The Role Of Motivation Theories & Techniques In Organizational Behavior

Industry

There have been various studies regarding the motivation theories and how they influence the work rate or the productivity majorly within the workplace. Use of motivational theories to enhance the moral and the motivational level of the employees are very common nowadays though the productivity would depend on certain factors like leadership quality, style of leadership, level of the job satisfaction and many more(Bal and De Lange 2015). After various studies it has been proven that the motivational theories have a deep influence on the productivity of the workforce in a positive way. It is a common phrase that the workforce is the nucleus of any organization, but if the workforce is motivated and loyal towards the organization, then they can surely be considered as the asset of that organization. In some organizations it is seen that due to lethargy of the workers, at times the organization has to lag behind many opportunities, and the worst part is that in most cases those organizations have the potential to get successful, but they cannot compete for lack of proper motivation(Becker et al. 2015). Thus, motivation is one of the most important aspects nowadays in order to boost the productivity of the general workforce. The managers of the organizations have to be extra cautioned to ensure that all the employees are motivated and loyal towards the organization. It is a common issue that if the workforce is not motivated then a huge sum of money, energy and resources along with time gets wasted and that is not at all good for any business organization (Michaelson et al. 2014). Thus the motto of the management of any organization should be to use lesser human resources and to gain the maximum output; and there lies the need of motivational theories that would influence the organizational behavior and make the workforce more motivated and loyal towards the corporation.

In this report the industry, where implementing the theories of motivation is going to be discussed, is electronic industry. The workers of the electronic industry has to be well trained to accurately finish their job as the type of work in where they are engaged takes a lot of accuracy, and knowledge to attain perfection. It can surely be said that  the employees of the electronic industry has to be more cautioned as a small mistake on their part can cost the company a lot of money and reputation too(Dang 2014). Thus the management of the organizations of the electronics industry has to be aware of the fact that all the employees are motivated and loyal towards the organization to attain that level of perfection. The managers can primarily try basic concepts like reward and recognition way of motivating the workers, or he can choose other concept later if he does not get the desired results.

In this section of the report a detailed discussion on the reward and recognition method off motivating the employees. At the preliminary stage, the managers of electronic industry might stress on the training and development areas to ensure that all the employees have the knowledge of executing a task with perfection (Becker et al. 2015). Then the manager has to constantly motivate thee workers by providing reward and recognition, either by giving the hike or by encouraging and praising them in front of the other employees. While doing this, the other employees, who were not producing enough productivity, would get interested to get the recognition like the other individuals and that drive would influence their productivity positively and certainly give a boost to their work rate (Michaelson et al. 2014).

Reward and Recognition

If the management of the particular organizations stress on the safety and security issues of their employees: the workforce would know that the management do care for them and that would increase the level of motivation and loyalty towards the organizations and that can potentially increase the level of productivity of the workers (Dang-Pham and Pittayachawan 2015). Apart from motivating issues too, the managements should focus on this matter as the employees are actually the heart of any organizations as if there is no workforce there will be no productivity.

At times, the management of the organizations might try to motivate the workers by modifying the their salary structure, as if they notice that any particular individual is putting in great effort in the workplace, the management can reward him by giving him a hike, and noticing that many other employees might get interested to get a raise and put in ore effort to improve their level of performance(Dang 2014). The managers might get interested in providing the good employees some allowances like travel allowance, home rent allowance and many more just to keep them loyal and motivated towards the organization. But as opined by Michaelson et al. (2014) these theories in most cases does not have that long lasting impact and there are instances where applying these tactics backfired the management with higher level of disruptions within the workforce.

At times the management might try to delegate authority to the employee who has been generating huge amount of productivity for quite a long time. In this way that individual would get the motivation for continuing the good work and he might get a chance to lead a small batch of employees and that can potentially increase his skills that can help the organization. This process at times can prove to be a little bit of risky as there can be instances that after getting a position of a leader, the level of productivity of that candidate might get harmed as the leadership might become a burden for that individual and that can potentially reduce the work rate of that team under that particular person(Dang-Pham and Pittayachawan 2015).  

The managers of organizations who have good intrapersonal skills and along with that the ability to get all the workers united, in most cases they are seen getting success within a real short span of time(Becker et al. 2015). Communicating among the employees of the organization is very important to get successful in terms of productivity and profitability. The more the managers communicate with the employees the more risks of mistakes get reduced and that is where the importance of communication within the workplace lies. There are several instances where having a talented pool of workers the organizations fail to get desired success and on the other hand having a few talented individuals some organizations reach the height of success, these things happen because of the level of motivation among the workers and good communication within the workplace enhances the level of motivation amongst the employees.

