Defining Motivation
Human beings are naturally endowed with the faculty to decide what lies in their best interest. In other words, they are moved by the lure of those priorities of life, or causes which inspires them to devote their energy. This driving force is defined in the context of management and public administration studies as motivation (Fiske 2018). Motivation is thus the feeling which pushes an employee to give his or her best and in return derive satisfaction, which could be materialistic or non-materialistic by nature (Bozeman and Su 2015). Several theorists have enriched the literature belonging to the genre of organizational studies with their contribution to conceptualizing motivation. The central theme of this report is thus to discuss the contributions by three key theorists, Abraham Maslow, Frederick Herzberg and Porter-Lawler, towards innovating the concept of motivation by providing a critical analysis of each and comparing with each other. Their works are regarded as both the standard and the basic concepts for having a comprehensive idea about motivation in modern day organizations. The following sections shall be including discussions of the concepts propounded by the theorists respectively, a narration of the criticisms and a comparison of the three to establish the strengths and weaknesses of all the models against each other.
Motivation, as it has already been discussed in the introductory paragraph, it can be deduced as a psychological aspect. It is very subjective as not all individuals are motivated by the same set of benefits, and also, with different intensity. It differs from one person to the other. Economic perks and priviliges, promotion to a higher level of hierarchy, mental satisfaction derived out of a particular job, emotional attachment towards the organization are few of the push factors that motivates an individual to sustain at an organization (Boss et al. 2015). It should however not be assumed that an employee is motivated solely by judging upon the fact that the individual is continuing with the offering of services in a particular organization. The individual might be demotivated, or not adequately motivated, yet he or she is a part of the organization (Ritz, Brewer and Neumann 2016). It can also happen that a singular factor can be the motivational factor, or may be a combination of factors, which of course depends accordingly. This goes as far as the aspect of definition is concerned. From the procedural point of view, it is a unilinear flow with a starting point and an end point. It is essentially based on the continuum of cause and effect relationship (Van der Wal 2015). The prerequisite for motivation to be generated lies in the existence of some form of need or desire for achievement. That translates into actions for the fulfillment of the purpose. The final component of the procedure being the achievement of the goal. Thus there are three components that make up the process of motivation consecutively- needs, necessary actions and fulfillment of the goal (Botvinick and Braver 2015). Motivational factors can be of two types- internal and external (Chemolli and Gagné 2014). Internal factors would essentially include the abstract and psychological components like the attachment towards the workplace and colleagues and the aim for promotion. The external factors account for the visible and tangible aspects like the desire for gaining monetary benefits. These informations taken altogether shall help in getting a conceptual clarity of the central issue of the report, that is, the role of motivation in shaping organizational behaviour. Having defined motivation, the discussion shall now move towards discussing and critically analyzing the concepts of the theorist.
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Abraham Maslow has tried to explain motivation by arranging the factors of motivation hierarchically. Based on what he considers to be of utmost importance, he has placed it at the topmost level of the pyramid, and the least important one at the bottom. According to him there are five key components that make up for the motivational factor, arranged in ascending order of importance- basic materialistic need, concerns about security, emotional requisites of life, desire for a prestigious rank and the determination to redefine the self (Judge et al. 2014). It is very evident thus that basic materialistic need is placed at the lowest in the hierarchy and the determination of redefining self is at the highest. Now the components shall be taken up one by one for discussion. It is very commonsensical to assume that the very basic need that pushes an individual to join an organization is the monetary concern for fulfilling the basic necessities of life and for other leisurely indulgences. Money is not the be all and end all of life hence it is very natural for human to look for other sources of motivation for retaining oneself in the organization. Hence, apart from that an individual looks for security. Getting employed at an organization is not enough, one has to perform well consistently in order to retain the job and thereby ensure a stable source of income. These two motivational factors can be categorized as exclusively need based requirements (Cerasoli, Nicklin and Ford 2014). Next in the hierarchical model of Maslow lies the emotional aspect. It is concerned with the bonding among colleagues coupled with a sense of liking towards and comfort with the work-place and work culture of the organization. Just as work-place socialization, the desire to rise up in the hierarchy of the organizational structure and occupy a prestigious post is an equally important motivational factor. Holding an authoritative post not only boosts up the morale of the employee, but also the self-esteem (Schuh et al. 2014). The final component in the hierarchy of Maslow’s