Organisational behaviour, as defined by Robbins and Millet and Cacioppe and Waters-Marsh (1998, p.10), is the study of the influence that individuals, groups, and structure have on behaviour within organisations. The purpose of this field of study is to use the gained knowledge to enhance an organisation’s effectiveness. Motivation is a significant aspect within organisational behaviour.
Herzberg (1991, p.13) states that the main issue in business practice is ensuring employees comply with desired actions. Motivation refers to an individual’s eagerness to complete a task and involves processes that stimulate, direct, and sustain human behavior towards achieving specific goals (Robbins et al., 1998, p.199). According to Robbins (1998, p.199), motivation is defined as the willingness to exert significant effort towards organizational goals, contingent upon personal needs being satisfied. Inkson and Kolb (1999) connect motivation to ability, environmental conditions, and performance. They argue that individuals with high motivation and average abilities can succeed in supportive environments but capable individuals may struggle if lacking motivation (Inkson and Kolb, 1999, p.319). Personally, I find motivation intriguing as it helps me understand the factors necessary for employees to achieve business goals. Additionally, understanding motivation benefits me on an individual level by providing insight into what drives me towards my own goals.
Motivation is a complex concept, with various theories explaining how to bring it out in individuals and enable employers to maximize their employees’ potential. The theories of motivation in business have evolved over time, reflecting and being influenced by the dominant management ideologies and philosophies of each era (Bowey, 2001). Different viewpoints exist on how employees should be treated and supported to achieve desired goals. According to Herzberg (1991, p.13), the key to motivating employees is to assign them challenging work that allows them to take on responsibilities. Other commonly suggested approaches include incentive plans, job enrichment, enhanced support for employee well-being, and leveraging mentoring programs. These methods are believed by different sources to contribute towards enhancing staff motivation.
Inkson and Kolb (1999, p.327) discuss an issue known as expectancy theory, which pertains to how employees perceive the value of their efforts in achieving a goal. The authors argue that motivation declines when the relationship between performance and effort is uncertain. The outcomes of such efforts can include extrinsic rewards like bonuses and praise, as well as intrinsic rewards such as feelings of accomplishment. In contrast, Herzberg (1991, p.16) opposes the idea of using bonuses to increase productivity. According to Herzberg, money becomes a specific drive once an individual needs to satisfy their basic biological hunger drive. As a result, employees who have become accustomed to monetary rewards may struggle to work without them. Kohn (1993, p.54) shares a similar perspective, stating that reward systems only bring temporary compliance, and once the rewards are no longer available, individuals tend to revert back to their old behaviors. Kohn’s article emphasizes the importance of examining the promises behind incentive programs when they fail, rather than blaming the program itself.
Serious problems with incentives include employees misleading their superiors to protect their bonus. Kohn further highlights the detrimental impact of individuals driven by incentives on organizations, stating that nothing poses a greater threat to an organization than a group of individuals seeking favor from the incentive dispenser (1993, p.56).
According to Robbins (1998, p.212), demotivation can also occur when an employee receives a smaller bonus than they had expected, despite working hard in hopes of a promotion. Herzberg discusses two types of job loading: vertical and horizontal. Horizontal job loading involves restructuring a person’s job without increasing their job satisfaction, such as challenging them with increased production expectations, assigning additional meaningless tasks, rotating assignments between workers, or removing difficult parts of the job to focus on easier tasks. Herzberg refers to these changes as horizontal job loading because they do not result in increased production but instead move the worker to a different stage on the same level. Appendix One provides examples of areas in vertical job loading and their corresponding motivators, as suggested by Herzberg.
According to Robbins, jobs that have a high motivating potential must satisfy at least one of three factors that contribute to a sense of purpose: skill variety, task identity, and task significance. Additionally, these jobs should also offer a high level of autonomy and feedback. This is different from Herzberg’s perspective, as Herzberg emphasizes that increasing motivation can be achieved by giving workers more responsibility.
In her article, Young discusses how Marks and Spencer prioritizes the health of their employees, recognizing it as a crucial aspect of their employment policy (March 23, 1995). Marks and Spencer invests a substantial amount, NZ$7.5 million, in providing healthcare services for their workforce. This investment is not motivated by a misguided belief in its benefits, but rather by the understanding that both the employees and the company as a whole benefit from it (Young, 1995).
According to Herzberg, a company should invest more in job enrichment rather than focusing solely on hygiene factors. Herzberg believes that if even a small portion of the resources currently dedicated to hygiene were redirected towards job enrichment, it would result in significant dividends in terms of employee satisfaction and economic gain. In his view, increasing health benefits does not necessarily lead to increased motivation. (Herzberg, 1991, p.22).
According to Herzberg (1991, p.16), the factors contributing to job satisfaction and motivation differ from those causing job dissatisfaction. In other words, if individuals are unhappy with the hygiene aspects within a company, improving these aspects will reduce their dissatisfaction, but it will not increase their satisfaction or motivation.
