Employee Motivational Theories and Concepts Essay

Numerous theories on the subject of employee need fall in been developed and published for the better part of this century. While early employers sight of their forgeers as just an other input into the production of goods and services (Lindner, 1998), employees were beseeming increasingly dissatisfied with working conditions and malevolent management. As post-war, labor tensions attach in the 1920s, employers conducted to change their approach to employee relations if they were to avoid costly, and sometimes violent, labor strikes. Early motivational theories set the foundation for the development of twentieth century beliefs, including the move to get Googled and motivational techniques based on production line strengths found in the corporate toolbox.Early Motivational TheoriesGeorge Elton Mayo, an Australian-born psychologist and Harvard Professor, began significant question in 1927 in an attempt to demonstrate that employees, if enamourly propel, atomic number 18 to a greater extent productive and can compass greater return with appropriate valet relationship management techniques (Trahair & Zaleznik, 2005). This research, referred to as the Hawthorne Studies, found that employees ar not only motivated by financial gain, but to a fault by the behaviour and attitude of their supervisors.During these studies, the employees responded corroboratoryly to the mere fact that they were receiving anxiety from their supervisor as a result of the experiment. In his article, Gordon Marshall (1998) say that the term Hawthorne effect is now widely used to refer to the behavior-modifying effect of being the subject of social investigation, regardless of the context of the investigation. More generally, the researchers reason that supervisory style greatly affected worker productivity (para. 1) and that heighten productivity therefore depends on management sensitivity to, and manipulation of, the humane relations of production (para. 2). This rep resented a dramatic paradigm evoke for employers and theorists alike.Subsequent to the conclusion of the infamous Hawthorne Studies, fiver primary motivational theories form developed that confine increased the understanding of what truly motivates employees. They be Mas execrables need-hierarchy, Hertzbergs two-factor system, howls expectancy theory, Adams legality theory, and Skinners rein fightment theory. Maslow identified that employees, in general, devour five primary levels of needs that include psycho sensible (e.g. air, food, shelter), safety (e.g. security, order, stability), belongingness (e.g. love, family, relationships), esteem (e.g. work, status, responsibility), and self-actualization (McLeod, 2007). Maslow upgrade noted that, in order to provide motivation, the lower levels would need to be satisfied before one progressed to the higher levels.Hertzberg classified motivation into two, decided factors. He believed that intrinsic factors (or motivators) prod uce hypothecate satisfaction through achievement and recognition while extrinsic (or hygiene) factors produce dissatisfaction. He identified extrinsic factors to be associated with compensation and perceived job security, or lack thereof. Vroom theorized that demonstrated effort would lead to performance which, in turn, would lead to settle with (either positive or negative). The more positive the reward the more passing motivated the employee would be. To the contrary, negative rewards would result in a lesser motivated employee.Adams found that employees want to ensure that there is a sense of pallidity and equity between themselves and their co-workers. He believed that equity is achieved when employees be change, in cost of input and output, at the aforementioned(prenominal) rate. Skinners theory was liable(predicate) the most simplistic, He established that employees will repeat behaviors that lead to positive outcomes and eliminate or minimize behaviors that lead to n egative outcomes. He conceived that, if managers positively reinforce desired behavior, it would lead to positive outcomes and that managers should negatively reinforce employee behavior that leads to negative outcomes (Lindner, 1998). crowd R. Lindner, Professor of Management and Research at Ohio posit University, has conducted extensive research on this topic. In his paper Understanding Employee Motivation, he further extrapolated on the five theories, providing a comparative analysis, and offering a summary definition that focuses on the psychological process and inner force associated with the accomplishment of personal and organizational goals (Lindner, 1998). 20th Century ConceptsIn accompaniment to studying popular theories associated with employee motivation, Lindner (1998) includes the methodology and outcomes of an independent study, conducted at Ohio State University, that seek to rank the importance of ten motivating factors. The results of this study were compelling with kindle work ranking as number one over other more commonly identified motivators, such as wages and job security. In comparing these results with Maslows hierarchy of needs, among others, he found that the results atomic number 18 mixed, with the highest ranked factor (interesting work) being one of self-actualization and contrary to Maslows findings (Lindner, 1998).This presents a divergent result that challenges Maslows assumption that the lower needs essential be satisfied before a person can achieve their potential and self-actualize (McLeod, 2007, para.16). This does not negate Maslows work, but rather demonstrates that a natural evolution whitethorn have taken institutionalize with the ripe workforce due to the progression of motivation strategies. This is a accredit to the work of early theorists, and a call to arms for those that continue this research. Get Googled however history has yet to definitively termination the question, what is the best method(s) to mo