Workplace Motivation Paper to Upload

7/28/2019 Workplace Motivation Paper to Upload

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/workplace-motivation-paper-to-upload 1/8

Running head: WORKPLACE MOTIVATION PAPER 1

Workplace Motivation Paper

Moses Holmes

University of Phoenix



Workplace Motivation Paper

Clearly, one of the most pressing problems facing today’s rapidly changing

workforce is how to motivate employees to work efficiently and productively. Employers

encounter motivation challenges by acclimating to a host of new concepts needed to

meet the employees’ expectations. Intuitively, employees lack motivation in spite of the

rewards, incentives, or recognition. Studies by theorists, consultants, and researchers

agree that employees motivation occur by different and often multiple incentives,

(Garlick, 2007). Yet, employers continue to manage their incentive programs

ineffectively by maintaining a one program or policy to motivate all employees. The task

of determining what rewards motivate one employee or a group of employees over

another is complex and arduous. “Sound motivational theory should ... assume that

motivation is constant, never ending, fluctuating, and complex, and that it is an almost

universal characteristic of practically every organismic state of affairs,” (Maslow, 1954,

p. 69, Reeve, 2009, p. 36). The report will examine the theories of motivation used

within the organization’s employee recognition program. The employee reward program

disclosed the organization’s efforts to improve the employees’ performance, resistance

to increasing productivity, the management’s philosophy and practices of motivation.

Additionally, two theories, not practiced by the organization, determine the merits of the

theories when applied to the management and employees of the organization.

Motivation Theories at Work

Monetary rewards are no longer capable of serving as the employee’s primary

motivating drive. The highly diverse workforce at Global Rehabilitation Services can

attest to this experience. Global Rehabilitation Services provides residential, facility, and



home assisted living treatment services for developmentally, mentally, and physically

challenged adolescents and adults. Employees were asked by management to conduct

billing inquiries into late or unreembursed Medicaid fees for their services to the clients.

The request was not a welcomed task for the employees besieged with current work

demands. The current priority facing the employees was how to address the state’s new

mandate to revise all intermediate care facility (ICF) polices. The ICF policies required

the organization to align all current documentation procedures and active treatment

practices to the state’s amended format within six months. Management, understanding

the company’s need to comply with the state’s mandate, chose to use monetary

incentives to lure and urge the employees to complete the billing inquiries late into the

work day and to include weekends. The climate within the organization was not

particularly ideal. The lack of employee promotions and raises resulted from the facility’s

inability to improve profit margins exacerbated means to motivate and improve morale

of the employees over the last four years. Vacations were limited for no more than five

business days. Matters concerning paid overtime by employees were so negatively and

critically scrutinized by management that the employees chose to forego claiming

overtime hours worked for compensation – in direct violation of labor guidelines for non-

exempt employees. Employees were seeking two, or in some cases, three jobs to

supplement their personal income. Management was wholly aware that the monetary

reward would motivate the employees to augment their much needed income. The

employees were vulnerable to any offerings of monetary compensation from

management - ripe for the picking so to speak. The majority of employees agreed to

take on the additional billing task. However, within a month into the process of



recovering the billing funds, employees discovered undisclosed conditions associated

with the monetary award. The conditions proved to be very discouraging for the

employees. A percentage of the employees’ reward were distributed among

administrative clerks, department heads, finance department employees, and

contracted accountants handling the business transactions. Consequently, employee

interest in the task waned considerably. Although a few employees remained diligent

with the tasks until management, failing to motivate a significant number of employees,

directed the department heads to continue the task without benefit of the rewards. Other

employee motivational projects lacked the monetary incentive to attract employees.

Two Theories Applied

I would view that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory and Herzberg’s Motivator-

Hygiene theory reflects the employees’ initial interest in motivation to perform the task.

Abraham Maslow, a psychologist, designed a set of hierarchy of needs based on two

observations: “1) Human needs are either of an attraction/desire nature or of an

avoidance nature, and 2) Because humans are “wanting” beings, when one desire is

satisfied, another desire will take its place,” (Daft, 1997, McCoy, 1992, Quick, 1985).

Maslow noted the physiological needs: food, clothing, shelter are atop the hierarchy,

therefore, these basic human needs have the highest level of satisfaction. Maslow

concludes that until these priority needs are met, the other needs, safety, social,

esteem, and actualization will provide little motivation. According to Maslow, the low-

order needs must satisfy the employee’s basic needs before the intrinsic high-order

needs.



