support accessible for attaining high performance. If the feedback is constructive, his interest will move to the results and instrumentality that may be linked to each level of performance (Hackman and Oldham, 1990). If better performance is attained by the employee, he is likely to earn promotion, but after laboring overtime. In sharp contrast, a typical performance will result to workers’ continuing with his current work but with additional time for leisure. Therefore, managers in contemporary organizations who are sufficiently conversant with their duties will most of the time put more effort to understand and identify multiple results from the subordinate’s or employee’s point of perception and then fine-tune the use of incentives accordingly. Practical Limitations Many workers perceive the relationship between rewards or outcomes and their work performance to be weak. The rationale behind this view is that companies reward other things besides work performance. For instance, when pay is provided to workers on the basis of other factors such as being cooperative, seniority or being an honest organizational citizen, workers are probable to view the relationship between reward and performance as being scrawny and their enthusiasm sub-optimal. On the whole, this premise provides an important insight into the research of motivation among employees by elaborating how personal goals shape individual performance (Iyer, 2009). Suggestion on How to Implement Expectancy Theory Most employees work hard in the expectation of securing a promotion but get a pay increment instead. The employee may also anticipate getting a challenging and interesting work but obtains only several words of praise, or the worker puts additional effort anticipating to be moved to another office or department but instead is relocated to another office which was not preferable. These instances demonstrate the significance of designing rewards to personal employee desires and needs (Hackman and Oldham, 1990). In contemporary organizations, managers are normally restricted in the incentives they can provide to their employees. This renders it harder to design rewards that suits individual needs. In some cases, management mistakenly believes that all workers expect the same reward. They ignore the motivational impacts of differentiating incentives. In either way, workers motivation is not maximized. Expectancy premise indicates that there is no universal way of explaining what motivates everyone (Iyer, 2009). Consequently, the style of leadership should be designed to the specific group or to the specific situation. An employee should be recognized with what she or he views as significant rather than what the management views. For instance, one employee may value promotion while another one may value salary increment. In applying this theory, managers should understand personal goals and the connection between rewards and performance, effort and performance and rewards versus satisfaction of individual goals. Managers should bear in mind that although appreciating the personal needs that a worker is wishing to satisfy is essential, the worker will not actually recognize that more effort can gratify those needs (Porter & Steers, 1991, p.31). Conclusion The expectancy theory and Herzberg’s dual-structure theory provides an important insight to factors behind employee’s motivation. The expectancy stresses that workers are likely to be motivated to put a superior effort when they assume that effort will result to a superior performance appraisal. Herzberg’s theory on the other hand emphasizes the importance of motivational factors and hygiene factors. Herzberg argues that the absence of various factors such as comfortable working conditions, job security, fair organization policies and adequate wages may be a probable source of high turnover and dissatisfaction. Despite the criticisms advanced against these theories, they provide a useful framework for comprehending motivation at work. References Ebrahim, M. (1991). Comparative study of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction among public and private sectors. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management/276838-1.html. Herzberg, F., and Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. John Wiley. New York. Hackman J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1990). Motivation through design of work Organizational behavior and human performance, 16 (1): 250–79. Iyer, A. (2009). Expectancy theory of motivation. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/expectancy-theory-of-motivation.html Porter, L.W. & Steers, R.M. (1991). Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Swinton, L. (2006). How to Motivate Your Team; Put Frederick Herzberg Theory Into Practice. Retrieved November 9, 2009 from http://www.mftrou.com/frederick-herzberg-theory.html Waiguchu, J. (1999). Management of Organizations in Africa: A Handbook and Reference. Westport: Quorum Books. Read More