project report on motivation (hr)

Downloaded from a2zmba.blogspot.com

WHAT IS MOTIVATION?

People consider it to be a personal trait – that ia some have it some don’t. In practice inexperienced managers often label people who lack motivation as lazy. But it isn’t true. What we know is that motivation is the result of the interaction of the individual and the situation. Individuals differ in their motivational drive.

For example : a student may find reading a 2o pages note book very tiring, but the same student may be able to read 150 pages of Harry Potter just in one day. For the student the change in motivation is driven by the situation.

Thus we can say, that the level of motivation varies both between individuals and within individuals at different times.

DEFINITION:

Motivation is defined as the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, & persistence of effort towards attaining a goal.

General motivation is considered with efforts towards any goal, but we narrow our focus on organizational goals.

Key elements are :

Intensity which is considered with how hard a person tries. This is the element most of us focus on when we talk about motivation. However, high-intensity is unlikely to lead to


favorable job performance outcomes unless the effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organization. Therefore, we have to consider the quality of efforts as well as its intensity. Effort that is directed towards, and consistent with the organizations goal’s is the kind of effort that we should be seeking. Finally, motivation has a persistence dimension. This is a measure of how long a person can maintain their effort. Motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve their goal.

A MYTH OR A SCIENCE?

“People are inherently lazy”. This isn’t true. All people are not inherently lazy; and ‘laziness’ is more a function of the situation than an inherent individual character. If this statement is meant to imply that all people are inherently lazy, the evidence strongly indicates the contrary, many people today suffer from the opposite affliction-they are overly busy, overworked, and suffer from over exertion. Whether externally motivated or internally driven, a good portion of the labour force is anything but lazy.

Managers frequently draw the conclusion that people are lazy from watching some of their employees, who may be lazy at work.

But these same employees are often quite industrious in one or more activities off the job. People’s need structures differ. Unfortunately, for employers, works often ranks low in its ability to satisfy individual needs. So the same employee who shirks responsibility on the job may work obsessively on the conditioning and antique car, maintaining an award-winning garden, perfecting bowling skills.


EARLY THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

The 1950s were a fruitful period in the development of motivation concepts. Three specific theories were formulated during this period, which although heavily attacked and now questionable in terms of validity, are probably still the best-known explanations for employee motivation. These are the hierarchy of needs theory, Theories X and Y, and the two-factor theory.

These theories represent a foundation from which contemporary theories have grown, and practicing managers still regularly use these theories and their terminology in explaining employee motivation.

Hierarchy of Needs Theory

It’s probably safe to say that the most well-known theory of motivation is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. He hypothesized that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of five needs. These needs are:

1. Physiological : - Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs

2. Safety : - Includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm

3. Social : - Includes affection, belongingness, acceptance and friendship


4. Esteem : - Includes internal esteem factors such as self-respect, autonomy and achievement; and external esteem factors such as status, recognition, and attention

5. Self-actualization : - The drive to become what one is capable of becoming; includes growth, achieving one’s potential, and self-fulfillment

As each of these needs becomes substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. In terms of the figure, the individual moves up the steps of the hierarchy. From the standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although no need is fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates.

Safety

Physiological

Social

Esteem

Self-Actualization


So if you want to motivate someone, according to Maslow, you need to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is currently on and focus on satisfying the needs at or above that level.

Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Physiological and safety needs were described as lower-order and social, esteem, and self-actualization as higher-order needs. The differentiation between the two orders was made on the premise that higher-order needs are satisfied internally (within the person), whereas lower-order needs are predominantly satisfied externally (by things such as pay, union contracts, and tenure).

Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. This can be attributed to the theory’s intuitive logic and ease of understanding. Unfortunately, however, research does not generally validate the theory. Maslow provided no empirical substantiation, and several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it.


Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor proposed two distinct views of human beings: one basically negative, labeled Theory X, and the other basically positive, labeled Theory Y. After viewing the way the managers dealt with employees, McGregor concluded that a manager’s view of the nature of human beings is based on a certain grouping of assumptions and that he/she tends to mold his/her behavior toward employees according to these assumptions.