conception is the drive for redefining oneself. It can be called as the sum total of all the previous four described components. The fulfillment of the economic, securitarian, emotional and self-esteem boosting needs can be justifiably called as the pre-conditions for redefining oneself. Maslow had conducted an extensive research to derive this relational conclusion between work and motivation. According to his findings, employees can be categorized on the basis of the intensity and strength of the motivation that is particular to each individual. Some set of employees are driven by the need based motivations (Richter, Raban and Rafaeli 2015). That is, they are just satisfied with money and securing their job. Their position in Maslow’s hierarchy shall be placed at the lower end of the pyramid. On the other hand, there are employees who are more ambitious and their description of achievements is not limited to just the materialization of the basic needs. Their approach towards achievements is incremental. Hence this second category of employees shall hold a rank at the higher echelons of Maslow’s pyramid. Thus motivation is a dynamic, diverse and subjective in nature. On critically analyzing, it can be found that Maslow’s conception is highly scientific with a positivist undertone to it. Since human nature is capricious hence it is doubtful as to the extent of the applicability of his concept. All individuals joining an organization need not be candidates with no or less experience, some could be experienced and with expertise of a higher level (Barrick et al. 2015). Hence Maslow’s model is applicable only for the former category, not the latter. It is owing to the fact that he has constructed his model with an intrinsic quality of being incremental and gradual. Nevertheless, his model is considered as the standard one which can by and large be applicable to describe the machinations of motivation to all organizations across the globe. Maslow’s ideas can be practically applied by acknowledging the fact that needs keep on changing. For the employees driven by the need based motivations, the managers should ensure that they receive a good pay package, and also that they be treated with consideration when the need for firing employees arises (Fiske 2018). Little arrangements like those of beverages and snacks, interpersonal communication to know their issues can boost up the morale of the need driven employees (Judge et al. 2014). For motivating the employees at the higher level in Maslow’s pyramid, their esteem must be kept high, and their authority must be respected. These are few examples of practical application of motivating factors to suit Maslow’s conception.
Critique of Maslow’s Theory
Frederick Herzberg’s theory of motivation is too a product of research conducted on about 200 employees in the field of engineering and accounting in the region of Pennsylvania, in the United States of America (Gamache et al. 2015). He had formed a very simple questionnaire consisting of just two simple questions, what motivates them and what does not (Ahmad et al. 2014). The former question basically revolved around the positive aspects of the firm they worked in and the latter the negative aspects. Based on that he drew out a chart of factors that motivates employees and those which demotivates them. The motivational factors are the achievements while being a part of the firm, the acknowledgement of it by the authorities and the colleagues, the deep passion and attachment towards the work, a resultant sense of responsibility, and the desire for rising up the ladder of advancement in terms of career prospects within the firm itself (Fayolle, Liñán and Moriano 2014). Herzberg’s theorization confirms that an individual is motivated by both materialistic and non-materialistic aspects of achievements. From this fact it can be deduced that the approach towards earning monetary compensations changes with the passage of a considerable amount of time in a firm. The individual realizes that monetary perks and priviliges shall rise up to a certain level by means of excellent performance. The realization that the amount of salary shall increase exponentially only when one can manage to reach up to a prestigious post, and that completes the definition of achievement per se. Herzberg’s findings also hint at the fact that a sense of belongingness and selfless dedication towards a particular organization also motivates an individual . This hints at the nobler side of human indulgences and reinstates the fact that human beings are also capable of thinking and acting beyond the realm of profit and loss calculations (Gamache et al. 2015). Psychological satisfaction is equally important and perhaps becomes more after a certain period of time it becomes more important than materialistic pursuits of life. The development of the sense of responsibility is a proof of that side of human nature which emerges as a result of the love for the job itself. The positive motivational factors are as it is very evident, complementary to each other. Although Herzberg has put them in form of a list, they are inter-related to each other. The negatively motivating aspects are however not negative per se (Fayolle, Liñán and Moriano 2014). Herzberg had found out that the policies, term and conditions of the firm; the guidance provided by the supervising authorities; the salary scale; the rapport with colleagues and the authorities; and the work conditions and environment could turn out to be demotivating factors if they turn out to be contrary to expectations. As such there are no specific and determinate negative factors in Herzberg’s model, which is not the case for the positive factors he had found out (Cerasoli and Ford 2014). The terms and conditions and the policies of the company becomes a demotivating factor only if it does not permit proper