Motivation differences, Essays (university) of Organization Behaviour

Motivation to employee and encouragement

Typology: Essays (university)

2018/2019

Uploaded on 11/30/2019

kaltham-mazrouei
kaltham-mazrouei 🇦🇪

2 documents

1 / 7

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Critically discuss how managers may best develop reward strategies to
motivate knowledge workers
6. Motivation from a work perspective is broadly defined as the inner beliefs and
drivers of an individual and how these manifest themselves in the ability to connect
and focus on a task or objective. Motivation theories attempt to understand from a
wide perspective, what the driving forces are which drive motivation or indeed
demotivate individuals or groups of individuals in an organisational sense. These
theories of motivation have therefore been used by organisations development
practitioners and management in trying to design best fit reward systems which are
aligned to the people in the organisation, the organisational objectives themselves as
well as from a contextual point of view, ensure they are in line with the market they
operate within. The result (in theory) therefore of a well designed and executive
reward system is increased employee motivation and engagement which leads to
increase performance, improved customer satisfaction and therefore retention of
customer loyalty (the service-profit chain). The benefits from an employee point of
view will be job satisfaction, loyalty to the company (and retention). Overall the
psychological contract between employer and employee develops and prospers.
Traditional theories of motivation were often characterised by what is termed “content
theories”. These were pioneered in the 1940s to 1960s and were based on needs
and wants or intrinsic/extrinsic and social factors. At a basic level McGregor’s X
and Y theory even questioned broad motivation. Theory X described workers who
were at a basic level not interested in work, had little interest motivation and needed
to be controlled. This fitted with bureaucratic, top down Taylorist principles and the
carrot/stick approach. Reward systems were devised therefore from achievement of
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Motivation differences and more Essays (university) Organization Behaviour in PDF only on Docsity!

Critically discuss how managers may best develop reward strategies to motivate knowledge workers

  1. Motivation from a work perspective is broadly defined as the inner beliefs and drivers of an individual and how these manifest themselves in the ability to connect and focus on a task or objective. Motivation theories attempt to understand from a wide perspective, what the driving forces are which drive motivation or indeed demotivate individuals or groups of individuals in an organisational sense. These theories of motivation have therefore been used by organisations development practitioners and management in trying to design best fit reward systems which are aligned to the people in the organisation, the organisational objectives themselves as well as from a contextual point of view, ensure they are in line with the market they operate within. The result (in theory) therefore of a well designed and executive reward system is increased employee motivation and engagement which leads to increase performance, improved customer satisfaction and therefore retention of customer loyalty (the service-profit chain). The benefits from an employee point of view will be job satisfaction, loyalty to the company (and retention). Overall the psychological contract between employer and employee develops and prospers.

Traditional theories of motivation were often characterised by what is termed “content theories”. These were pioneered in the 1940s to 1960s and were based on needs and wants – or intrinsic/extrinsic and social factors. At a basic level McGregor’s X and Y theory even questioned broad motivation. Theory X described workers who were at a basic level not interested in work, had little interest motivation and needed to be controlled. This fitted with bureaucratic, top down Taylorist principles and the carrot/stick approach. Reward systems were devised therefore from achievement of

set goals by management – ie number of items produced, sold or purely attendance. Theory Y is more progressive and assumes the opposite – people are highly motivated to perform and as such should be given responsibility to grow and develop.

A more progressive reward system would be considered based on progression aims, job enrichment and empowered decision making. Maslow sought to create a pyramid of motivation taking wider social and human factors into account (see below)

Broadly speaking this worked on the premise that you have to satisfy basic human (heat, sex, water) needs before moving up to social needs – affiliation, belonging and so on to the self-actualisation phase. Reward strategies were therefore designed to facilitate this journey. It seems logical from a management perspective however that it has flaws in that it doesn’t apply ratings to each and assumes everyone has some

reward strategies must be under wider based than just motivation and look to best reflect employee engagement (EE) principles. Reward strategies must take into account factors such as alignment to the organisation, the individual’s development needs and also be tailored and flexible to the individual. Typically an effective reward strategy is part of a wider Performance Management (PMS) system. This doesn’t have to be formed, and dependent on the size/capability and lack of bureaucratic structure within an organisation than lack of formality may be advantageous. However the PMS and by proxy, the reward system must be:

STRATEGIC – aligned to organisation objectives INTEGRATED – not work in isolation to other individuals and groups.

Given the changing and dynamic nature of organisations therefore the designed reward system must ensure.

  • INDIVIDUAL FLEXIBILITY – People look for freedom in how they work, where they work and methods of work. A reward system would seek to employ this.
  • ENCOURAGE INNOVATION – Given knowledge workers are likely to have a desire to try new things, innovate and develop their own creations then reward must reflect this. Google is a good example in that everyone has 20% of their time to work on pet projects.
  • REWARD BASED ON BROAD PERFORMANCE MEASURES – Many traditional PMS systems reward people based on achievement of individual objectives. The danger in this is that people focus on what is measurable and the ability to share knowledge or information can be

reduced. Therefore recognition of reward can be linked to softer “behavioural” type skills and contribution.

The major issue in my opinion in terms of reward is pay. Various studies place it at different levels of importance in EE in relation to immediate leadership, advancement opportunities etc but in respect of reward then it is key. Various arguments exist as to performance related pay (Herzberg’s motivation states base pay does not motivate). For instance it can demonstrate a clear link as to what is important, can provide a direct link to individual performance and can support retention drives. Conversely it can create an individualistic culture, a focus on short termism and lack of teams. Pay as a reward can manifest in the equity theory as it does in the Aberdeen Oil and Gas industry. Pay is the key driver and as such a spiral of increasing pay has taken over with people regularly moving for a relatively small increase in pay due to perceived inequities. This has created a leapfrog effect (Ian Wood report 2014) and co- operation between individuals and organisations has taken place. Companies have tried to redress this by share schemes, working from home options and flexible hours. The solution therefore for knowledge based workers has to be a wider solution not just based on traditional carrot and stick (or in the case of Aberdeen – more carrots) but a mix of monetary and non-monetary reward.

In conclusion therefore I would recommend a balance reward strategy based on the following:

MONETARY

  • PERFORMANCE BASED PAY - Aligned to company objectives

culture where this is positively encouraged.

Reward strategies don’t have to be purely individual and if the management is trying to create a culture of team work with the wider knowledge workers then rewards can be team based – away days, nights out, other privileges as selected by the team. This also increases any fears about equity theory and subsequent disharmony.