Conclusion, advantages of employee motivation and recommendations

Salah (2016) establishes that modern organisational success or failure is dictated by the quality of it’s employees with researchers such as Ramlall (2008) arguing that organisations depend on employee creativity, innovation, and commitment for success. According to Asim (2013), there are clear indications that increased levels of motivation among employees results in increased levels of performance with scholars such as Vance (2006) declaring that motivated employees are more engaged in their duties, more committed to their organisations while being a definite source of competitive advantage to these organisations.

Furthermore, Varma (2017) states that it has become essential for organisations to have motivated employees and establishes that having such motivated employees will help an organisation secure strategically important advantages such as:

• Groups/teams taking a more cohesive and focused direction
• Greater effectiveness and efficiency across the organisation
• Intensified organizational commitment at all levels
• Optimal utilization of resources with minimal waste
• A performance-oriented environment driven by creativity and innovation
• Confidence to overcome uncertain business challenges
• Employee retention and loyalty
• Becoming more attractive to high-potential job seekers

Considering the above, the importance of employee motivation for the success of today’s companies can be well defined. Furthermore, Varma (2017) points out that motivated and satisfied employees will be more committed towards organisational objectives and alternatively, it is vital that the organisation also shows parallel commitment towards meeting employees’ objectives. On these lines, celebrated management guru Peter Drucker (2002) states, more than it was fifty years ago, it is more relevant and essential today that companies pay attention to the health and wellbeing of its employees and look after them.

Concerning the motivation of employees, Akinwunmi et al., (2018) argues that it can be practically impossible to find a perfect solution that will enhance both job satisfaction and performance continuously and states that to stimulate better performance, motivational factors must be considered a vital part of organisational growth and sustainability, given high priority and applied systematically. They go on to state that such factors include, and are not limited to, satisfactory remuneration, better training, effective & unhindered communication, promotions & recognition, and safe working conditions among others.

It is also interesting to note that in the latter part of the 2000s, researchers Nohria et al., (2008) published a new model, which proposes that employee motivation is influenced by a complex system of managerial and organizational factors and established that the following four primordial drivers are hardwired into the human brain, which dictate emotions and behaviours according to the level of satisfaction of these drivers:

• The drive to acquire – obtaining requirements for one’s benefit and wellbeing
• The drive to bond – attachment to and relationships with others
• The drive to comprehend – understanding and making sense of things
• The drive to defend – protecting oneself and what is important to them

These four drivers, which motivates employees, can be used as primary levers and the below table matches specific drives with their corresponding lever and lays out specific actions an organisation can take to maximize motivation.

Table 1.0: Four Drives Model - How to Fulfill the Drives That Motivate Employees 

(Source: Nohria et al., 2008)

References

• Akinwunmi, A., Ajewole, O. & Ogbeifun, I., (2018). Motivation and Employees Performance among Health Workers in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 10(6), p.80.

• Asim, M. (2013). Impact of Motivation on Employee Performance with Effect of Training: Specific to Education Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(9), p.9.

• Drucker, P., (2002). They're not employees, they're people. Harvard Business Review, 80(2), 70-7.

• Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. & Lee, L., (2008). Employee motivation. Harvard business review, 86(7/8), pp.78-84.

• Ramlall, S. (2008). Enhancing Employee Performance Through Positive Organizational Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), p.1582.

• Salah, M. (2016). The Impact of Training and Development on Employees Performance and Productivity - A case Study of Jordanian Private Sector transportation companies located in the Southern region of Jordan. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 5, p.36.

• Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee Engagement and Commitment - A guide to understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization. SHRM Foundation, 1, p.1.

• Varma, C. (2017). Importance of employee motivation & job satisfaction for organizational performance. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 6(2), pp.10-20.

The Motivation Theories: Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

Motivation remains a subject that is extensively researched and the middle of the twentieth century witnessed the advent of some of the most important and influential theories on the subject of motivation being proposed, covering both general and employee. Victor Vroom, along with other eminent academics such as Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg, became famous for his extensive work in to the topic of motivation (Ndirtagu, 2013).

A business school professor at the Yale School of Management, Victor Vroom is an American scholar who is best known for his most celebrated work – Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. Vroom (1964) makes a straightforward definition of the theory as a model that is concerned with how employees choose from different behaviours and levels of effort. Furthermore, he goes on to state and that personality, skills, knowledge, experience, and abilities are the individual factors that determine an employee’s performance and that while some employees give emphasis for intrinsic rewards, other do so for extrinsic awards.