balance between work and life, and also if they are so stringent that the autonomy of an employee gets eroded despite being supposed to function within a given framework. Lack of good inter-personal relationship building within the organization with co-workers and with the managers affects the psyche of an employee negatively (Bozeman and Su 2015). Similarly, if the environment of the workplace is not conducive to the physical health of the employee or for the purpose of conducting the work in form of inadequate infrastructural facilities and poor assistance, then it can turn out to be a demotivating factor. Poor salary with no prospect of increment, and long hours of work with no hope of incentives could also affect motivation negatively. Thus, Herzberg’s findings can be categorized under two headships, the motivating factors and the demotivating factors (Löhndorf and Diamantopoulos 2014). A critical assessment of his model leads one to the fact that it lacks a definite stance, especially with regard to the negative factors. His model lacks the assertiveness of a theory or of a concept as well since it is an enlistment of factors put forward in an over simplified way. They also lack an in depth analysis, rendering the net result as just a collection of data. Moreover, the unfulfilment of the motivational factors could also demotivate the employees, something which Herzberg must have ignored. However, its objective application cannot be contested as the findings have generally been found to be the key factors behind motivating and demotivating employees (Gamache et al. 2015). In order to practically apply Herzberg’s model, steps should be undertaken to ensure that the factors listed under the headship of both the motivating and demotivating factors do not attach a negative value to it thereby causing depreciation. Adequate scope for advancement, proper pay scale, ensuring proper work conditions are the examples of methods for practically applying the Herzberg’s model for boosting up motivation. The methods can be collectively termed as preventive methods.
Practical Implications of Maslow’s Theory
The contributions of Maslow and Herzberg can be called as the foundation for Porter and Lawler’s model of shaping the relationship between work and motivation. They have made a unique contribution by delinking motivation and satisfaction, and then linking it up with performance. They have chalked out separate set of inhibitions that have to be necessarily overcome in order to boost up motivation vis-à-vis performance and satisfaction vis-à-vis performance (Parker 2014). For the former category, that is of the relationship between performance and motivation, the inhibitions regarding- the acumen of the individual, the physical capacities, the surety of assistance from peers and of the targets of the job, needs to be cleared out. These hint at the intrinsic and the environmental possibilities that motivates and propels an individual to action (Gamache et al. 2015). They consider motivation to be the pre-condition for performance and satisfaction is secondary. The basic idea herein that they want to convey is that a mental preparation is needed to be able to perform an act, and that acts as the primary motivating factor (Gerhart and Fang 2015). With regard to the relationship between performance and satisfaction, concerning the role of performance in boosting satisfaction, Porter and Lawler have chalked out four necessary conditions to be met. They are- the determination of the rewards of the employees, the definition of the role an employee is supposed to play, the availability of the desired role and the receiving of the worthy value for the performance. These could be termed as the secondary set of motivational factors (Saleem 2015). A good pay scale, being able to perform at a level as per the qualifications and not below that, and a worthwhile compensation both in terms of money and promotion to a higher post are the motivational factors which an employee looks for after joining and after having worked for a particular organization for considerable period of time. This two-fold description of motivational factors functioning at different levels is the novelty of their work. However, situations can be contrary to what they have deduced from their researches. They have confirmed that primary motivation is necessary for being able to experience the secondary set of motivational factors. However, it is not always necessary that an aspiring candidate shall always look into so much intricacies while joining an organization. A fresher who has just completed his or her course and is looking forward to opportunities for exploring the world of opportunities, or a person who has backed out of a job and is desperately looking for options to fall back upon might not give much importance to the primary motivating factors. They might look more for the secondary motivating factors, as they lack the liberty to choose. It is very evident that their primary motivation shall not coincide with Porte and Lawler’s primary motivational factors (Richter, Raban and Rafaeli 2015). This is a drawback of Porter and Lawler’s model. However the uniqueness of their model lies in the fact that they have made an attempt to understand the different levels in which motivation works. For applying their model for practical purposes it has to be ensured that motivation works from the end of both the individual and from the part of the organization (Saleem 2015). The individual must ensure adequate qualifications and confidence before applying for a job. The person can also go for career counselling to choose the right job. The organization on the other hand must ensure that the employees get the job appropriate for their qualification, they are adequately rewarded and the scope for advancement in the organization is open to them (Parker 2014).
