Motivation of Employee People join and work in organization to satisfy their needs. They are fascinated to organizations that have the funds of rewarding their wants. These wealth are called “incentives (compensation, benefits)” (M. Maccoby, 9) of rewards; organizations use them to initiate people to contribute their efforts on the way to achieve organizational goals. The continued existence of an organization depends on its capability to attract and stimulate people to accomplish these individual and organizational goals. Motivation is defined as a goal-directed behavior. It concerns the level of endeavor one exerts in pursuing a target.
Managers are concerned with this concept because it is directly connected to employee satisfaction and job performance: “The job of manager in the workplace is to get things done through employees. To do this the manager should be able to motivate employees. But that’s easier said than done! Motivation practice and theory are difficult subjects, touching on several disciplines”. (http://www. accel-team. com/motivation/index. html) Worker motivation is a key concern of managers as well as psychologists because motivation is closely related to the success of an individual, an organization, and society.
Motivating employees is becoming progressively more compound and complicated, as people become enhanced educated and economically more independent; the conventional means of motivation, such as official authority and monetary incentives, become less efficient. However, managers still have the responsibility of motivation their workers toward the attainment of organizational goals. To meet this responsibility, they should understand how and why people are motivated to work in organization and be equipped with a set of principles that can be applied to employee motivation.
Why are some people better motivated than other? According to Paul J. Champagne and R. Bruce McAfee “Motivating Strategies for Performance and Productivity”, there are two basic principles of motivation: “One basic principle of motivation is that everyone is different, and what motivates one person may not motivate another. A second is that people’s preferences change over time and what motivates a given person today may not have the same effect in the future”. (5) Employee motivation is difficult to understand because it involves a variety of individual and organizational factors.
The individual factors include the following: needs that could be expressed as money, in term of existence: “’Show me the money’ has become a commonly used term is society. There is not a person in the world that could not want more money. Money is a factor that never be ignored. Cash is a motivator that will always be popular”. (article- effective ways to motivate employee) The next individual factor is a goals or mission, <……………………………> “Attitude and behavior”( )is an another personal factor: “The second step is for manager to measure the pinpoint behavior.
The measurement serves several important functions. They indicate the severity of the problems; they let the employees know exactly where they stand in relationship to company standards; and they provide a baseline against which future behavior can be judged”, And the last factor that I want to point out is ability: “Ability in turn depends on education, experience and training, and its improvement is a slow and long process”. The problem of managers is to reach the greatest results of productivity among workers by using a correct and individual selection of methods and theories of motivation.
The motivational development in organizations can de described by a model that is composed of three parts: motivational inputs, motivational decision and motivational outcomes. The model identifies a set of motivational determinative, such as: employee needs, organizational stimulus, and palpable outcomes. 1. Employee needs. People have set of needs they want to satisfy. The most important needs are biological and safety. Paul J Champagne and R. Bruce McAfee have named this as “existence”. This includes the need for food, clothing, safe working conditions, and economic security”. (p139) The next group of employee needs is affection, companionship, and influence. The mentioned above authors called it “relatedness”. “This involves the need for meaningful social and interpersonal relationship”. (p139) And the last group is consummation and self-topical also called “growth, and includes the need for personal growth and being creative on the job”. (p139) 2. Organizational stimulus. Organizations have a set of rewards that very close to and can please employee’s needs.
These consist of several system of rewards, such as: substantive reward describing by pay, job security, and physical working conditions; interactive rewards that include co-workers, supervision, praises and recognition; and intrinsic rewards depicting as achievement, challenge, and accountability. These organizational factors influence the way of performance. 3. Palpable outcomes. People grow a set of perceptions relating to the significance of managerial rewards, the link between performance and rewards, and the likehood that their labors may result in duty presentation.
The second part of the model, motivational decision, explains the procedure by which people generate motivational choices and decisions. This procedure describes the motivational hard work involved in deciding to implement productively. The faithful component implicated is motivational efforts. If people have the capability and influence, they make motivational decisions based on how they differentiate the worth of rewards, the involved relationship between performance, reward and the like hood of mission achievement.
Generally, constructive perceptions lead to elevated motivation. ‘The ideal approach when providing information to employees is that everyone should know about everything that concerns them directly and indirectly, in full and accurate detail, as soon as possible”. (Personnel, by Hank Darlington September 2005) The final fraction of the model, motivational outcomes, explains the outcomes of employee motivation. ***** It shows the connection among motivation, performance, rewards, employee satisfaction and organizational productivity.
These key variables can be described as: performance level, rewords, satisfaction. Performance is a function of ability and motivation. Ability determines what a person can do, while motivation determines what a person will do. Employee occupation performance influences executive efficiency, which in turn affects the stage of organizational rewards. ………………………………………………………………… Performance may be either rewarded or not rewarded. Equitable rewards lead to employee satisfaction; inequitable rewards or no rewards lead to dissatisfaction. …………………………………………………………………………………… The amount of pleasure modifies the sort and strength of employee desires. This customized need construction influences the person’s potential actions. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… This conceptual model identifies a number of factors influencing employee motivation, satisfaction, and performance. The expectancy theory of motivation explains the process by which people make motivational choices. The expectancy theory starts with the postulation that people are rational beings who want to make the most of their gains in their goal-directed actions.
Therefore, when they are faced with a information of behavioral options most important to require satisfaction, they will appraise the possible outcomes of these options and decide on one that promises an most favorable consequence. In order to estimate these behavioral options, a normal person will investigate the value of the rewards that the organization offers (valence), the connection between performance and rewards (instrumentality), and the apparent possibility of accomplishing the necessary mission (expectancy).
