Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Motivations at work Essay
Introduction            Every human experience involves a causative factor that produces a kind of response. In explaining the behavior of people, we start our description with reference to some kind of active driving force: the individual seeks, the individual wants, the individual fears. Various psychologists describe motivation, in other words, as the driving force behind our behavior (Halonen & Santrock, 1996; Atkinson, et al. 1983).            Smith, et al. labels their discussion on motivation as the â€Å"Why†of behavior (1982). Why does the tardy student in mathematics spend the rest of the period outside instead of inside the mathematics classroom? Emotions or strong feelings usually accompany motivated behavior. Often, emotions direct behavior toward goals (Atkinson, et al. 1983).            Essentially, the role of motivation in a person’s life is crucial to the understanding of human activities. Motivation is never static because in life, there always presents a dynamic and changing pattern of needs. Internal and external motivation provides in brief, an astute way of explaining the â€Å"why’s†of people’s behaviors (Halonen & Santrock, 1996). No wonder then, that in general, educators handle pupils or learners in the light of this ideation.            Again the question, why do people behave as they do? How can people account for the workers who are always on time, exceed production quotas, and are polite to the boss, whereas other workers at the same plant who perform the same job under the same conditions for the same pay behave in the opposite way?            It is easy to say that there must be an increase the motivation of the employees, but unless people know precisely what factors constitute motivation in this specific instance, changes may not be that feasible.            Human motivation is most complex. People seldom behave or respond to a particular situation because of a single motive. Generally, individuals are driven by a variety of needs and desires, some complimentary and others conflicting (Halonen & Santrock, 1996). Although there is no full and accurate understanding of a human being’s motivational structure, there is a body of knowledge from psychological research, which shows quite a bit about the forces that drive humans. Motivation theory 1 – McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory            This desire to accomplish something, to do a good job, to be the best typifies many people in this society, not only successful business executives(McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Those who possess this need derive great satisfaction from their achievement and are motivated to excel in everything they undertake.            Evidence also shows that the economic growth of private companies and of whole societies is related to the level of the need for achievement among managers in these private companies and members of these societies (McClelland & Burnham, 1976).            Successful business managers generally score higher in need for achievement – need persons have been identified, it is possible to determine what they want and what they need in their work to satisfy this high level of achievement motivation (McClelland & Burnham, 1976).            The organization for which high achievement-need persons work is not required to generate motivation; these persons already possess the motivation. What the company must do is to provide working conditions that will allow them to achieve. If they cannot satisfy their high drive for achievement, they will become frustrated and will probably look for another job. If they can satisfy this drive, however, they will become happy and productive members of the organization (McClelland & Burnham, 1976).            McClelland’s research identified three characteristics of high need-achievement persons: They favor a working situation in which they are able to assume personal responsibility for solving problems. If they were not solely responsible for finding the solutions to the problems, they would not have any sense of achievement. They are not happy when the solution depends on chance or on external factors beyond their control. It must depend on their own efforts and ability (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). This is a desirable characteristic for an executive as long as the working situation affords the opportunity for personal responsibility. The organization must provide these persons with challenging responsibility and a degree of personal autonomy. They have a tendency to take calculated risks and to set moderate achievement goals. By assuming tasks of moderate difficulty, high achievement need persons are able to satisfy their achievement needs (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). If the tasks or goals were too easy, there would be little sense of accomplishment. If they were too difficult, they might not succeed and would again have no sense of accomplishment. They must arrange the job and working conditions to face new problems or goals of moderate difficulty constantly. High achievement-need persons must have definite and continuing feedback about their progress. If they did not receive recognition for their work, they would not have a clear idea of how well they were doing (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Fortunately, companies provide continuing feedback in periodic sales, cost, and production figures. High achievement-need persons feel a greater sense of accomplishment if they have personal feedback from superiors in the form of congratulatory memos, pay raises, promotions, or a pat in the back.            