Ugah (2008) refers to the theory and explains that Vroom declares that employees are motivated to choose between various behaviours and that behaviour to work harder will happen only if they believe their efforts will be rewarded. He further states that Choice, Expectancy, and Preference are the variables in the expectancy theory and goes to explain that the freedom to select one from many behaviours is Choice while Expectancy is the belief that certain behaviours will give desired results. Preference are the values an employee will assign to the different results.

Suciu et al., (2013) explains Vroom’s Expectancy Theory takes an effort to establish that motivated behavior is goal oriented and that individuals will always prefer actions that will result in the highest subjective rewards for themselves. They further state that on this basis, behaviour could be utilized for predicted and specific objectives.

George & Jones (2012) argues that the expectancy theory has two ends. On one end it proposes that, irrespective of the results that are obtainable, employees will not be motivated to put in any effort to contribute to the organization unless they believe it will result in reaching a given level of performance. In other words, the motivation to perform at a specific level will be absent if employees end up thinking that, even with maximum effort, they are not able to reach the said level. On the other end, they explain, the theory stresses that employees will be motivated to perform at a given level only if performing at that level will give them the desired results – such as a salary, job security, a feeling of achievement to name a few. They go on to establish that, according to the theory, employees will be motivated to take effort and contribute to the job only if both the above-mentioned ends are in their favour.

In addition they explain, as per the theory, if managers want to motivate employees to perform at a certain level, they must first ensure the employees themselves believe they can achieve the said level of performance. Thereafter, managers must ensure the employees believe they will receive, and actually do receive, the desired rewards once they achieve the mentioned level. Given its efficacy and profound practicality, expectancy theory is one of the most sought-after theories of workplace motivation. By shedding light on how employees decide on their choices, the theory gives managers valuable insights on motivating employees to make greater contributions via organizationally beneficial behaviors.

References

·         George, J. M. & Jones, G. R., (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior, 6^th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp.163-4.

 ·         Ndirtagu, G., (2013). Employee Motivation and Performance as a Catalyst for Organizational Growth. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(7), p.41.

 ·         Suciu, L.E., Mortan, M. & Lazăr, L., (2013). Vroom's expectancy theory. An empirical study: Civil servant's performance appraisal influencing expectancy. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 9(39), pp.180-200.

 ·         Ugah, A. D., (2008). Motivation and Productivity in the Library. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal).195. [online] Available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/195. Accessed on 12^th December 2022

 ·         Vroom, V.H., (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

The Motivation Theories: Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory

A need is a requirement for survival and well-being (George & Jones, 2012). With numerous studies having been carried out on the subject of motivation through the years, scholars have established that employees’ desires to satisfy certain needs are the drivers that motivate them to increase their work performance (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002).

In 1959, Frederick Herzberg, an American psychologist who went on to become one of the most influential names in business management, published the Herzberg two-factor theory. At the time, the theory became a highly controversial and debated topic which ultimately went onto become the foundation for numerous other theories in the field of human resources development. Also known as Motivation-hygiene theory and Herzberg’s dual-factor theory, Herzberg in his best-known work establishes that motivation factors and hygiene factors are the two key elements which dictate the level of job satisfaction in employees (Stello, 2011).

On the inner workings of the two-factor theory, Sandhya & Kumar (2011) explains that Herzberg believed that certain factors called motivators should be introduced by companies which will directly motivate employees to work better. He stated that hygiene factors are the ones that dictate how interesting the work is and the amount of responsibilities, recognitions and promotions an employee is given. Motivation factors are factors that are not directly attached to the job or the work itself and include things such as pay, safe working conditions, job security, and relations with others at the workplace. Herzberg went on to say that hygiene factors are the most important motivators as they are directly linked to the job while motivation factors will only make an employee do what he or she is supposed to do and not go above and beyond the call of duty. 

On the other hand, Alshmemri et al., (2017) explains that when the two sets are compared, motivation factors are considered to be more important to job satisfaction than hygiene factors. This is due to hygiene factors being associated with the need to avoid unpleasantness and motivation factors being associated with the need for self-growth and self-actualization.

Figure 1.0: Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory

(Source: Balogh, 2015)

Hansen et al., (2002) clearly distinguishes between the two elements and explains that hygiene factors, also called dissatisfiers, only decrease job satisfaction or create job dissatisfaction as opposed to motivator factors which only increases job satisfaction. They go on to explain that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not extreme ends of the same spectrum but two separate states where the opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction and the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction.

