What motivates people at work? Essay

There meet been a large number of theories hearing into motif at work and the factors which affect it. In this essay I provide be exploring three key theories in the bea, each provides a precise antithetical angle on what activates employees at work.To begin I exit look at a need hypothesis of motive, Herzbergs Two-Factor system (1959), as the name suggests need theories concentrate on the needs of the employee as the main source of pauperization. Herzberg built upon Maslows hugely prestigious Hierarchy of Needs (1954). Conducting look into on 203 American accountants and engineers he looked at what makes employees contented and dissatisfied at work. Contrary to Maslows hypothesis Herzberg suggests that motivation is non measured on one linear scale from satisfied to dissatisfied, and rather the two be independent of each different and form separate scales. The first group which determines dissatisfaction (or de-motivation) are named Hygiene factors which overwh elm our basic needs such as our pay and safety. The addition or improvement of hygiene factors can only lead to contentment in employees and not motivation.The second group which determines satisfaction are named Motivators, these include our inhering needs such as our need to achieve, to be recognised and minded(p) responsibility. A decline or lack of motivators will not de- touch off employees, notwithstanding adding them can lead to change magnituded motivation. Research on the possible action has provided two support and criticism. To begin with the surmise is supported by the number of palmy replications as reported by Hodgetts and Luthans (1991), these replications be in possession of taken place across the world and in a wide variety of different line of reasoning sectors and lock away achieved the corresponding results. The main area of criticism for the Two-Factor theory stone pits the methodological analysis of the research it was derived from. Soliman (1970) pointed tabu that the tendency of subjects to give soci completelyy desirable answers would have impacted the answers participants gave to Herzbergs open ended questions. In addition there is a tendency for tribe to attribute negative situations to another(prenominal)s and positive to themselves e.g.I tangle satisfaction when I achieved and was recognised for it or I was dissatisfied when the familiarity paid me late. This biased attribution of satisfying and dissatisfying situations is another caseful of a problem with the methodology. More problems with the methodology are certifyn by domiciliate and Wigdor (1967). After re-analysing Herzbergs original results they concluded that factors described as universe either a hygiene or motivator were not mutu everyy exclusive. In many cases the addition of Hygiene factors can act to motivate deal, likewise a lack of Motivator factors can causes dissatisfaction. and as well as looking at the empirical research on the theo ry we must also think about its value when often use to the workplace.In support of the theory it does, to a certain conclusion makes sense. If one month you miss out on pay or are required to do close tothing dangerous you would be dissatisfied. At the same time employees do not whole tone satisfied or cause by safe working conditions or world paid on time because it is what they expect. The same goes for Motivator factors, an employee would feel to a greater end satisfied if they original a psycheal compliment from the boss but it is incredible that they would feel dissatisfied if it didnt happen. They certainly wouldnt expect it every day. save one key problem with the theory is that it fails to take into account the ine tone between satisfaction and motivation. An employee whitethorn be satisfied at work, they may obtain all the motivator factors outlined in the theory but this does not mean they will automatically be motivated to be as productive as they can be.Ano ther criticism is that the theory does not account for various(prenominal) differences, employees are not all the same, some may be more materialistic and be motivated more by monetary reward. Some strive for achievement and are unstrained to do anything to gain the respect of their peers and high status in spite of appearance the parentage while others may be content with their job and just deprivation to keep their heads down and get on with it. Put exactly, while being given responsibility may satisfy some people others may find it an unpleasant addition to their job. In summary the Two-Factor model and its financial backing research have been found to have good re-test and cross cultural reliability but has been heavily criticised for its validity and methodology. Although this weakens the value of the theory it has liquid been extremely influential and can be practically utilise in most organizations as a method by which staff motivation can be monitored and improved. Next I am going to look at the ending Setting Theory Locke (1969). The basic premise of the theory is that by positionting a design you can increase a soulfulnesss motivation and performance. This increase in performance is payable to the motivational influence of goals in 4 key areas (as cited in wood 2010). The first is that goals help to focus a someones economic aid and behaviour in the correct placeion. Secondly goals have the effect of increase the effort a person is willing expend. Thirdly the addition of a goal increase the amount of a time a person will spend on a specific task. Finally they motivate an individual to seek out and apply relevant knowledge and skills in order to complete the goal. This is how the goal setting theory explains why we are motivated by goals. In addition to this Locke and Latham (1990) throw forward 5 key features of a goal which determine how motivating it is, to be useful goals must be1) Specific, a goal which gives a specific targ et is more motivating whence goals which simply require a person to do your best. 2) Measurable, a measurable target enables a person to track their progress towards the goal and alter their effort and method accordingly. 