Frederick Herzberg, a psychologist, proposed that employees move to action

based on the desire to avoid pain. Herzberg’s theory includes two concepts: 1)

motivation is the positive satisfaction that psychological growth provides, and 2) hygiene

is an employee’s desire to avoid deprivation and the resulting physical and emotional

pain. Herzberg supports Maslow’s theory noting that the hygiene or maintenance factors

must satisfy the employee’s basic needs before responding to intrinsic motivators. The

later stages in each theory are not applicable because the majority of employees

became discouraged to complete the task because of the unfair condition required to

receive the reward.

Two Applicable Theories

Two theories that espouse motivational needs for Global Rehabilitation Services

are Fred Luthans’ Contingency theory and Victor Vroom’s Expectancy theory. According

to the article by an informative business website, the Accel Team (2010), Luthans’

Contingency theory realizes that, “certain business practices work better than others for

certain people under certain job conditions,” (p. 2). Management revision is necessary

to modify the job to the needs of each employee or group. The article also noted, “rigid,

clearly defined jobs, authoritative leadership and tight controls lead, in some cases, to

high productivity and satisfaction among workers. In some other cases, just the

opposite works. It is necessary, therefore, to adapt the leadership style to the particular

group of workers and the specific job at hand,” (Accel Team, 2010, p. 2).

Expectancy theory, developed by Victor Vroom, describes expectancy theory as

a concept derived in responding to two concerns noted in motivating workers - the

workers motivated must desire the offering, the offering is obtainable by the workers



whereby they can earn the reward. It is important to note that irrespective of the

opportunity the worker has in obtaining the reward, it is what the workers believe is most

important in becoming motivated. Vroom’s theory notes that increased work effort will

result in increased performance. Three conditions that promote the expectancy theory

are as follows: 1) acquiring the proper resources, 2) possessing the proper skill set to

perform the job, and 3) provided the necessary support to complete the job, (Droar,

2006). Vroom notes that motivation requires effort and performance. Instrumentality is

the belief that the workers’ good performance will provide the workers a valued

outcome. The connection of effort and performance to motivation defines the concept of

instrumentality. “Instrumentality is affected by the relationship between the performance

and outcomes, trust in the people who will take the decisions on who gets what

outcome, and transparency of the process that decides who gets what outcome,”

(Droar, 2006, p. 2). Conversely, Vroom’s expectancy theory suggests that if the workers

do not envision that their increased efforts won’t increase performance, or the workers

increased performance will not increase the rewards, or the rewards lose value, the

workers will not become motivated. These two process theories are appropriate in

promoting positive motivation and improving the culture in an otherwise unenthusiastic

and ineffective service organization. Both theories empower employees and

management to action. The article by the Accel Team (2010) notes that, “1) positive

reinforcement leads to high expectations, 2) effective discipline and punishment, 3) treat

people fairly, 4) satisfy employee needs, 5) setting work related goals, 6) restructuring

jobs, and 7) base rewards on job performance” (p. 2). The theories relate to these



principles by encouraging and sustaining intrinsic motivation for employees in health

care administration.

Conclusion

No person would question that motivation is the key to employee performance

improvement. Though, the complexity of what motivates employees varies. One

inspiring factor constant with employees: people yearn to be applauded and recognized

for their efforts and contributions to the organization. Employees want to feel as though

they play an important integral role that contributes to the success of their organization.

The earlier described theories attempted to instill motivation in principle. Unfortunately,

motivation is not solely the employees issue; management has the formidable task of

initiating the process of motivation by actualizing the theory within the organization.



References

Accel Team. (2010). Employee Motivation. Motivation in the workplace. (p. 2). Retrieved April

8, 2010 from http://www.accel-team.com/motivation/theory_02.html

Accel Team. (2010). Employee Motivation. Motivation in the workplace. (p. 2). Retrieved April

8, 2010 from http://www.accel-team.com/motivation/

Daft, Richard L. (1997). Management , 4th ed. Orlando, Fl.: Harcourt Brace. Retrieved April 6,

2010 from: http://www.enotes.com.

Droar, D. (2006). Expectancy theory of motivation. (pp. 1, 2). Retrieved April 4, 2010 from

http://www.arrod.co.uk/archive/concept_vroom.php

Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. In Reeve, J. (2009).

Understanding motivation and emotion (5th ed.). (p. 36). New York: John Wiley and

Sons.

McCoy, Thomas J. (1992). Compensation and Motivation: Maximizing Employee.

Performance with Behavior-Based Incentive Plans. New York: AMACOM, a division of

American Management Association. Retrieved April 6, 2010 from:

http://www.enotes.com.

Quick, Thomas L. (1985). The Manager's Motivation Desk Book . New York: Wiley. Retrieved

April 6, 2010 from: http://www.enotes.com.

http://www.enotes.com/

http://www.enotes.com/

Workplace Motivation Paper to Upload

Documents

Transcript of Workplace Motivation Paper to Upload