Under Theory X, the four assumptions held by managers are:

1. Employees inherently dislike work and, whenever possible, will attempt to avoid it.

2. Since employees dislike work, they must be coerced, controlled or threatened with punishment to achieve goals.

3. Employees will avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction whenever possible.

4. Most workers place security above all other factors associated with work and will display little ambition.


In contrast to these negative views about the nature of human beings, McGregor listed the four positive assumptions that he called Theory Y:

1. Employees can view work as being as natural as rest or play.2. People will exercise self-direction and self-control if they are

committed to the objectives.3. The average person can learn to accept, even seek,

responsibility.4. The ability to make innovative decisions is widely dispersed

throughout the population and is not necessarily the sole province of those in management positions.

What are the motivational implications if you accept McGregor’s analysis? The answer is best expressed in the framework presented by Maslow. Theory X assumes the lower-order needs dominate individuals. Theory Y assumes that higher-order needs assume dominate individuals. McGregor himself held to the belief that Theory Y assumptions were more valid than Theory X. Therefore, he proposed ideas such as participative decision-making, responsible and challenging jobs, and good group relations as approaches that would maximize an employee’s job motivation.


Two-Factor Theory

The two-factor theory (sometimes also called as motivation-hygiene theory) was proposed by psychologist Frederick Hertzberg. In the belief that an individual’s relation to work is basic and that one’s attitude toward work can very well determine success or failure, Hertzberg investigated the question, “What do people from their jobs?” He asked people to describe, in detail, situations in which they felt extremely good or bad about their jobs. These responses were then tabulated and categorized.

According to Hertzberg, the factors leading to job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Therefore, managers who seek to eliminate factors that can create job dissatisfaction may bring about peace but not necessarily motivation. They will be placating their workforce rather than motivating them. As a result, conditions surrounding the job such as quality of supervision, pay, company policies, physical working conditions, relations with others, and job security were characterized by Hertzberg as hygiene factors.


MODERN THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

ERG theory

Clayton Alderfer has reworked Maslow’s need hierarchy to align it more closely with the empirical research. His revised need hierarchy is labeled ERG theory. Alderfer argues that there are three groups of core needs-Existence, Relatedness, and growth—hence, the label ERG theory. The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements. They include the items that Maslow considered to be physiological and safety needs. The second group of needs are those of relatedness—the desire we have for maintaining important interpersonal relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow’s social need and the external component of Maslow’s esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs—an intrinsic component from Maslow’s esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization.

In contrast to hierarchy of needs theory, the ERG theory demonstrates that (1) more than one need may be operative at same time, and (2) if the gratification of a higher-level need is stifled, the desire to satisfy a lower-level need increases.

ERG theory also contains a frustration-regression dimension. ERG theory counters by noting that when a higher-order need level is frustrated, the individual’s desire to increase a lower-level need takes place.


McClelland’s Theory of needs

McClelland’s theory of needs was developed by David McClelland and his associates. The theory focuses on three needs: achievements, power, and affiliation. They are defined as follows:

Need for achievement: The drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of

standards, to strive to succeed.

Need for power: The need to make others behave in a way that they would

not have behaved otherwise.

Need for affiliation: The desire for friendly and close interpersonal

relationships.

Some people drive to succeed. They are striving for

personal achievements rather than rewards of success as per work done. They have a desire to do something better or more efficiently than it has been done before. This drive is the achievement need. From research into the achievement need, McClelland found that high achievers differentiate themselves from others by their desire to do things better.


Goal-Setting theory

Gene Broadwater coach of the Hamilton high school cross-country team gave his squad these last words before they approached the line for the league championship race: “each one of you is physically ready. Now, get out there and do your best. No one can ever ask more of you than that.”

The research on goal setting theory addresses these issues, and the findings, as you will see, are impressive in terms of the effect that goal specificity, challenge, and feedback have no performance.

In late 1960s, Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of work motivation. That is, goal tells an employee what needs to be done and how much effort need to be expended. The evidence strongly supports the value of goals. More to the point, we can say that specific goals increase performance; that difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than do easy goals; and that feedback leads to higher performance than does no feedback.

Goal-setting theory presupposes that an individual is committed to the goal; that is, is determined not to lower or abandon the goal. This is most likely to occur when goals are made public, when the individual has an internal locus of control, and when the goals are self-set rather than assigned.