Safety Management within the Workplace

In the first part of this report various types of basic motivating techniques were discussed and now some theories of motivation that can be used in the business organizations to increase the productivity are going to be discussed (Chen, Hsieh and Chen 2014). There are various theories of motivation that compete with each other and in this section of these report explanations regarding those theories are mentioned. Motivating the employees are one of the most complex task and to execute that with perfection there has to be a requirement of vast knowledge regarding this particular issue(Dang 2014).

The Content theories try to explain specific issues those actually motivate the employees at work and these theories are more concerned with identifying the requirement of the individuals and their strengths and the targets that they pursue to achieve to satisfy their desires. Is short it can be said that the content theories focus on the factors that motivates the employees.

Process theories try to locate the relationship between the variables that are dynamic and make up motivation(Dang-Pham and Pittayachawan 2015). These theories are mostly engaged with how specific behaviors can be initiated, sustained or directed. These process theories put focus on the process of the motivation.

One of the most important and can be said a pioneering theory of motivation is the theory introduced by Abraham Maslow. In his hierarchy of needs, Maslow said that individuals are motivated by five basic requirements and if those requirements are met, then the management can expect a huge boost in the level of productivity within the workplace. These five needs are mentioned below;

1. Psychological needs ( need of food, shelter, clothing and more)
2. The requirement of safety and security ( job security)
3. The need to belong  (friendship within the workplace, acceptance from the colleagues)
4. The need of self-esteem (getting recognition for the good work)
5. Requirement of self-actualization ( fulfillment of the capacities)

The needs which are mentioned are actually arranged according to the importance of those within the workplace. Like when a lower level need is met or satisfied then the next motivating factor will be the next need. For an example, if an employee’s psychological needs are satisfied, then the individual will get further motivated when he gets the desired job security. In this way, it can be said that the individuals of the organizations shall always want to satisfy the next level need.

Maslow’s theory says that the employees must have the hierarchy of the needs that would be counted from the basic needs to the highest level of the needs. There are some points those should be considered while following Maslow’s theory of motivation, and those are mentioned below;

• When a set of requirements are satisfied, the next level of requirement automatically becomes the motivator.
• A need that is already satisfied cannot be considered as a motivating factor again.
• A requirement that is not met can only becomes the object of motivation and the manager has to focus on that specific need of the employee in order to motivate him or her(Chen, Hsieh and Chen 2014).
• The self-actualization part actually stimulates a need for more because of the peak experience.

Maslow’s theories of motivation can surely be applied to the workplaces in order to motivate the employees to enhance the work rate of them or productivity of the workforce. To imply these tactics in the workplace a proper work environment needs to be created in which the employees can work as per their full potential. And the needs should be satisfied gradually and in a uniform manner, so that the person whose basic requirements have been met should not have to wait long for securing his or her own job (Dang-Pham and Pittayachawan 2015).

Requirements	Examples
Psychological	Pantry room, vending machines
Security	Job security, wages related issues, working environment,  safety and security within the workplace
Belonging	Acceptance from the colleagues, team spirit, social activities with the colleagues
Self-esteem	Thriving in challenging situations within the workplace, getting recognition for good work, receiving proper training regarding development
Self-actualization	Working on challenging tasks, doing creative work

The theory of Clayton Alderfer divides Maslow’s five needs of the employees into three parts; Existence, Relatedness and Growth.

Payment and Allowance

This requirement involves all the material and the psychological needs like needs of air, water, clothing, safety and many more that is closely related to Maslow’s first to levels of the hierarchy(Beehr 2014).

This type of needs surrounds the external a social esteem along with the relationships with others like colleagues and all the employees within the organizations. This depicts that the individuals shall be required to recognize and feel secured as a part of the workforce and this is directly related to the third and fourth level of the hierarchy of Maslow.

The self-actualization along with the internal esteem impels an individual to have productive effect on them as well as on the environment(Chen, Hsieh and Chen 2014). This complies with Maslow’s fourth and fifth levels and here the desire to become creative and productive and completing challenging tasks takes the center of the stage.

Satisfaction-development:

Employees move the hierarchy of needs as a result of satisfying the needs of the lower orders and in Alderfer’s ERG theory, this is not mandatory. The development from the relatedness satisfaction to the desires of growth not at all presumes the satisfaction level of an employee’s needs of existence.