Appendix two presents a synthesis of the factors contributing to employee job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1991, p.17). Since the early 1970s, companies have been implementing mentoring programs. Initially, these programs aimed to support young graduates in adapting to the organization and fostering their professional growth (Little, 1995, p.51). According to Little, workplace mentoring is context-specific. However, as students become more self-directed in their learning, they may seek mentors who encourage independence (1995, p.51). Although colleagues in Manchester and Leeds, UK, often receive no financial or status rewards for mentoring, participating in a mentor training program can result in academic credit. By combining an experienced colleague with a newcomer to the business, both parties are motivated to succeed. The colleague benefits from enhancing their reputation through training a new recruit, while the student gains knowledge and is compensated for learning from an expert. Furthermore, aspects of mentoring can also be linked to job loading.
Herzberg conducted a test that revealed that the achievers’ performance was initially poorer before a six-month period began. Furthermore, their performance service index continued to decline after motivators were introduced, likely due to their uncertainty about the new responsibilities assigned to them. However, in the third month, their performance level improved and kept increasing (see Appendix Three, 1991, p.20). This indicates that when implementing new motivational strategies, it is essential to allow sufficient time for them to be internalized by the staff, who must adapt to unfamiliar standards.
Everyone has motivation, but it is important to find the right approach to ignite their motivation. I believe that motivation strategies should not be changed frequently. According to Herzberg’s article, when a company experimented with changing expectations, employees initially felt anxious. However, once they adjusted to the new requirements, their performance improved (Appendix Three). In my opinion, offering monetary rewards as bonuses is not effective in the long run. While these rewards may temporarily impact employees’ work habits, they lead to increased costs in terms of time, money, and company resources. Additionally, rewards can shift employees’ focus towards personal gains rather than company goals. A friend of mine shared a story about working for a computer distributor in England. They received a monthly bonus for achieving a specific sales target. One month, my friend named Paul encountered a customer complaint regarding a return. In order to protect his bonus, Paul refused to assist the customer with the return. This decision not only resulted in the loss of a customer but also generated negative word-of-mouth for the company. Consequently, Paul received a bonus unjustly.
In my opinion, the most effective method of rewarding your employees is to issue certificates. These certificates should be difficult to obtain and symbolize progress or perseverance. Additionally, these certificates can serve as valuable qualifications.
The fear of not meeting others’ expectations is a strong motivator for me. Peer pressure drives me to pursue my goals and reminds me of what I am striving for, pushing me to do my best. This principle can also be applied in the business world. By conducting interviews with employees, businesses can understand their individual aspirations for their positions. If an employee lacks ambition to advance beyond their current job, there is no need to increase the difficulty of their tasks as it would only diminish motivation. However, if an employee sees their current job as a stepping stone, they should be assigned a mentor who can guide and motivate them to succeed, ensuring that their goals are not forgotten.
I personally agree with Herzberg’s theory on diminishing dissatisfaction instead of increasing motivation (Appendix One). While individuals may be dissatisfied with certain factors in the workplace, improving those factors will reduce their dissatisfaction but will not necessarily increase satisfaction or motivation.
Herzberg opposes the idea that KITA has any impact on staff motivation. KITA consists of tactics like reducing work hours, increasing wages, providing fringe benefits, offering training in human relations, sensitivity, and communications, improving communication channels, involving employees in decision-making, and providing counseling services (1991). These personnel practices were developed in an attempt to foster motivation. However, motivation cannot be imposed; it needs to be elicited. One important realization is that we cannot rely on a single model to explain human motivation based on universally applicable needs like the desire for money, achievement, interesting work, or relationships at work. People have diverse needs both within and between organizations.
Bibliography:
a) Robbins, S.P. & Millet, B. & Cacioppe, R. & Waters-Marsh, T. (1998). Organisational Behaviour: Leading and Managing in Australia and New Zealand (2nd ed.). Australia: Pearsons Education (p.199 – 273).
b) Bowey, A.M. (2001). Motivation at Work: A crucial aspect in compensation.
The motivation article can be found at the website http://www.netnz.com/gainsharing/Motivation.html. Additionally, Inkson and Kolb (1999) discuss management perspectives in New Zealand in their book “Management: Perspectives for New Zealand” on pages 317-335.
d) Herzberg, F. (1991). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?: Harvard Business Review: business Classics: Fifteen Key Concepts For Managerial Success. (p.13-22)
e) Young, S. (1995 March 23). Taking Care of Employees is the Route to Business Health: People Management: The magazine for professionals in personnel, training and development. (p. 53)
f) Little, B. (1995 February 23). Different Approaches to the Role of Work Place Mentoring: People Management: The magazine for professionals in personnel, training and development. (p. 51)
g) Kohn, A. (1993 September – October). Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work: Harvard Business Review. (p.54-63)
h) Myers, C. & McCutcheon, M. (1995 April 20). Different Approaches to the Role of Work Place Mentoring: People Management: The magazine for professionals in personnel, training and development. (p. 32-34)
