FREE ESSAY ON MOTIVATION THEORY IN BUSINESS

MOTIVATION THEORY IN BUSINESS

B-12, G-47, I-24, O-51, I-5, N-36………….'BINGO'!!!!!!
A simple game of bingo, if analyzed closely, can be shown to be a tedious task consisting
of a repetitive action that occurs after being prompted by a repetitive stimulus. The
skill level needed to make that action is low, and the variability in the rules of the
game rarely changes. This game is not unlike many of the jobs that can be classified as
having low motivational potential scores (Hackman, et al). So why do people not only
enjoy playing games like bingo, but actually pay money to have the pleasure? The answer
directly points to the motivating factors of monetary rewards and recognition which are
provided on a variable-ratio schedule. Motivation by reinforcement (Miller). 
There are many theories regarding motivation with the most prevalent being the theories
of Maslow and Herzberg. It is important to understand these theories and their
implications to accurately comment on reinforcement theories of motivation. According to
Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there are five classes: (1) physiological, (2) safety, (3)
social, (4) esteem, and (5) self-actualization. Each lower level need must be satisfied
before an individual experiences higher level needs. Also, Maslow hypothesized that as
physiological, safety, social, and esteem needs were satisfied, they ceased to motivate,
while the self-actualization needs actually motivate an individual more as they are
satisfied (Schwab, 1978: 57). Herzberg used this theory as a base to build his
motivation-hygiene theory which ties Maslow's needs to on the job achievement. The
hygiene elements relate to low needs (physiological, safety, and social). For an
individual, hygiene conditions include company policy and administration, supervision,
relationships with peers and supervisors, work conditions, salary, status, and security.
These, according to Herzberg account for 69% of the factors which cause employee
dissatisfaction or lack of motivation. The motivation conditions, which include
achievement, the job itself, recognition, responsibilities, and personal growth,
accounted for 81% of the factors which contributed to job satisfaction. The hygiene
conditions are extrinsic factors while the motivation conditions are intrinsic factors,
and the only way to sustain motivation toward organizational goals is through the
achievement of intrinsic outcomes. Each of these theories have proven to contain ideas
consistent with human nature, but each also has its limitations within organizational
settings. Because lower order needs are generally satisfied in the workplace today,
managers have to deal with how to provide esteem and self-actualization to their
employees, and that can be a nebulous concept to a manager who demands results
immediately. Also, studies demonstrate that different workers are motivated by different
factors be them intrinsic or extrinsic. Centers and Bugental's studies on intrinsic and
extrinsic job motivation among different segments of the working population, show that
while skilled workers are motivated the intrinsic rewards of their employment, lesser
skilled workers in jobs that are deemed routine were motivated by extrinsic factors such
as incentives and bonuses. This fact can be reaffirmed by analyzing union contacts and
job descriptions in an industry like the steel industry. Employees who have routine jobs
or jobs that have little in the way of decision making are often provided high monetary
incentives based on productivity and quality. These ideas do not discount the work of
Herzberg and Maslow, but instead show that as needs progress up the hierarchy ladder,
focus must be made on what a manager should do to provide their workers with what they
lack, an increasingly difficult task that have influenced the motivational theories of
job enrichment (Hackman, et al. 1975).
Job enrichment efforts have proven somewhat successful in improving performance and
attitude amongst employees. Job enrichment theories are analogous to why people enjoy
games so much. M. Scott Meyer wrote in his book, Every Employee a Manager, that the key
to job enrichment can be related to why people enjoy bowling. His answer sums of the
seven characteristics of bowling:
1. The bowler has a visible goal,
2. he has a challenging but attainable goal,
3. he is working according to his own personally accepted standards,
4. he receives immediate feedback, 
5. he has an opportunity to satisfy social needs,
6. he is an accepted member of a group, and
7. he can earn recognition.
The one thing that job enrichment cannot do, however, is make the individual a better
bowler. That is something that the player must earn himself. Studies by Hackman and
Oldham,, and Earl Weeks have shown the effectiveness of job enrichment. Hackman and
Oldham in their studies showed that by enhancing and changing a routine job through
manipulation of their five implementing concepts (natural units of work, task
combination, client relationships, feedback and vertical loading), improvements can be
made in relation to productivity, quality, absenteeism, attitude, the elimination of
unnecessary controls, and in the role of the supervisor. Weeks' study of custodial
employees at Texas Instruments was similar to that of Hackman and Oldham in that many
factors were changed at once to achieve increases in productivity and quality. These
studies do provide evidence that job enrichment is an affective tool when coupled with
the theories of Herzberg and Maslow, but have limitations in the fact that job enrichment
seeks to create an environment in which the needs of the employee are consistently being
met instead of an environment in which an employee can earn the satisfaction of his or
her needs (Miller 33). Again, this is a theory of motivation, like Herzberg and Maslow's
that has limitations when applied. There needs to be something more for consistent
motivation.
An additional theory on human behavior, motivation, and management was developed in the
late 1950's by McGregor. His theories X and Y and were based on assumptions made
regarding the system and individuals. In short, in Theory X (the most common management
practice) management organizes all elements of production, motivates and controls
employee behavior to fit the needs of the organization, and without this intervention,
employees would be indifferent to changing organizational needs. McGregor further assumes
that managers believe that the average employee is by nature indolent and lazy, lacks
ambition, is self-centered, and resistant to change (McGregor 1957). The grim
consequences that McGregor proposes about management by direction and control, a style
that is and was popular in big business, hardly have been exhibited in the corporate
world 40 years later. This fact alone shows that McGregor's assumptions regarding Theory
X are inaccurate. McGregor's alternative to Theory X was Theory Y. This theory made the
assumptions that management has the responsibility for organizing the elements of
production, people are not by nature passive, but become so as a result of experiences,
management should enable employees to develop their motivational characteristics, and
that it is essential for management to arrange organizational conditions in a manner
where employees can achieve their own goals by directing their personal effort towards
organizational objectives. The contrast between X and Y solely relates to who controls
human behavior. Theory X touts external control, and Theory Y promotes self control and
self direction. 