Marchington & Wilkinson (2005) echoes Herzberg’s sentiment and states that employees are motivated by their own persistent needs to achieve something tangible at some demanding task and not higher wages, benefits or status symbols. They state that, according to Herzberg, the best way to motivate employees is by giving them the necessary opportunities to accomplish their tasks, rather than motivating them directly to work harder.

Similarly, Ramlall (2004) states that one of Herzberg’s leading arguments was that, for an employee to be truly motivated, a job has to be enriched to a point where the employee can experience achievement, recognition, stimulation, responsibility and advancement. Ramlall goes on to say it was Herzberg’s observation that for an employee to be motivated, he or she must feel personally responsible for the results that came from the job. In addition, the employee must also feel that the work they are doing is truly meaningful and worthwhile and this will have them working harder to achieve their own personal goals in addition to the goals of the organisation.

Sandhya & Kumar (2011) further explains Herzberg believed that by assuming a democratic management approach and by refining the content of the actual job via certain methods is the best way organisations can motivate its employees. Some of these methods include: Job Enlargement, which is being given a variety of tasks that may not be more challenging but will make the work more interesting, Job Enrichment, which basically gives employees a wider range of more complex, interesting and challenging tasks, as well as Job Empowerment where more power is given to employees to make their own career decisions.

References

• Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L. & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life Science Journal, 14(5), pp.12-6.

• Balogh, Laszlo. (2015). Sport - Culture - Sports Culture.

• George, J. M. & Jones, G. R., (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior, 6^th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p.161.

• Hansen, F., Smith, M. & Hansen, R.B. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34(5), p.66.

• Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2005). Human resource management at work: people management and development. Springer Company, Inc.

• Ramlall, S. (2004). A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and Their Implications for Employee Retention within Organizations. Journal of American Academy of Business: 52-63.

•  Sandhya, K. & Kumar, D.P. (2011). Employee retention by motivation. Indian Journal of science and technology, 4(12), pp.1778-82.

•  Stello, C.M., (2011). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction: An integrative literature review. In Unpublished paper presented at the 2011 student research conference: Exploring opportunities in research, policy, and practice, University of Minnesota Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy and Development, Minneapolis, MN.

The Motivation Theories: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

A need can be defined as a requirement for an individual’s survival and well-being (George & Jones, 2012) and as they offer a simple and straightforward interpretation of the subject, most of the research done on motivation have been based on Need Theories of motivation (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002).

One of the most renowned and widely referred to need-based theories of motivation is the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In his most celebrated piece of work, American psychologist Abraham Maslow in 1943 proposed that human beings have five types of needs they strive to fulfill, which are physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness needs, esteem needs and self-actualization needs and that the drive to satisfy these needs is the motivation.

Figure 1.0: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

(Source: Harrigan & Commons, 2015)

Maslow depicted the theory in the form of a pyramid with 5 levels (Sandhya & Kumar, 2011). These levels were organized in a hierarchical fashion according to importance with the most basic, powerful needs, physiological and safety needs, at the base of the pyramid. Accordingly, the needs that are not yet satisfied act as key motivators while the needs at the bottom levels of the pyramid are said to take priority over the ones at the upper levels (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976)

Elaborating further, Sandhya & Kumar (2011) states that the most critical needs for an individual to survive, such as breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping and procreating, all fall in to the category of physiological needs and that if these needs are not satisfied, it usually leads to a reduction of focus on the work. Safety needs occupy the next level of the pyramid and includes safety & security, health & physical wellbeing, family, financial security, employment and ownership of assets and it is only upon the satisfaction of the physiological needs one will consider and work towards fulfilling their safety needs.

They go on to explain that belongingness needs are at the next level and involves the need for family, love, intimacy, friends, and an overall sense of acceptance and belonging. In this backdrop, the importance of not allowing employees feel alienated at the workplace comes in to consideration and companies should have mechanisms in place to help ensure employees feel accepted and a part of a larger group. This will help decrease anxiety, insecurity, stress, and other negative factors and ultimately help increase employee performance.

Esteem needs are at the next level and they establish these needs stem from the need for recognition and results in feelings of prestige and status. When employees reach this level, they experience a sense of fulfillment and confidence and their sense of importance increases along with the sense of achievement. Alternatively, when these levels are not reached, employees tend to feel inferior and discouraged, which will ultimately impact their performance.