Frustration-regression:

Whenever a need of higher level is not satisfied, the individuals might regress to the needs of the lower level that can appear very easy to satisfy. The frustration regression explains that a need that is already satisfied might become active when the higher level needs are not satisfied for a long period of time(Becker et al. 2015).

Satisfaction-strengthening:

The satisfaction-strengthening explains that a requirement that has been satisfied already is able to maintain the satisfaction level and strengthen the needs of the lower level when the higher level needs are not satisfied.

• The needs of the lower level not necessarily has to be fulfill the higher level needs to become relevant(Chen, Hsieh and Chen 2014).
• If a more important need is not satisfied the desire to satisfy the lower level need might get increased.
• The ERG theory do not have a hierarchical form or structure and is not as concrete as Maslow’ theories. It allows the order of the needs or requirements to change from person to person, having a more flexible approach(Aryee et al.2015).

Within the workplace, ERG model explains that the managers should be able to recognize the needs of the employees to ensure their level of satisfaction. The management should not focus on one requirement at a time and dong so can enhance the risk of employee dissatisfaction.

McClelland explained in his theory that an employee’s specific requirements are attained over time and are actually shaped by their experiences of life(Bakker and Demerouti 2014). The individual’s motivation level along with the effectiveness within the workplace in some specific job functions might get influenced by those requirements.

If an individual is motivated by the achievements within the workplace, then it can be said that he o she would require to attain challenging targets and advancement of his task. He or she will thrive in solving challenging tasks and thus a strong requirement of feedback from the supervisors and recognition would be mandatory to appease the satisfaction level of that individual. The employees who have a strong desire to excel are generally inclined towards avoiding the low risk and high risk situations(Becker et al. 2015). The individuals who have a smart nose for achievement would in general avoid low risk situations as achieving achievable targets are not the matter of interest for them, rather they would take up and solve difficult tasks and would like to get recognition.

Delegation of Power

If an individual gets motivated by getting the authority within the organization, it can surely be said that, that particular person would surely have a requirement for friendly relationship with the colleague and will stress on enhancing the communication within the workplace(Aryee et al.2015). They will be needing harmonious relation with the other individuals within the workplace. There should be requirement to lead and direct subordinate staffs for that particular individual and he or she would get motivation by leading others in the workforce. The individual’s requirement of power might be of two different types, one is personal and the other one is institutional. The people who will require personal power would have the desire to direct others and this type of requirements sometimes can be seen as undesirable (Bakker and Demerouti 2014). The individuals, whose requirements are rather institutional, would have the need to organize the efforts of the others of the workforce to achieve the targets made by the management of the organization. The individuals who have high requirement of institutional power generally tend to be more effective than the persons who have a need for personal power.

The individuals who gets motivated by affiliation has a fierce need to have friendly relation with the colleagues and they get motivated by interacting with other individuals. These types of people require a harmonious relation with other individuals and a need to get accepted by the individuals within the workplace. The drive that affiliation generates motivates these types of individuals and makes them team players who would like to boost the whole performance level of the team where he works(Acar 2014). The individuals who have higher level needs of affiliation would like to conform to the rules and regulations of the workplace and along with that in general they like to get engaged in works where they would get enough personal interactions with the other colleagues(Aryee et al.2015). These types of people generally serve in sectors of customer service and departments where they will have to interact with the customers directly.   

McClelland claimed that in most cases when individuals possess and demonstrate a combination of the characteristics that are mentioned above shall definitely fall in the group of the people who gets motivated by affiliation. Some individuals show a fierce bias to a particular motivational requirement and this type of motivational mix affects the behavior and managing or style of working within the organization(Beehr 2014). This theory allows the shaping of an individual’s requirements and training and developmental programs can be taken into consideration to modify individual’s profile of needs. It is also a known fact that people who have strong motivation related to affiliation generally affects the decision making capability of that particular individual and a strong authority related motivation of a person leads him to work in a more determined way(Beehr 2014). While the individuals who get motivated by acquiring power tends to get attracted towards the role of a leader and they might not have the skills related to public communication and flexibility in working style.

Increased Communication

These theories are found to have different degrees among all the employees including the managers and the mixture of motivational requirements within the workplace needs to characterize the employee’s or the manager’s style of working or general behavior. It is a matter of fact that individuals with different motivational needs gets motivated in different ways.

Individuals with higher requirement of achievements must be put into challenging tasks in the workplace to get the most out of their potential to ensure that they are satisfying the requirement of the management of the organization(Bakker and Demerouti 2014). These types of people should be given enough feedbacks and recognition for their hard work in order to keep them motivated and loyal towards the organization.