Equity Theory

It means individuals compare their job inputs and outcome with those of others and then respond to eliminate any inequities.

This theory is based on the example of Ms Jane Pearson who graduated from the state university with a degree in accounting and working with 'G5' a public accounting firm with a monthly salary of $4,550.

However Jane’s motivational level has dropped dramatically due to the hiring of the fresh college graduate out of the state university who lacks the one year experience which Jane has gained and was paid $4,800 which was more than Jane’s salary.

In this case Jane’s situation illustrates the role that equity plays in motivation. Employees make comparisons of their job inputs and outcomes relative to those of others.

In other words if we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others with whom we compare ourselves, a state of equity is said to be exist. When we see the ratio as unequal we experience equity tension and when over rewarded, the tension creates guilt.


The referent that an employee selects adds to the complexity of equity theory. There are 4 referent comparisons that an employee can use:

1. Self-inside.2. Self-outside.3. Other-inside.4. Other-outside.

Which referent an employee chooses will be influenced by the information the employee holds about referents as well as by the attractiveness of the referent.

Employees with short tenure in their current organization tend to have little information about others and on the long tenure rely more heavily on coworkers for comparison.

Equity theory is also related with the pay of the employees. Thus on these grounds, the theory establishes the following 4 propositions related to inequitable pay:

1. Given payment on time, over rewarded employees will produce more than will equitably paid employees.

2. Given payment by quantity of production, over rewarded employees will produce fewer, but higher-quality, units than equitably paid employees.


3. Given payment on time, under rewarded employees will produce poorer quality of output.

4. Given payment by quality of production, under rewarded employees will produce a large no of low-quality units in comparison with equitably paid employees.

These propositions have generally been supported with few minor qualifications.

Conclusion of equity theory:-

The equity theory demonstrates that, for most employees, motivation is influenced significantly by relative rewards as well by absolute rewards. But some key issues related to this theory are still unclear.

Expectancy Theory:-

Currently, one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation is victor vroom's Expectancy Theory. Although it has its critics, most evidence is supportive of the theory.

Meaning:-"The strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends

on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual". In more practical terms, expectancy theory says that


an employee will be motivated to accept a high level of pressure when he or she believes that effort will lead to a good performance appraisal; which will lead to good org rewards such as bonus, a salary increase, or a promotion; and that the rewards will satisfy the employee's personal goals. The theory, therefore focuses on three relationship:-

1. Effort performance relationship.2. Performance-reward relationship.3. Rewards-personal goals relationship.

Thus expectancy theory helps to explain why lot of workers aren't motivated on their job and do only the minimum necessary to get by.

In summary, the key to expectancy theory is the understanding of an individual's goals and the linkage b/w effort and performance, between performance and rewards and, finally, between the rewards and individual goal satisfaction. As a contingency model, expectancy theory recognizes that there is no universal principle for explaining everyone's motivation. In addition, just because we understand what needs a person seeks to satisfy does not ensure that the individual perceives high performance as necessarily leading to the satisfaction to these needs.

Because of complications like methodological, criterion, and measurement problems, this theory is viewed with caution.


Myth or Science?

Everyone wants a challenging job?

This statement is false. In spite of all the attention focused by the media, academics and social scientists on human potential and the needs of individuals, there is no evidence to support the vast majority of workers want challenging jobs. Some individuals prefer highly complex and challenging jobs; other prospers in simple, routinized work.

The individual-difference variable that seems to gain the greatest support for explaining who prefers a challenging job and who doesn’t is the strength of an individual’s higher-order needs. Individuals with high growth needs are more responsive to challenging work. But what percentage of rank-and-file workers actually desire higher-order need satisfaction and will respond positively to challenging jobs? No current data are available, but a study from the 1970s estimated the figure at about 15%. Even after adjusting for changing work attitudes and the growth in white-collar jobs, it seems unlikely that the number today exceeds 40%

The strongest voice advocating challenging jobs has not been workers-it’s been professors, social-science researchers, and journalists. Professor’s researchers and journalists undoubtedly made their career choices, to some degree, because they wanted jobs that gave them their autonomy, identity, and challenge. That, of course, is their choice. But for them to


project their needs onto the workforce in general is presumptuous.

