The Importance of Pay in Employee Motivation, Article Critique Example

General Comments

This article by Rynes, Gerhart, and Minette (2004), provided powerful and commanding insights into the role pay plays in the motivational process in the workplace, with particular emphasis being placed on the discrepancies or gaps that exist between what employees will say during interviews and surveys and how they will behave in different situational contingencies.

Jack Welch quoted in part saying that paying money or giving a plaque wasn’t enough, but both have to be given, according to Hymowitz and Murray (1999), gave support to the fact that money does plays significant role in how business organizations use their motivational strategies to attract, recruit, promote and retain personnel.

The Importance of Assessing Employees True Feelings on Pay In one of the key methodologies, the authors recommend that employers seek to find out how their employees feel about pay in terms of how it affect their performance by use of surveys at different levels and locations within their organizations, but what these employers should be wary of the fact that in order to gain social acceptance, their employees may not divulge their real feeling, and may cause erroneous or poorly designed motivational strategies to be implemented with adverse effects in the future.

It was also pointed out that false sense of security may also develop by employers choosing to accept without conducting proper internal behavioral assessment, what as being written in even popular and reputable HR magazines and journal on the market about money not being a motivator, as organizations can miss vital motivational opportunities to use it to maximize productivity by matching it with performance, where appropriate.

A disadvantage of the article is that there are no mention of how employees in different culture would react to being questioned regarding how they feel towards pay as a motivator and how they react afterwards on the job. Employees in other culture who may live in economically distress areas may behave the same way as they indicate in any survey, and employers would have to accept these findings and use them to develop motivational strategies that will ensure greater retentions and job satisfactions.

Self Importance v. Behavioral Studies on Pay In an objective manner Rynes et al (2004), produce evidence to show that there can be gaps between what employees say publicly about how pay affect their performance and how they will behave. Using 5 major case studies on the Self-Reports Importance of Pay, including contributions from Herzberg, Peterson and Capwell (1957), Lawler (1997), Jurgensen (1978), and Towers Perrin (2003), the results showed that pay did not gain the number one position in any of these notable work, and in the case of Jurgensen (2003), which was conducted over a 30 year period, involved the views of 50,000 employees, pay as a motivator was only seventh on the list.

Contrastingly, in a similar number of cases, where behavioral response to pay and other motivational interventions were used, the outcomes were markedly different. In a defining study by Guzzo, Jette and Katzell (1985), in a meta-analysis in which monetary incentives and other motivational programs were use to measure physical outputs, the results showed that financial incentives were four times more effective than the other interventions in making work more productive and interesting.

Disadvantageously, Rynes et al (2004) may have erred in this article in not finding and using the meta-analysis of other experts or from other magazines, to substantiate their arguments regarding no other motivational programs that provide the incentive to produce like money. In the Japanese culture for example, employees are guaranteed life time jobs, and money are not given the importance it gets in other cultures

The Merits of the Discrepancies Rynes et al. (2004), argued that the discrepancies that exist merits examination, as the nature and quality of the questions that are used to extract information from employees may not yield their true feelings, the perception that those who exults pay as important to performance may be determined as crass behaviors was real, and the fact that money has broad usefulness, which include symbolic meanings and the power to assist employees to advance to practically every level on Maslow’s hierarchy, points to its significance in the lives of employees, regardless of what they or the magazines and journals may opine in other forums.

The article coverage with respect to this sub- topic could be describe as narrow and one dimensional approach, in that it did not provide any research work covering how employers respond to the results of surveys that ran counter to their perceptions regarding how employees should be motivated, and what actions they took to address the new findings, that could benefit readers.

The Getting Engage Concept and other questionable articles The authors developed their arguments further on the difference in importance being proclaimed from different ends of the continuum, by questioning the validity and integrity of the magazine cover story reported by Bates (2004), which was entitled “Getting Engaged” The term engage was defined as the innate desire of workers to contribute something of value to their organizations, but it could be argued from this article that the writer was deceptively trying to use the term to lure employees away from using pay as the driving force to get their desired rewards from their employers, while making worthwhile contributions in the process.

This strategy would in the long run cause less emphasis to be placed on the importance of money as a motivator.

A study by Towers Perrin (2003) was also questionable in that ten factors were used to conduct a meta-analysis and pay was a noticeable absentee from the list, while on examination of 12 years of Harvard Review publications turned up anti-pay articles like “Why Incentives Cannot Work”, “Six Dangerous Myths about Pay”, and One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees (Rynes et al. (2004).

Rynes et al (2004) like the writers of these magazines may be misleading the reading public, in that they made no mention of any other publications that had taken opposite viewpoints to what was being said to advance pay as important in motivational tool. One may feel that the content of this article was the first in this direction, when their might very well be others.

Pay Rebuttal In what could be termed as a rebuttal to the arguments submitted by these powerful magazines and publications regarding pay as a motivator, Rynes et al (20040 remarked conclusively that despite the evidence presented, they have found meta-analytically, that there are no better motivational interventions than performance contingent on pay for enticing people to attain higher performance levels.

However, in a desire to maintain balance and objectivity, they (Rynes et al. (2004), wisely emphasized that they were not saying that pay was the most important motivator or was equally important in all situations, but recommended that it be used in conjunction with other variables, as was demonstrated in Microsoft and General Electric companies, where challenging work and publicly sharing of vital information were used respectively, to achieve high performance levels.