Self-actualization needs, they explain, are the highest level of needs and occupy the top of the pyramid. These needs relate to the growth and self-actualization needs of an employee, having achieved the full potential of their personal life and career. Employees want to attain the highest possible level in their job and Maslow argued that these needs have a profound effect on their motivation. In addition, Maslow went on to add another two levels to the pyramid in 1970 - Aesthetic needs and Cognitive needs. The former highlights the individual’s need to create and experience beauty while the latter focuses on the need to gain knowledge and understanding.

According to George & Jones (2012), only one level of needs motivates behaviour at a given time as it is not possible to bypass a level and go to the next one. Once an employee satisfies one level of needs, they will want to satisfy the next level and this becomes the focus of motivation. Maslow also argued that once a need is fulfilled, it ceases to be a source of motivation. Employees have different needs they try to satisfy and something that motives one employee might not motivate another. Organisations can employ the hierarchy to understand what motivates employees by recognizing the needs that drive their motivation. Table 1.0 below describes how an organisation can help meet or satisfy these needs accordingly, which will improve employee motivation and ultimately help the organisation achieve its goals and gain competitive advantage.

Table 1.0: How the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are met or satisfied in an organisation.

(Source: George & Jones, 2012)

References

• Arnolds, C.A. & Boshoff, C. (2002) Compensation, esteem valence and job performance: an empirical assessment of Alderfer's ERG theory. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(4), pp.697-719.

• Campbell, J.P. & Pritchard, R.D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1(63), p.V130.

• George, J. M. & Jones, G. R., (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior, 6^th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp.161-2.

• Harrigan, W. & Commons, M. (2015). Replacing Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy With an Account Based on Stage and Value. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 20, p.24-31.

• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp.370-96.

• Sandhya, K. & Kumar, D.P. (2011). Employee retention by motivation. Indian Journal of science and technology, 4(12), pp.1778-82.

 

The types of motivation - Extrinsic motivation

The emphasis on employee motivation has grown exponentially in the recent past with researchers establishing that motivated employees are more engaged in their work and are more committed to their organizations (Vance, 2006). When researchers such as Ryan & Deci (2000) established that employee motivation takes the general form of Intrinsic motivation and Extrinsic motivation, they went on to argue that the performance of an employee who is intrinsically motivated is different to one that is extrinsically motivated. More recently, researches such as George & Jones (2012) claimed that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are not contradictory since an employee can be both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated at the same time.

The most elementary differences between the two general forms of motivation is that intrinsic motivation refers to doing something purely because that activity is fundamentally enjoyable, interesting and pleasurable. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation refers to doing an activity because it results in a distinguishable outcome (DeCenzo et al., 2016). On the same lines, Ryan & Deci (2000) goes on to establish that doing something because it leads to a separable outcome can be referred to as extrinsic motivation while Giancola (2014) argues that extrinsic motivation is linked to external results of carrying out a task, such as financial rewards and incentives, rather than the pleasure or satisfaction one gets from performing the task.

Despite the cruciality and the importance of intrinsic motivation, is should be noted that most activities individuals engage in are not essentially intrinsically motivated. As the freedom to be intrinsically motivated declines after childhood due to social and other demands, individuals focus on roles that are more extrinsically motivated. This is evident in schools where it appears that the levels of intrinsic motivation in students decline with each advancing grade (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

For an example, if a student forces himself to submit an assignment before the deadline only because he can then avoid the penalty that is brought about by not doing so, can be considered as extrinsically motivated since he is submitting the assignment on time to gain the consequence of avoiding the penalty. Alternatively, if an employee puts in extra hours at work everyday and never calls in sick in an effort to please his superiors and ensure a raise or a promotion, can also be considered as extrinsically motivated since he does this purely to achieve the distinguishable outcome of getting a raise or a promotion and not to gain pleasure or satisfaction doing it. 

In a nutshell, we must keep in mind that employees can be either intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated or even parallelly both. Employees who are intrinsically motivated tend to value challenges at work, making contributions to important decisions at the workplace and realizing their full potential at their jobs while extrinsically motivated employees tend to value things like earning a good salary, getting promoted and having a high status in society. In this context we must bear in mind that a workplace consists of both these types of employees and motivating them effectively according to their orientation falls on the organisation and its management (George & Jones, 2012).

In the next post we take a closer look at the theories of motivation.

References 

• DeCenzo, D.A., Robbins, S.P. & Verhulst, S.L. (2016) Fundamentals of human resource management. John Wiley & Sons.

• George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2012) Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviour, 6th ed, Reading, MA: Prentice Hall, pp.159-60.