tivate employees? The imprecise answer continues to be it depends. Many successful organizations incorporate a variety of programs aimed at motivating their employees, based on their specific population. Google Inc., for example, is leading the way to restructure management so that employees can streamline creative ideas that produce megahit new products.They are rewarding employees with perks like onsite swimming pools, allowing employees to bring their pets to work, providing onsite electric shaver care, and all the free food employees want (How Google Inc. Rewards Its Employees, 2010, idea Leaders, para.1). While this may not be realistic for every organization, there is something to be state about the fact that Google, Inc. is consistently ranked by Fortune clip as the best place in the U.S. to work. However there are things that a company can do to motivate their employees that are low or no cost and likely already exist in their corporate toolbox.The Corporate ToolboxMost successful organizations pride themselves on their ability to promote their product or service to achieve the desired level of profitability. They develop strategic plans, set production goals and persuade their customers that they are best of the best in their field. They are advertisers and peddlers of wares. So what does this have to do with motivation? Robert Hershey, Director of James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona and contributing author to the diary of Managerial Psychology, contends that there is a significant correlation between an organizations ability to successfully promote their business line and thrive at motivating their employees. He notes that we do not need one more theory of motivation we need better sagacity into the psychology of advertising. We can take some tried-and-true product advertising techniques that have been found to be effective and use them in a human resources and management context.But before we do that, the point must b e made that, as a practical matter, our vocabulary and attention choose a shift from the motivation jargon of needs, expectancy, two-factor theories, etc., to an emphasis on dialogues practices, because persuasion requires the transmission of information (Hershey, 1993). If Hershey is correct, then an emphasis on communication and inclusion would create an environment ripe for employee motivation. One could also indicate that, if communication is key, allowing input and empowered decision fashioning is the next logical step to producing a motivated employee. Carolyn Wiley, Professor of Business at Roosevelt University, concurs with this imagination and provides the following supporting statements in her article Creating an Environment for Employee Motivation When employees have an opportunity to provide input, this increases their survival rate and their sense of commitment. In umpteen very small companies, a natural sense of ownership a lot develops among the employees.Howev er, as companies grow, feelings of ownership and commitment start to decline. To increase commitment as the organization grows, managers must change how they define who retains control. Shared decision making is essential both to company success and employee survival. Workers generally do not resist their own ideas and decisions. Rather, they are motivated to fulfill them. (Wiley, 1992, para.14) While this may seem threatening to traditional leaders, it should not be viewed as surrendering control. Employees that are empowered through inclusion are ambassadors for organizational success.It is only through mutual success that both the employee and company thrive. It seems so simple, but eludes fifty-fifty the most progressive of companies. Most organizations are more inclined to cut down thousands of dollars creating recognition programs, building home office environments, developing bonus structures and hosting employee handgrip events rather than recognizing that most employees are merely looking to be valued. The same attention that motivated the Hawthorne workers applies to the modern employee who just wants to contribute and receive credit for their effort.ConclusionThere is certainly compelling evidence to indicate that employee motivation comes in many forms. Whether one places their belief in the theoretical assumptions of a Maslow or Hertzberg, their financial backing in the creation of a Google-esque environment, or capitalize on their organizational strengths to communicate and persuade, there is clear engagement that the ability to successfully motivate employees is essential for corporate success and sustainability. The concept of positive human relation management has finally taken its place at the forefront of organizational strategies and, with it, the evolution of employee motivation.ReferencesTrahair, R. & Zaleznik, A. (2005). Elton Mayo The do-gooder Temper. New Brunswick, NJ Transaction PublishersMarshall, G. (1998). A Dictionary of Sociology Hawthorne Studies. Retrieved from Encyclopedia.com http//www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-Hawthornestudies.html Lindner, James R. (1998). Journal of Extension Understanding Employee Motivation. Retrieved from http//www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.phpMcLeod, S. A. (2007). Simply Psychology Maslow Hierarchy of Needs.Retrieved from http//www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.htmlHow Google Inc. rewards its employees. (2010). Retrieved from Thinking Leaders website http//www.thinkingleaders.com/archives/517Hershey, R. (1993). A practitioners view of motivation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 8(3), 10-10. Retrieved from http//ezproxy.arbor.edu80/login?url=http//search.proquest. com/docview/ 215865845?accountid=13998 Wiley, C. (1992). Create an environment for employee motivation. HR Focus, 69(6), 14-14. Retrieved from http//ezproxy.arbor.edu80/login?url=http//search.proquest.com/ docview/206781828?ac countid=13998