The higher the achievement-need scores of the executives, the more successful were their companies. Other studies show that managers high in achievement-need display a number of desirable managerial characteristics. They tend to have more respect for their subordinates and to be receptive to new ideas and new ways of doing things (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Also, they are more open to participatory democracy than are managers low in achievement need. High achievement-need managers appear to be better than low achievement-need managers to lead and motivate the new breed of employee.            There are unresolved questions about the need-achievement theory, and not all research supports the findings discussed (Klinger, 1966). However, it seems to be a useful theory of behavior and a plausible explanation for the motivation of some employees. The theory is judged to be high in scientific validity and in its usefulness in application to the world of work (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Motivation theory 2 – Adam’s Equity Theory            The notion that people’s motivation is influenced by their perception of how equitably they are treated at work was proposed by J. Stacy Adams. In any work situation, be it a classroom or an office, people assess both their inputs – how much effort they are putting into the work – and their outcomes – how much reward they are receiving for the work. people then, perhaps unconsciously, calculate the ratio of outcome to input and compare their ratio with what they perceive are the ratios of fellow students or co-workers (Adams, 1965).            Are people getting equal outcomes as a function of their inputs or are they getting less than other people? If they are getting less, a state of inequity exists, which motivates them to create a condition of equity. If people are getting the same, a state of equity exists.            Research shows and personal experience confirms that people do make such comparisons. One may have felt unfairly or inequitably treated in a course for which he worked harder than someone who, ultimately, received a higher grade. Did one work even harder as a result of this inequity?            It is generally accepted that a sense of being treated fairly with respect to others can influence work motivation, either by increasing or reducing it. The theory is fairly well supported by research but has a limited application to specific situations at work (Marx, 1976). Motivation theory 3 – Goal Setting Theory            Developed by Edwin Locke, goal-setting theory also has a common-sense appeal and is clearly relevant to the world of work. Locke argues that a person’s primary motivation in a work situation can be defined in terms of his desire to achieve a particular goal. The goal represents what the person intends to do at a given time in the future. For example, people may have as a goal graduating from college with honors or achieving the highest sales recorded in the company or getting a pay raise to buy a new house (Locke, 1968). Goals are important in any endeavor, motivating and guiding ones’ behavior so that the person performs in the most effective way. Studies of work behavior have shown how goals influence a person’s motivation; for example, having goals results in higher performance than not having goals. Specific goals are more motivating than general goals (Marx, 1976). Goals that are difficult to obtain are more motivating than easy goals. On the other hand, goals that so difficult as to seem impossible to achieve are worse than having no goals at all as far as motivation and performance are concerned.            The goal-setting theory is probably the most thoroughly researched of all the motivational theories that are discussed. The evidence is highly supportive, in case after case goal-setting has been found to produce substantial increases in employee output (Marx, 1976; Locke, et al., 1981). Furthermore, the theory is high in both scientific validity and in usefulness on the job. Conclusion – The problem of employee motivation is critical in all kinds of organizations today and is responsible for the shoddy products we buy and the careless service we receive. It was thought that all that was necessary to produce high motivation in workers was to pay them more; this idea may no longer be valid for a large portion of the work force. Modern workers demand jobs that satisfy their inner needs for fulfillment, expression, and self-actualization. Traditional values involved loyalty to the company and a strong drive for money, status, promotion and security. The new breed of workers focuses on self-fulfillment and self-actualization and demands jobs that are challenging and that allow participation in decision-making. They have little loyalty to the organization and less concern with money, status and security.            Psychologists have proposed several theories of motivation. The need for achievement by McClelland posits the existence to be the best in whatever they undertake. Studies show that good executives are higher in Ach than poor ones. High in ability and take calculated risks and set moderate achievement goals. These individuals constantly need feedback on their progress.            These theories deal with content of motivation, with internal needs that arouse and guide behavior. Process theories of motivation focus on the psychological processes involved in making decisions and choices about work. This is illustrated in the goal-setting theory, which argues that employee motivation is defined by our intention to achieve a particular goal; and equity theory, which deals with our perceived ratio or outcome to input and how equitably that ratio compares with those co-workers.            Knowing what a person values most, like I do, still these things do not reduce the presence or effects of stressors in my life. Trying to achieve a correct balance of my work and the more important life relationships as well entails a big bulk of decision-making dilemmas and resolutions of what should be followed or not. Whenever other people in the workplace are around us, it is undoubtedly a complicated set-up knowing that these people have values and priorities and desires multiplied over their number. Their motivation at work or in life is impinged upon by their values and priorities which are in turn what makes them motivated. These values are translated into goals that fuel what and how their conduct will be in their field of work.            