• Giancola, F. L. (2014) Should HR Professionals Devote More Time to Intrinsic Rewards? Compensation & Benefits Review, 46(1), pp.25-31.

• Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), Academic Press, pp.54-67. 

• Vance, R. J. (2006) Employee Engagement and Commitment - A guide to understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization. SHRM Foundation, 1, p.1. 

The types of Motivation - Intrinsic motivation

Through the years many renowned scholars have done numerous studies on the topic of Employee Motivation. Frederick Herzberg (1959) was one such academic who gave an overall definition to employee motivation as an individual performing some form of work-related action voluntarily, rather than being coerced to do so. 

Later on, researchers such as Ryan & Deci (2000) carried out further studies in to the subject and established that there are two general types of motivation - Intrinsic motivation and Extrinsic motivation and went on to argue that the type of motivation at work has a direct correlation to the underlying attitudes and objectives of the motivated individual. Furthermore, they concluded that the quality of performance when an employee is intrinsically motivated as opposed to being extrinsically motivated can differ from one another while George & Jones (2012) established that an employee can be intrinsically as well as extrinsically motivated at the same time.

Intrinsic motivation 

Ryan & Deci (2000) defines intrinsic motivation as carrying out a task for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence and points out that an intrinsically motivated person is driven to do a specific task for the fun of it and/or the challenge it poses, rather than for external pressures, coercions, or possible rewards. 

They go on to say that intrinsic motivation in children takes the form of learning, undertaking challenges and solving problems while in adults it takes the form of spending time and doing things like drawing, gardening, writing poetry, playing sports, mountaineering, and other things which does not give any tangible form of rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In addition, they establish that employees are intrinsically motivated to carry out some activities while they are not motivated to do others and also adds that observations have been made which indicate that not everyone is motivated by the same activities (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

In view of the workplace and employees, DeCenzo et al., (2010) explains that intrinsic rewards are the personal satisfactions that an individual receives from doing the task/job. Further, they go on to explain that these are all self-initiated rewards such as taking pride in one’s work, a feeling of accomplishment, or enjoying being a part of a team. On the same lines, Amabile (1993), argues that an individual is considered intrinsically motivated when he or she looks for enjoyment, interest, satisfaction, or personal challenge in the work they do.

Other researchers have gone on to establish that behaviours, which can lead to strategic differentiation and are of great value to an organisation, such as being innovative, committed, adaptable and enterprising, are initiated by intrinsic motivation (Hansen et al., 2002). Furthermore, scientific research done through the years shows that intrinsic motivation is a powerful driver of learning and positive development (Larson & Rusk, 2011).

References 

• Amabile, T.M. (1993) Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human resource management review, 3(3), pp.185-201.

• DeCenzo, D.A., Robbins, S.P. & Verhulst, S.L. (2010) Fundamentals of human resource management, 10th ed, John Wiley & Sons, p.262.

• Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985) Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior, Boston, MA: Springer, pp.11-40.

• George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2012) Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviour, 6th ed, Reading, MA: Prentice Hall, p.159.

• Hansen, F., Smith, M. & Hansen, R.B. (2002) Rewards and recognition in employee motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34(5), pp.64-72.

• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959) The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

• Larson, R.W. & Rusk, N. (2011) Intrinsic motivation and positive development. Advances in child development and behavior, 41, pp.89-130.

• Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), Academic Press, pp.54-67.

What is Employee Motivation? The Definitions:

Employees are the greatest asset of an organisation and modern companies have become dependent on employee performance for their success (Siddiqui, 2014). On the other hand, in spite of its importance, employee performance too is an element that is dependent on several critical factors and one such critical factor is Motivation. 

Derived from the Latin word “movere”, which essentially translates to “move” or “to set in motion”, Motivation is a subject that has seen extensive study by many prominent researchers through the years, which ultimately has led to various definitions, explanations and theories emerging on the topic.

A renowned scholar who did a significant amount of work on the field of motivation was Frederick Herzberg (1959) who defined employee motivation as performing a work-related action because the individual wants to do so. Further, Kreitner (1995) explained that motivation is the psychological process that gives behavior, purpose and direction.

According to Siddiqui (2014), employee motivation can be defined as a person’s intrinsic willingness to archive any particular goal or task. He goes on to say that people with higher levels of motivation tend to have a higher desire and energy to achieve goals. Sandhu et al., (2017) states that motivation is the set of psychological processes of an individual which causes arousal, direction and the determination to attain a goal.