Not every employee is looking for a challenging job. Many workers meet their higher-order needs off the job. There are 168 hours in every individual’s week. Work rarely consumes more than 30% of this time. That leaves considerable opportunity, even for individuals with strong growth needs, to find higher-order need satisfaction outside the workplace.

Professional Employees are more difficult to motivate..

Professional employees are different than your average employees. And they’re more difficult to motivate. Why? Because professionals don’t respond to the same stimuli that non-professionals do.

Professional like engineers, accountants, lawyers, nurses, and software designers are different from nonprofessionals. They have strong and a long term commitment to their field of expertise. Their loyalty is more towards their profession than to their employer. And typical rewards, like money and promotions, are rarely effective in encouraging professionals to exert high levels of effort.

Usually they tend to be well paid already and they enjoy what they do. For instance, professionals are not typically anxious to give up their work to take on managerial responsibilities. They’ve have invested a great deal of time and effort in developing their professional skills. They’ve have typically gone to professional schools for years and undergone


specialized training to build their proficiencies. They also invest regularly - in terms of reading, taking courses, attending conferences, and the like - to keep their skills current. Moving into management often means cutting off their ties to their profession, losing touch with the latest advances in their field and having to let the skills that they’ve spent years developing become obsolete.

This loyalty to the profession and less interest in typical organizational rewards makes motivating professionals more challenging and complex.

So how do you motivate professionals?

Provide them with ongoing challenges projects. Give them autonomy to follow their interests and allow them to structure their work in ways they find productive. Provide them with lateral moves that allow them to broaden their experiences. Reward them with educational opportunities – training, workshops, and attending conferences – that allow them to keep current in their field. In addition reward them with recognition. And consider creating alternative career paths that allow them to earn more money and status, without assuming managerial responsibilities.


Summary & implications for managers: -

Summary

The theories which we have discussed so far address different outcomes variables. The theories also differ in predictive strengths.

1) Need Theory : -Four theories focused on needs. These were Maslow’s

hierarchy, two factor, ERG, and McClelland’s needs theories. The strongest is the McClelland’s needs theory, which is regarding the relationship between achievement and productivity.

2) Goal-setting theory : -The evidence leads to conclude that goal-setting

theory provides one of the more powerful explanations of this dependent variable.

3) Reinforcement theory : - This theory has an impressive record for predicting

factors like quality and quantity of work, persistence of effort, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates. It does not offer much insight into employee satisfaction or the decision to quit.


4) Job design theory : - This theory addresses productivity, satisfaction,

absenteeism, and turnover variables. But it may be limited to employees who place a high importance on finding meaningfulness in their jobs and who seek control over the key elements in their work.

5) Equity theory : -This theory also deals with productivity, satisfaction,

absence, and turnover variables. However, it is the strongest when predicting absence and turnover behaviors and weak when predicting differences in employee productivity.

6) Expectancy theory : -This theory focused on performance variables. It has

proved to offer a relatively powerful explanation of employee productivity, absenteeism and turnover. But expectancy theory assumes that employees have few constraints on their decision discretion. It makes many of the same assumptions that the rational model makes about individual decision-making.


Implications

1) Recognize Individual Differences: - Employees have different needs. Managers should not

treat them all alike. Moreover, spend the time necessary to understand what’s important to each employee. Also, design jobs to align with individual needs and, therefore, maximize the motivation potential in jobs.

2) Use goals and feedback: -Employees should have hard, specific goals, as well as

feedback on how well they are faring on pursuit of those goals.

3) Allow employees to participate in decisions: - Employees can contribute to a number of decisions

that affect them: setting work, choosing their own benefits packages, solving productivity and quality problems, and the like. This can increase employee productivity, commitment to work goals, motivation, and job satisfaction.


4) Link rewards to punishment: - Regardless of how closely rewards are actually

correlated to performance criteria, if individuals perceive this relationship to be low, the results will be low performance, a decrease in job satisfaction, and an increase in turnover and absenteeism.

5) Check the system for Equity: -Rewards should also be perceived by employees as

equating with the inputs they bring to the job. At a simplest level, this should mean that experience, skills, abilities, effort, and other obvious inputs should explain differences in performance and, hence, pay, job assignments, and other obvious rewards.

project report on motivation (hr)

Documents