The propensity to take action (motivation) is supposed to be a function of the valence, the instrumentality and the expectancy. According to this theory, people make motivational choices based on how they feel the value of rewards, the instrumental attitudes among performance and rewards, and the probability of receiving the job completed. Inhabitants attach a valence to an inducement for the reason that they think it satisfies several of their desires. Since it is subjective, people vary in the worth they fasten to a specified stimulus.
For instance, one person may attach a high value to a promotion while another person can stay away from it. The former may like it because it brings funds and authority while the latter dislike it because it means more accountability or the headaches of dealing with other people’s troubles. Also, since it is subjective, managers have lack of control over the valences their employees attach to organizational incentives. However, managers can manipulate the valence by corresponding incentives rewards to employee needs.
Valence usually increases when employee has a strong needs, when money is used as an incentive, or when the size of the monetary incentive is adequately attractive. Performance-reword instrumentality Instrumentality refers to the relationship between performance and reward. People would be more motivated when they know, for sure, that if job is well done they will be rewarded, and this would cause the increase in a level of task performance. On the other hand, if people are not sure about their rewording, motivational efforts will be reduced. As with valence, the measures of instrumentality can be positive or negative.
If people feel that their performance is commonly rewarded, the perceived instrumentality would be constructive. If they think that performance does not create any disparity to their rewards or if poor performers are rewarded as much or more than high performer, the instrumentality will be near to the ground. Since perceived instrumentality is a subjective judgment, managers do not have straight control over it. However, they can completely influence their subordinate awareness of the instrumental connection by corresponding plunder to performance and by communicating this detail successfully to the subordinates.
For example, managers can get better instrumentality by using performance-contingent disburse scheme such as portion rates, good point rates, or performance bonuses, and by running such systems reasonably. Effort-performance expectancy Expectancy is the belief that effort leads to performance. It is a slanted emotion that people join to the likehood of accomplishing a mission. Employees can ask if they can perform and accomplish the task goal, how much effort this task would require. Expectancy would be favorable if people feel that there is a close relationship between their efforts and task accomplishment.
However, if the mission is too effortless or too complex relative to their skill, then they may experience that their effort is not connected to job performance. Like other motivational concepts, expectancy is subjective. People fasten varying expectancies to an outcome. A task may appear easy to some, but not to others. A person’s ability and personality influence his or her efforts-performance expectancy. Capable and protected individuals tend to recognize expectancy more positively than incompetent and gloomy folks. Managers have no straight control over how staffs perceive he possibility of achievement of result or task, but they can power the employee’s expectancies positively by identical people to jobs. When people are matched with job, employees can utilize their skills and energies effectively. Consequently, efforts-performance expectancy will be increased. Developing motivational principles Managers can get better the valence, instrumentality and expectancy by corresponding rewards to needs, identical rewards to performance, and similar jobs to employees. By matching rewards to needs, managers can increase not only the valence of rewards, but also the level of employee satisfaction.
There are a few things that managers can do. By asking employees about their wants and what kind of awards they prefer, managers can select an appropriate reward. People want different things from their jobs and by matching rewards to their needs would cause increasing valence of the rewards. The next thing is to discover people who may value what the organization may present. Some organizations are limited in their ability to offer a variety rewards. In this case, the organization needs to be a magnet for people who can be motivated by what it can offer.
For example, if the only thing that company can offer is money, it should hire people who are determined for economic need satisfaction. By linking organizational rewards to job performance, management can enlarge the probability of attaining both individual and organizational goals. This strategy favorably affects the performance-reward instrumentality. There are several things what to do. For instance, some rewards system, such as annual bonuses or fringe benefits, lack motivational value because they are not tied to performance.
They are given to employee instead of maintaining organizational membership. Therefore, incentive pay and merit system would be great to show relating rewards to performance. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Identical the technical, physical, and psychological necessities of the job to the employee’s experience improve the effort-performance expectancy. If the job is either too simple or too complex, the member of staff may not feel that his or her effort has been effectively utilized in the task performance.
The matching process involves the following actions. Design the job to suit employee needs. People want different levels of job challenge. Some employees may prefer complex and challenging jobs, but other would pick a simple task. Task complexity needs to be differentiated to mirror the technical and psychological qualifications of employees. “Existing job design models have been criticized for being able to explain affective outcomes more consistently than they do those of task motivation and performance.
This study presents an empirical test of several propositions relating to the role of task-related efficacy beliefs as mediators of the relation between job design and task motivation and performance. We begin by highlighting gaps in job design theory, particularly in respect to performance within contemporary work contexts with their increased emphasis on self-management, and draw on social cognitive theory to describe the role of self-management efficacy beliefs as a mediator between job design and task motivation.
We hypothesize that self-management efficacy will be a first-level outcome of jobs offering opportunities for self-management and also that these beliefs will mediate the relation between opportunities for self-management and task motivation. We tested these hypotheses in a cross-sectional field study (N = 270). The results support the need to differentiate between paths from job design that lead to affect and paths that lead to task motivation. There was a strong direct relation between skill utilization and affect (job satisfaction) and task motivation.
In contrast, self-management efficacy mediated the path between work method control and task motivation, and the relation between work method control and affect was not significant. Finally, we discuss implications of these results for future research and practice. ” Match employees to job. The match between jobs and people can also be achieved by hiring people who will fit the jobs. When it is economically and technically impractical to redesign jobs, it makes more sense to fit employees to jobs than the other way around. Improve employee job skills.
Another way of fitting people to jobs is by training. When employees are underqualificated to perform their duty, training can help them find a better fit. Training is also enhances effort-performance expectancy. Set challenging but attainable goals. Set performance goals that are challenging but attainable. If the task goals are ether too high or too low, employees are not likely to feel that their efforts are related to task performance. When the task goals are challenging but achievable purposes, they are more likely to perceive the relationship between efforts and task accomplishment.