Other definitions argue that motivation is an internal drive to satisfy one’s needs that are not yet satisfied (Higgins, 1994), a set of psychological forces that is created within a person that initiates and drives work-related actions and determines their form, direction, strength and duration (Pinder, 2008) and the internal and external forces that arouse enthusiasm and persistence in an individual to pursue a certain course of action (Daft, 2003).

Richard L. Daft (2003) further goes on to explain that humans have basic needs such as food, security and the need for achievement and that these needs are translated into an internal drive which provokes the person to perform specific actions that will result in these needs being met. He goes on to say that the gratification the individual gets from carrying out the actions that produced the desired results are considered to be the reward and establishes that such rewards can be categorized as Intrinsic rewards and Extrinsic rewards.

In a similar view suggested by Ryan & Deci (2000), people are said to have not only different levels of motivation but also different types of motivation and highlights Intrinsic motivation and Extrinsic motivation as these types. Furthermore, they go on to suggest that the underlying attitudes and objectives of an individual that triggers the initial subject action/s, has a direct correlation to the type of motivation that is at work.

On the next post, we take a closer look at the types of motivation and what they mean.

References

• Daft, R. L. (2003) Management, 5^th ed. Thomson Learning.

• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

• Higgins, J. M. (1994) The management challenge, 2^nd ed. New York: Macmillan.

• Kreitner, R. (1995). Management, 6^th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

• Pinder C. C. (2008) Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, 2^nd ed. New York: Psychology Press.

• Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), pp.54-60.

• Sandhu, M. A., Iqbal, J., Ali, W., Tufail, M. S., (2017) Effect of Employee Motivation on Employee Performance. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 3 (1), p.85.

• Siddiqui, M. (2014) Success of an Organization is a Result of Employees Performance. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(4), pp.184,193-4

Introduction

An organisation’s human resources, in other words it’s Employees, are its lifeblood. However much innovative, committed and forward-thinking an organisation is, it will be of no use if there are no people to run it and take the company forward. According to Siddiqui (2014), an organisation’s employees are its true asset that can be a very strong source of unbeatable competitive advantage while Das & Baruah (2013) goes on to say that an organisation’s workforce is it’s most vital and dynamic resource.

“Whether it is called “people,” “labor,” “intellectual capital,” “human capital,” “human resources,” “talent,” or some other term, the resource that lies within employees and how they are organized is increasingly recognized as critical to strategic success and competitive advantage.” (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007, p. 04)

With the above in place, it is safe to assume that a company’s greatest asset is its employees. Hence, Salah (2016) states that the success or failure of modern business organisations depends on the quality of their human resources while Ramlall (2008) states that an organization depends on it’s employee’s creativity, innovation and commitment and consider them to be essential elements for it’s success.

On these lines, it also needs to be understood that employee performance fundamentally depends on some key factors. One such key factor is Motivation. According to Asim (2013), the results of a study that was carried out to understand the impact of motivation on employee performance showed a positive relationship between the two elements. Moreover, there were clear indications that increased levels of motivation among employees resulted in increased levels of performance.

Furthermore, Vance (2006) explains that motivated employees are more engaged in their duties and are more committed to their organizations. He also adds that in addition to being more productive and less prone to resigning, they are a definite source of competitive advantage to their companies.

In this context, it can be universally understood and agreed upon that motivation has a direct bearing on employee performance which in turn, has a direct and significant impact on an organisation’s success. Siddiqui (2014) further explains this by affirming that employee performance has become a very important factor in the success of organisations and that the outcome of studies carried out in this regard suggests that the success of companies depends on employee performance. 

This blog offers a detailed look in to the subject of Employee Motivation, its theories, benefits and its relevance in today’s business context.

References

• Asim, M. (2013) Impact of Motivation on Employee Performance with Effect of Training: Specific to Education Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(9), p.9.

• Boudreau, J. & Ramstad, P. (2007) Beyond HR – The New Science of Human Capital. Harvard Business School Press, p.4.

• Das, B. & Baruah, M. (2013) Employee retention: A review of literature. Journal of business and management, 14(2), p.8.

• Ramlall, S. (2008) Enhancing Employee Performance Through Positive Organizational Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), p.1582.

• Salah, M. (2016) The Impact of Training and Development on Employees Performance and Productivity - A case Study of Jordanian Private Sector transportation companies located in the Southern region of Jordan. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 5, p.36.

• Siddiqui, M. (2014) Success of an Organization is a Result of Employees Performance. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(4), pp.193-194.

• Vance, R. J. (2006) Employee Engagement and Commitment - A guide to understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization. SHRM Foundation, 1, p.1.