The workplace today considers any of the perspectives mentioned in this paper. However, what are more reflective at many organizations are their strategies in enhancing the life of the average worker. The understanding of the needs or drives that motivate people is therefore critical in the choice of what â€Å"motivator variables†that the management may employ to encourage their people to do or sustain an excellent job or an efficient performance.            Work-life initiatives are strategies implemented by firms to reduce turnover and increase productivity and overall firm performance. Studies were made to examine the influence and effects of work-life initiatives on employees and the organization in general. Workplace diversity which incorporates the concepts of work-life initiatives does indicate that it is inevitable that when a company introduces work-life initiatives, there is a resulting increase in diversity. Substantial evidence point to the effectiveness of workplace diversity hence, many institutions encourage and promote this in their particular milieu (http://www.cmdronline.com/workshops.htm). This type of strategy caters to the goal-setting perspective posited by Edwin Locke. Although the other two are also very valid in many instances or situations, the applicability of the former (goal-setting) seemed to be more realistic and practical.            It is inevitable that juggling work and family life will be one of a person’s demanding experiences. The rationale for having a job is not only to have a livelihood, achieve personal satisfaction in the expression of his abilities and trainings, and receive his remuneration and perks on the side. Preparation for family stability to be able to provide and thus create an atmosphere of care, for bachelors/maidens, is also the foremost and logical reason for having a job. However, the thin thread that separates between the two polarities becomes blurred, and there lies the tension that pulls a person in different directions. The Center for Mediation and Dispute Resolution opens its website with the following quote: â€Å"Our life is one giant balancing act (http://www.cmdronline.com/workshops.htm).† Perhaps, no person will ever disagree with that statement. The goal then is to know how to do the balancing act, to gain competencies in achieving a rewarding, flourishing kind of life that holds work in one hand, while maintaining a well-nurtured and healthy family on the other hand.            Every home has its set of beliefs or tradition that they hold in high esteem. This is referred to as family values. Anything that the family believes is important comprises a family values system. Among the values an individual possesses, the most important I believe is that a person must regard most his/her values about family as the most significant. Many people don’t usually pause and contemplate what their values are. They may not know whether these values they already have are still practical or useful in a modern day world. Moreover, they do not think how their values fit in with their kind of milieu that they evolve in. There are families that take time out though to impart to their children what had been passed on to them when they too were yet very young. The values may not be as strong as when were yet children because the person may have adapted to his world and adjusted his values that others may be accommodated. Through the years, a family value system may be a combination of what had been passed on to an individual and the values system of one’s friends or colleagues at work (_______†Values: What are they?†2007). The primary reason that goals and goal-setting are critical aspects in the role of motivation in people is pointedly because what we hold as important affects how we use time, money and energy or how we interact with people. If a person believes in the importance of education then he tries to save for the schooling of their children. What we set as goals are actually our values influencing how we spend our resources and make decisions. Reference: Adams, J. Stacey (1965), â€Å"Inequity in social exchange†, in            Berkowitz, Leonard (Ed),     Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York,      pp. 267-299. Atkinson, Rita L., Richard C. Atkinson, and Ernest R. Hilgard. 1983. Introduction to     Psychology. 8th ed., New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Halonen, JS and JW Santrock, 1996. Psychology: Contexts of Behavior, Dubuque, IA: Brown   and Benchmark, p.810. Klinger, E. 1966. Journal of Economic Psychology. Fantasy need-achievement as a       motivational construct. Psychological Bulletin 66 4 (1966), pp. 291–308 Marx, Melvin H. 1976. Introduction to Psychology: Problems, Procedures, and Principles.        Columbia: Collier MacMillan. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. 1976. Power is the great motivator. Harvard        Business Review, 54(2), 100-110. Morris, Charles G., Maisto, Albert A., 1999. Understanding Psychology.4th ed., Prentice          Hall: New Jersey, pp.315-          316. Smith, Ronald E., Sarason, I.G., and Sarason, B.R. 1982.  Psychology: The Frontiers of           Behavior.2nd Ed. New York:          Harper and Row Publishers. __________ â€Å"Values: what are they?†2007. Family Works : University of Illinois extension.   Accessed February 18, 2008. http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/familyworks/values-    01.html _________Centre for Mediation & Dispute Resolution, Accessed February 18, 2008.in            http://www.cmdronline.com/workshops.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.