Appling the Parameter of Pay under Different Contingencies In order to understand how to use pay effectively Rynes et al. (2004), warned that it was critical that employers knew the parameters of pay and how to apply them within individually different and situational contingencies in their working environments.

Citing several credible sources Rynes et al. (2004), pointed out that (a) pay was more important to extroverts than introverts, (b) academic high achievers when it was linked to high performance, (c) divides high performance employees from those with low expectations, (d) has greater significance to men more than women, and (e) closely linked people with the need for high achievement and feelings of self efficacy with performance.

Situationally, the scholars showed that/ pay was important job choice employees make when variation exists, and had strong marginal utility in deterring or de-motivating employees or applicants when at the below market level compare to the above market position. Additionally, Rynes et al (2004) tells their audience that, (a) pay assumes greater importance within organizations when changes in emoluments occurs, (b) employees will behave negatively or positively depending on how the changes in pay information has been communicated to them, (c) plays a vital role in job choice an decision to quit, and (d) will have little motivational effect in performance systems where minimal variations exist.

Rynes et al (2004) hastened to highlight that pay have strong motivational potentials but its effectiveness will depend considerable on how employers vary the individual and situational factors, as well as the level of administrative competence they will bring to the operating table.

The article failed to more details as to how employers could ensure that they bring administrative competence to their organizations, as failure in this area, especially from a communicative perspective can de-motivate an entire workforce and lead to higher attrition rates.

Benefits The article should prove beneficial to present and future HR Personnel and corporate executives in that it provides relevant information how to conduct their daily operations. Rynes et al. (2004) warned that managers should take pay complaints seriously, maintain pay structures above the market level, recognize and accept the fact that the majority of employees desire strong pay performance relationships, and ensure that the direction of executives pay should be congruent to median pay of the general workforce.

Critical to achieving feedback and behavior of employees towards pay Rynes et al (2004), asserts that the installation of appropriate systems that tracked both at all levels within the operations and the timely use of pay for performance and other behavioral interventions to ensure the maintenance of a highly motivated workforce.

The thoroughness of the article by Rynes et al (2004) was shown when they recommend that companies treat exit interviews as important source of their information gatherings, as employees leaving their organizations may be more open to expound their true feeling, as compare to when they are with the company, and the information gathered can be used to modify ongoing motivational strategies.

On the contrary, the writers fail to mention that exit interviews can also damage companies, especially when employees who were are badly treated, make false accusations that require costly damage control. They may also move with company secrets to competing organizations and cause their former companies to lose revenues. Exit interviews therefore should be situational rather than mandatory as Rynes et al (2004), seemed to be advocating.

Organizational Leaders will also benefits from the work of Rynes et al. (2004) after implementation of the principles presented, in that they advise that evaluations of the success of pay systems be conducted periodically, to ensure they are on the right track in terms of recruitment, promotion, retention and achievement of production objectives.

Conclusions

The presentation by Rynes et al. (2004), was very relevant to the needs of business organizations from a motivation perspective, due to the fact that it covered every aspect of operations in process of highlighting the gap that exist between what employees says about pay compare to their true feelings, and informing how use strategies to ensure behaviors and feeling are in line.

Employers who might have become complacent in terms of accepting questionable strategies and concepts from reputable magazines and articles on the market and using them to develop poorly designed motivational packages for their workers will be helped by this article.

The importance of individual and situational contingencies as well as the importance of communications and overall administrative competence was highlighted by the authors, and the critical meta-analysis carried out by Rynes et al. (2004), to show that pay linked with performance was a most important motivational tool, should not escape the attention of employers.

The article may seem well researched paper used very credible, compelling and authoritative sources to dispel the doubts and myths surrounding the importance of pay to employees within organizations, so that present and future HR personnel, managers, executives, and students will be more greatly empowered to pursue their respective personal, organizational and academic objectives.

However, employers should learn from the shortcomings of this article and that their environments are unique and may require specific tailor made motivational strategies that are culturally orientated to ensure their goals and objectives are achieved, rather than embracing large scale book based strategies that can be relevant and damaging at the same time.

Works Cited

Bates, S. “Getting Engaged”. HR Magazine, (Febraury2004). Vol.49 (2) pp. 44–51. Print.

Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A.,”The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis”. Personnel Psychology (1985).Vol. 38, pp. 275–291. Print.

Hymowitz, C., & Murray, M. “Boss talk: Raises and praise or out the door—How GE’s chief rates and spurs his employees”. Wall Street Journal (1999, June 21) p. B1

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. “Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion”. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh (1957).Print.

Jurgensen, C. E. “Job Preferences -What makes a job good or bad?” Journal of Applied Psychology, (1978) 63, 267–276 Print.

Lawler, E. E., III. “Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view”. New York: McGraw Hill (1971).Print.

Rynes, Sara, L., Gerhart, Barry, and Minette, Kathleen, A., “The Importance of Pay in Employee Motivation: Discrepancies between What People Say and Do”

Human Resource Management, (Winter 2004) Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 381–394

© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Inter-Science (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20031 Electronic.

Towers Perrin. “Working Today: Understanding what drives employee engagement”. The 2003 Towers Perrin Report Print.