Employees who have a higher requirement of affiliation within the workplace, should be put into departments where he or she would feel safer and that would ensure the best productivity form that particular individual in an environment that is cooperative(Aryee et al.2015).

Finally the individuals who have a smart nose for power must be given the leadership roles within the organization to utilize their leadership capability. If these individuals are put into a department where they have no scope of leading the team, they would not be able to generate the desired productivity.

McClelland’s theories regarding the motivation related to achievement is somewhat related to Herzberg’s theory of hygiene motivation, and the individuals who get motivation from achieving something in general tends to be interested in various motivators within the workplace(Acar 2014). The individuals who get the drive from achievement wants feedback to get the desired drive. They must know that how other individuals feel about them and their appreciation does matter to these kinds of individuals.

Theory of equity projects that only remuneration and conditions alone cannot determine the level of motivation and it also explains that if the management gives promotion to any particular person that can have a negative effect to the other employees and that can potentially harm the harmony within the workplace. When the individuals feel that they are being treated equally then a harmony can be maintained, but if the workforce think that any one getting their desired promotion and the other people are lagging behind, then it would definitely ruin the harmony among the workforce(Bal and De Lange 2015). The employers have to maintain a harmony within the organization to ensure higher productivity level and only this can ensure that the workforce will satisfy the targets set by the management of the organization.

This term depicts that quality and the quantity of the workforce’s contribution towards their organization. The traditional inputs are time, loyalty, effort, hard work, commitment, flexibility and many more (Chen, Hsieh and Chen 2014). 

The outputs can be defined as positive and negative consequences that the individuals can perceive when a participant incurs as a consequence of his relationship with the other individuals. These outputs can be tangible and in some cases intangible (Michaelson et al. 2014). The traditional outputs are the security of job, recognition, responsibility, sense of achievement and many more.

In most cases, payment poses the chief matter of concern and the initial cause of equity and inequity in most of the cases(Acar 2014). Like, if an individual thinks that he is getting underpaid then he would not be as motivated as he was before and that can potentially harm his work rate and productivity.

Content Theories

Within the organization, equity introduces the notion of social comparison and the individuals who distinguish inequity will try to reduce it by manipulating the inputs or the outcomes in their own minds. These explain how individuals can be content and stay motivated.  This theory projects how the fulltime employees can compare their situations and with no changes of negative situations in the workplace would make them demotivated and unhappy in the working condition.

The comparative factor of equity theory gives flexible and dynamic approach of the motivations that can generate high productivity among the workforce and in different circumstances. There are various similarities between this theory with the theory of Maslow and Herzberg  as both the theories talk about the subtle variable aspects that affects the assessment of other individuals and the perception of the relationship of the employees with their colleagues(Bal and De Lange 2015).

Conclusion

Thus to conclude, it can be said that the management of the electronic organizations must consider the fact that to get the best out from their workforce they will have to apply various theories of motivation in order to keep the employees motivated and loyal towards the organization. The productivity of the organizations can be increased only when the workforce is satisfied with their jobs in their organizations. The first and foremost thing would be to keep a healthy positive work environment within the organization (Acar 2014). Then the management’s duty would be to recognize and categorize the workforce according to the specific traits of the characters of the employees. Only then the management could successfully apply the motivational theories on them in order to keep them satisfied with their roles within the workplace. The management of the organizations need to be caution regarding categorizing the workforce, as, if they make any mistake while tagging anyone under a different section where as their drive for motivation can be any other object, then that particular person would never be satisfied with his or her position at the organization. These kinds of mistakes can bring in severe issues and disruptions within the workplace. Apart from these, it can be said in general the managements can try some other ways like heavily communicating with the employees, keeping a positive work environment and most importantly by treating everyone in a way so that they can understand that their role in the organization is very important and everyone is an asset for the organization and irreplaceable too.

References

Acar, A.B., 2014. Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors differ for Generation X and Generation Y. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(5), pp.12-20.

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Mondejar, R. and Chu, C.W., 2015. Accounting for the influence of overall justice on job performance: Integrating self?determination and social exchange theories. Journal of Management Studies, 52(2), pp.231-252.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., 2014. Job demands–resources theory. Wellbeing.

Bal, P.M. and De Lange, A.H., 2015. From flexibility human resource management to employee engagement and perceived job performance across the lifespan: A multisample study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), pp.126-154.

Process Theories

Becker, T.E., Kernan, M.C., Clark, K.D. and Klein, H.J., 2015. Dual commitments to organizations and professions: Different motivational pathways to productivity. Journal of Management, p.0149206315602532.