The main dilemma with McGregor's premises is that Theory Y places an unrealistic amount
of burden on the management. Heroics cannot be the responsibility of a manager and the
difficulty a manager would have fulfilling his own personal goals and the goals of the
organization while conceiving of their job as helping each of his subordinates to achieve
their mutual goals in the subordinate's own way (Gellerman 1963), is an enormous. A
manager would require not only extensive training in management but in human psychology.
Drucker's opinion on the subject sums up why the McGregor's techniques lack vital
characteristics for effective organizational motivation;
An employer has no business with a man's personality. Employment is as specific contract
calling for specific performance, and nothing else. Any attempt of an employer to go
beyond this is usurpation. It is an immoral as well as illegal intrusion of privacy. It
is abuse of power. An employee owes no loyalty, he owes no love, and no attitudes -he
owes performance and nothing else…Management and management
development…should consider themselves with changes in behavior likely to make a
man more effective. They do not deal with who a man is -that is, with his personality or
his emotional dynamics (Drucker, 1973).
Though Drucker's opinions reflect why Theory Y may be perceived as flawed, they represent
a somewhat cold stance on other issues in organizational behavior. Management must have
some responsibilities to the emotional well being of their subordinates, but they cannot
be responsible to the extent Theory Y proposes. 
Of all the intrinsically based theories of motivation, the one that is most related to
motivation through reinforcement is that of the expectancy-valence theory. Vroom's
formulations on this theory have become the dominate works in regard to motivational
management. The expectancy-valence theory is a cognitive approach to explaining the
causes of motivation, which in turn, influence the behavior of the individual. Expectancy
theories explain not only the choices an employee will make regarding actions, but to
what level the employee will perform in regard to those actions (Schwab 1978). This
somewhat scientific approach to explain motivation involves three key steps. The valence
of outcomes is the first step which incorporates the concept of the attractiveness
associated with activities. Unlike Maslow, Herzberg, or McGregor, the expectancy theory
makes no a priori statements about what outcomes individuals will find valent or
nonvalent (Schwab, 1978). The second assumption in the expectancy theory regards people's
beliefs about the connection between activity and outcome. These perceptions  can be
thought of as subjective probabilities and are referred to as instrumentality perceptions
(Schwab 1978). In essence, people have an idea that there is a link between performance
and wage increases. The final premise of the expectancy theory  pertains to the
individual's beliefs about the connection or linkage between one's effort to engage in an
activity and the likelihood that the activity will be accomplished (Schwab, 1978).
Crystallized, the expectancy theory of motivation states that employee motivation is high
when a task is attractive in itself, and when the outcomes of the completed task are
attractive to the employee. Because of the complexities of the internal nature of the
expectancy theory, it is a difficult approach to take as a manager. Though it takes into
account that the recognition of the outcome of an action may influence the frequency of
that behavior, the expectancy theory still relies too much on the internal processes of
motivation because of its basis in cognition. A far simpler way to motivate employees
disengages itself from internal (intrinsic) processes and solely analyzes how external
events can influence the frequency of motivated behavior. This method is motivation by
reinforcement.
Motivation by reinforcement may be argued to not even be a valid motivational theory
since it deals mainly with how behavior is shaped by its consequences (Katzell and
Thompson, 1995). It is based on the simple premise that effective behavior is to be
positively reinforced in order to continue, and that poor performance should not be
rewarded but in fact punished. Motivation by reinforcement allows a manager to focus on
the present conditions, things that he can control. The theory adapts to the current
behaviors and the current environment and does not dwell on the internal factors which
can cloud decision making. Realistically, a manager can only control some of the
conditions of the work environment (i.e. goal statements and incentive promises) and has
no control over past conditions that could influence employee behavior. Also, an employer
cannot anticipate how a subordinate will behave in the future. A manager's main
responsibility is to be aware of an employee's previous experience which dictates
performance in the present. 
Two characteristics of an employee which determine his response to conditions are his
ability to learn and his current repertoire or behavior, learned from prior experience
(Miller, 1981). To understand why motivation through reinforcement is a realistic and
valid motivational technique, one must analyze these two factors. A manager must assess a
person's ability to learn before placing him on a job. He must analyze the amount and
speed of learning a job, and relate that to his employees learning ability to see if that
employee can handle the task. Also, a manager must assess the subordinates prior
experiences and relate them to his ability to learn. Much of these assessments are best
done within the hiring practices of a company to facilitate the manager's assignment of
tasks. 
After analysis of employee skills and experience, motivation becomes a function of this
experience and the characteristics of the present conditions. Since it is the primary
function of the manager to achieve results though the work of himself and his
subordinates, the manager must determine deadlines and then change or maintain the
behavior of his employees to meet expectations. The only way a manager can manipulate
behavior is to alter the environment in the present. A manager cannot feasibly determine
what needs each employee desires for satisfaction, and cannot change organizational goals
to fit the behavior of each individual employee. Since all practices of managers involve
the manipulation of the work environment, it is only natural that that is the way to
affect motivation.