3) Time-Bound, applying a deadline to achieving the goal enables a person to better manage their time and effort. 4) Challenging, it is unlikely that an easy goal will motivate a person to put in maximum effort. By making the goal challenging people are come to and required to work harder in order to achieve. 5) Attainable, having a goal which is impossible to achieve is likely to de-motivate a person, why would a person put effort in if they have no line up of success. It must be trustworthyistically possible to achieve goals. The theory provides a good detailed description of both how and why people are motivated.It has been one of the most widely researched areas within motivational psychology and is still very much an evolving area. Research by Latham and B aldes (1975) put the core speculation of the goal setting theory to the test in a real world setting. They introduced the goal of reaching 94% efficiency in the effect of trucks (previously at just 60%) to a group of employees in a logging company. The employees were motivated by the goal and successfully achieved (and often surpassed) it and go on to work consistently at the target rate. To have achieved the same increase in efficiency without intention theory (by purchasing more trucks) would have cost the company $250,000. Another example of research supporting the Goal setting theory comes from Blumenfeld and Leidy (1969).They found that 55 engineers in charge of easily drinks machines checked considerably more machines when set a goal then when no goal was set. Furthermore it was found that engineers checked more machines when set a challenging goal then if set an easy goal. A key problem with the methodology of both pieces of supporting research above is that there w as little control over extraneous variables. For example Latham and Baldes (1975) did show a huge increase in productivity, but this may not have been due to the addition of a goal. Perhaps the competitive constitution of the loggers lead to an increase in efficiency, it may also have simply been down to the increased supervision the workers received at the time. Again it is alpha to look at the theory in terms of its practical finishing in the workplace. Its key strength is that it does appear to work as a method of increasing motivation, however again the theory fails to account for individual differences. Employees who are already highly motivated at work would avail from goals being set it would push them and enable them to prove themselves.However other less confident employees may not enjoy the competitive spirit of workplace goals and targets, it could even cause stress and discomfort and leads to a decline in motivation. In addition, when you direct a persons attendan ce and effort towards one specific goal you may get a decrease in performance in other tasks. A goal may not increase motivation but just direct it. For example if you give hospital staff the target of seeing all patients within 10 minuets they may achieve the target but at the cost of service and quality of treatment. This would obviously be detrimental to the quality of work on the whole. A final point to consider is that all employees have different levels of ability so in order for goals to push an employee but still remain achievable they must be one at a time tailored.As well as being impractical in a large business Equality theories (discussed next) would suggest that giving some people easier targets than others may actually lead to a reduction in motivation. On the whole Goal Theories are very useful and practical when applied in the right circumstances. Perhaps one weakness of both the theory and supporting research is in its inability to account for causes of demotivatio n in an organization. However the research shows that goals do motivate people at work, yet when applied to an organizational environment we see possible drawbacks and potential voicelessies which are difficult to overcome.The final theory I am going to examine is the organizational arbitrator Theory which builds upon the equity theory put forward by Adams (1963). The organisational Justice theory has been constructed from theory and research contributed by a authoritative number of psychologists, certainly too many to list in their entirety. However two key contributors worth noting are Greenberg (1987a) who coined the term Organizational Justice and conducted much of the early research and Mowday (1987) (cited in Greenberg 1990) who has had a significant impact on the theory. The core belief of the theory is that employees can be motivated (or de-motivated) by their perception of how fairly they are being treat at work in comparison to their colleagues. The theory suggest s three different types of justice which can be sensed. The first is Distributive Justice, which looks at the extent to which an employee thinks they are being fairly rewarded for the work they put in compared to others, the theory suggest that a person will either increase or decrease their level of input in order to balance out and restore equality.The second is Procedural Justice, this looks at how fair a person feels the procedures and systems are within a business, for example is holiday date apportioning fair. The third is Interactional Justice, this is the least researched area and compromises of two parts Informational Justice describes how well informed a person is about the decisions taken within a business, using holiday as an example again it may be explained to an employee why they can not have the holiday they asked for. social Justice describes the extent to which someone feels they are treated with respect. As with the Goal setting theory there has been a consider able amount of research put into Organizational Justice theory. In a recent schooling Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott and Livingston (2009) (cited in Woods 2010) looked at how procedural and interaction justice realized motivation and in turn performance. They found that when a person perceived high procedural justice in an organization there was an increase in motivation, leading to an increase in performance.