Beehr, T.A., 2014. Psychological stress in the workplace (psychology revivals). Routledge.

Booth, A. and Carroll, C., 2015. Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 32(3), pp.220-235.

CHEN, C.A., HSIEH, C.W. and CHEN, D.Y., 2014. Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: Evidence from public managers in Taiwan. Public Administration, 92(4), pp.954-973.

Dang, D., 2014. Predicting insider’s malicious security behaviours: A general strain theory-based conceptual model. In CONF-IRM 2014 (pp. 1-11). Association for Information Systems.

Dang-Pham, D. and Pittayachawan, S., 2015. Comparing intention to avoid malware across contexts in a BYOD-enabled Australian university: A Protection Motivation Theory approach. Computers & Security, 48, pp.281-297.

Douglas, K.M. and Leite, A.C., 2017. Suspicion in the workplace: Organizational conspiracy theories and work?related outcomes. British Journal of Psychology, 108(3), pp.486-506.

Facer Jr, D.C., Galloway, F., Inoue, N. and Zigarmi, D., 2014. Creation and initial validation of the Motivation Beliefs Inventory: Measuring leaders’ beliefs about employee motivation using four motivation theories. Journal of Business Administration Research, 3(1), p.1.

Gaston, A. and Prapavessis, H., 2014. Using a combined protection motivation theory and health action process approach intervention to promote exercise during pregnancy. Journal of behavioral medicine, 37(2), pp.173-184.

Halbesleben, J.R., Whitman, M.V. and Crawford, W.S., 2014. A dialectical theory of the decision to go to work: Bringing together absenteeism and presenteeism. Human Resource Management Review, 24(2), pp.177-192.

Hamari, J. and Koivisto, J., 2015. Why do people use gamification services?. International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), pp.419-431.

Hitka, M. and Balážová, Ž., 2015. The impact of age, education and seniority on motivation of employees. Business: Theory and Practice/Verslas: Teorija ir Praktika, 16(1), pp.113-120.

Kim, C.H. and Scullion, H., 2013. The effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on employee motivation: A cross-national study. The Poznan University of Economics Review, 13(2), p.5.

Kobersy, I.S., Khasiyeva, L.G., Yakhina, V.D., Ignatyeva, O.V., Goloshchapova, L.V., Shkurkin, D.V. and Sadykova, L.R., 2016. Approaches to implementation of motivation as the complex conditions of increase of efficiency of social and labor relations: International experience. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(1S).

Landy, F.J. and Conte, J.M., 2016. Work in the 21st Century, Binder Ready Version: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

Michaelson, C., Pratt, M.G., Grant, A.M. and Dunn, C.P., 2014. Meaningful work: Connecting business ethics and organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), pp.77-90.

Schaufeli, W.B., Maslach, C. and Marek, T. eds., 2017. Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research. Taylor & Francis.

Scheibe, S. and Zacher, H., 2013. A lifespan perspective on emotion regulation, stress, and well-being in the workplace. In The role of emotion and emotion regulation in job stress and well being (pp. 163-193). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Schultz, D. and Schultz, S.E., 2015. Psychology and work today 10E. Routledge.

Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G.A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S. and Koestner, R., 2014. A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), pp.342-358.

Thrasher, G.R., Zabel, K., Wynne, K. and Baltes, B.B., 2015. The importance of workplace motives in understanding work–family issues for older workers. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2(1), pp.1-11.

Toubøl, J. and Jensen, C.S., 2014. Why do people join trade unions? The impact of workplace union density on union recruitment. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 20(1), pp.135-154.

Tourangeau, A.E., Wong, M., Saari, M. and Patterson, E., 2015. Generation?specific incentives and disincentives for nurse faculty to remain employed. Journal of advanced nursing, 71(5), pp.1019-1031.

Turner, M.E., 2014. Groups at work: Theory and research. Psychology Press.

Van Yperen, N.W. and Orehek, E., 2013. Achievement goals in the workplace: Conceptualization, prevalence, profiles, and outcomes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, pp.71-79.

Whitaker, B.G. and Godwin, L.N., 2013. The antecedents of moral imagination in the workplace: A social cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), pp.61-73.

Williams, G.C., Halvari, H., Niemiec, C.P., Sørebø, Ø., Olafsen, A.H. and Westbye, C., 2014. Managerial support for basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-related correlates: A self-determination theory perspective. Work & Stress, 28(4), pp.404-419.

Wu, J. and Lu, X., 2013. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators on using utilitarian, hedonic, and dual-purposed information systems: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(3), p.153.