Motivational Theories and Factors, Essay Example

Through its Workers: Motivation as Shared Benefits

Most workplaces do not inherently inspire their employees; some do not even fulfill those needs which are not legally addressed. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theorizes that the physiological needs, i.e. food, water, and shelter, safety, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization, respectively, represent the needs of each person from instinctive to sophisticated and thus from greater to lesser urgency (Youssef & Noon, 2012). No one strategy of workplace motivation can adequately address every need for each individual, and managers often face the dilemma of targeting the known needs of struggling employees versus motivating for the best generalized goals. For this reason, exploring a variety of motivational strategies and options creates a better-informed, responsible arsenal of motivational weapons.

Family-friendly benefits, operant conditioning, and monetary incentives are three such diverse motivation tools (Harell & Daim, 2010; Mulvaney, 2011; Youssef & Noon, 2012). Operant conditioning, which is most commonly associated with Pavlov’s experiment with dogs’ reactions to bells, by no means encourages managers to treat employees like dogs, but it does emphasize the viewpoint that people are “creatures of habit”, as the expression goes (Harell & Daim, 2010). Still, company policies, such as lay-off rates, produce other forms of operant conditioning which are often beyond the control of the manager, but how he or she reacts to such unsettling developments contributes to this understanding (Mulvaney, 2011). Today there are a greater number of parents in the workplace, because the number of single parents and the number of dual-income households have increased. While offering family benefits can create an initially-high cost, Mulvaney (2011) discovers that family-friendly benefits (FFBs), such as superior medical insurance, child care, flexible work schedules, paid vacation time, and family information access, improve commitment to the workplace; child care and flexible work schedules show the highest positive correlation with self-efficacy, motivation, and general job satisfaction (pp. 58-60). Monetary incentives “improve a goal’s prestige and workers’ commitment to it” (Youseff & Noon, 2012). This could involve a cash prize, a one-time bonus, a raise, or other legal methods of providing monetary gain to the winner(s). This act of setting certain objectives apart from others provides an immediate clarification of larger goals and priorities.

Of these three strategies, operant conditioning seems more appropriate when establishing motivation in smaller groups; management may want to consider using these techniques to re-train their habits for greater productivity and positivity, which would, in turn, improve their immediate working environments. Family-friendly benefits (FFBs) generally require at least 50 employees to have the desired impact upon motivation and upon the total costs of company operation (Mulvaney, 2011, p. 60). Although the bare costs of providing FFBs tends to be high, providing child care and other family resources allows the employees to ‘invest’ their money back into the company’s larger interests. With these services being readily available through the workplace, employees show greater attendance rates and overall morale (pp. 60-61). This brings the company into the community in a non-intrusive way, thereby spreading an awareness of community pride. Word of mouth works powerfully—either for or against a company through its workers- and FFBs help employees fulfill Mazlow’s highest need of self-actualization.

Providing monetary incentives (MIs) may provide a boosted sense of love, esteem, and self-actualization for the winner(s). However, this boost for these lucky employees may dishearten others if not carefully done. MIs differ from family-friendly benefits because MIs are tangible and often more competitive (Youssef & Noon, 2012). As mentioned earlier, MIs clarify the goals which are given immediate priority. Obviously, these goals should convey a message which is positive and does not overturn employee expectations and attitudes about what the company values. Also, because of funding limitations and the competitive nature of the contests leading up to the awarding of MIs, this strategy works better with small groups which are accustomed to working through pressure together; MIs are often limited to a certain project or department and must have clear rules which are not prejudicial.

References

Harell, G., & Daim, T. U. (2010). HDM Modeling as a Tool to Assist Management With Employee Motivation: The Case of Silicon Forest. Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 23-33.

Mulvaney, M. (2011). A Study of the Role of Family-Friendly Employee Benefits Programs, Job Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy among Public Park and Recreation Employees. Journal Of Park & Recreation Administration, 29(1), 58-79.

Youssef, C., & A. Noon (2012). Industrial/ Organizational Psychology. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.: San Diego, CA. Chapter 7. Print.