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.