|
Theorist |
Concept |
Critical Evaluation |
Comparison and Contrast |
|
Maslow |
Hierarchical arrangement of Motivational Factors |
|
Had talked only of motivational factors, not the factors which demotivate. |
|
Herzberg |
Listing Motivating and Demotivating Factors |
|
Have talked of both motivating and demotivating factors, unlike Maslow. |
|
Porter-Lawler |
Primary and Secondary Motivational Factors |
|
Talked of how motivation works at different levels, before joining and after joining an organization. Maslow and Herzberg had talked of motivating factors playing an important role after joining the organization. |
Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Having provided overviews of the concepts of the thinkers with a critical analysis, now the discussion shall be devoted to compare them against each other. The uniqueness of Maslow’s ideas lies in the hierarchical arrangement of the motivational factors; for Herzberg, it is the apparent absence of any negative motivating factor per se; and for Porter-Lawler, it is the division of the machinations of motivational factors at two levels. There is a stark similarity between Maslow and Herzberg with regard to the motivational factors that they spoke of. However the difference lies in the fact that Maslow had no mention of a separate category of demotivating factors, but Herzberg had, even though it is possible to deduce them as negative only on attaching negative value to it. Porter-Lawler’s model is however very different from that of Maslow and Herzberg since they spoke of how motivational factors tend to change at different levels, primarily before joining the organization and then after having an experience in it. The previous two thinkers have focused only on the aspect of motivation which makes itself manifest only on joining the organization.
Without undermining the novelty of the contributions of any of the thinkers, it can be concluded saying that there have been some lacuna or the other in the contributions of each of the thinkers. Hence, every organization must choose for itself what is best for its interest and like the thinkers try to deduce the motivating and demotivating factors on the basis of observation, empirical evidence collection and by a strong feedback mechanism.
References
Ahmad, F., Abbas, T., Latif, S. and Rasheed, A., 2014. Impact of transformational leadership on employee motivation in telecommunication sector. Journal of management policies and practices, 2(2), pp.11-25.
Barrick, M.R., Thurgood, G.R., Smith, T.A. and Courtright, S.H., 2015. Collective organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Management journal, 58(1), pp.111-135.
Boss, S., Galletta, D., Lowry, P.B., Moody, G.D. and Polak, P., 2015. What do systems users have to fear? Using fear appeals to engender threats and fear that motivate protective security behaviors.
Botvinick, M. and Braver, T., 2015. Motivation and cognitive control: from behavior to neural mechanism. Annual review of psychology, 66.
Bozeman, B. and Su, X., 2015. Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public Administration Review, 75(5), pp.700-710.
Cerasoli, C.P. and Ford, M.T., 2014. Intrinsic motivation, performance, and the mediating role of mastery goal orientation: A test of self-determination theory. The Journal of psychology, 148(3), pp.267-286.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M. and Ford, M.T., 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 140(4), p.980.
Chemolli, E. and Gagné, M., 2014. Evidence against the continuum structure underlying motivation measures derived from self-determination theory. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), p.575.
Fayolle, A., Liñán, F. and Moriano, J.A., 2014. Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: values and motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), pp.679-689.
Fiske, S.T., 2018. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. In Social Cognition (pp. 101-115). Routledge.
Gamache, D.L., McNamara, G., Mannor, M.J. and Johnson, R.E., 2015. Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), pp.1261-1282.
Gerhart, B. and Fang, M., 2015. Pay, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and creativity in the workplace: Revisiting long-held beliefs.
Judge, T.A., Simon, L.S., Hurst, C. and Kelley, K., 2014. What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), p.199.
Löhndorf, B. and Diamantopoulos, A., 2014. Internal branding: Social identity and social exchange perspectives on turning employees into brand champions. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), pp.310-325.
Parker, S.K., 2014. Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual review of psychology, 65, pp.661-691.
Richter, G., Raban, D.R. and Rafaeli, S., 2015. Studying gamification: the effect of rewards and incentives on motivation. In Gamification in education and business (pp. 21-46). Springer, Cham.
Ritz, A., Brewer, G.A. and Neumann, O., 2016. Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), pp.414-426.
Saleem, H., 2015. The impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction and mediating role of perceived organizational politics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, pp.563-569.
Schuh, S.C., Bark, A.S.H., Van Quaquebeke, N., Hossiep, R., Frieg, P. and Van Dick, R., 2014. Gender differences in leadership role occupancy: The mediating role of power motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), pp.363-379.
Van der Wal, Z., 2015. “All quiet on the non-Western front?” A review of public service motivation scholarship in non-Western contexts. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 37(2), pp.69-86.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
