Motivation

After the understanding of human behavior, as an individual and as a subject of an organization, managers deal with the issue of motivation. One of the most important studies in organizational culture is the one related with the understanding of what motivates human being.

There are theories to explain or to predict or to influence behavior. They can be focused on internal factors (internal needs from Weber and Freud) or external factors (external incentives) to create the model. Theories as the Maslow’s needs, theory X and Y, ERG theory, McClelland’s theory, Herzberg’s theory, Etzioni theory, Adam’s Equity theory and Expectancy theory help us to interpret and read what the employee does motivate to work.

The Maslow’s needs are one of the most known theories from motivation, starting with the biological and physiological needs, going up accordingly with the individual’s satisfaction of the first needs until he/she does not fulfill the lower needs, would not be possible to reach for self-actualization. Hierarchy of needs, in one way of another, implies that just when the individual satisfies the physical and basic needs would need to look for self-actualization. The Theory X and Theory Y, is not faraway of that appreciation, saying that there are two types of people, the ones who are looking for satisfy lower order needs (physiological and safety) and the ones looking for higher order needs (social, esteem, self-actualization). For each one of those peoples would be different types of motivation plans and management, with the big assumption that they would be always looking the same needs.

This type of vision could be narrow for integrative approaches, that is why appeared theories as the ERG Theory, Existence, Relatedness and Growth, overlapping conceptually with the Maslow’s needs, but with the possibility to go down and up and simultaneously. Employees can be motivated by different types of needs at the same time which usually is the case.

If we compare all these theories is possible to identify as common issues a lower order needs and a higher order needs. The higher needs can be identified especially with the internal factors in a person, and can be called as intrinsic motivation. The lower needs are the ones related with the external factors and can be called as extrinsic motivation.

From this point of view is important to understand what actually motives the employee. Seeing the people just as work force and that you are not employing their minds and hearts, this could be a huge mistake. The payment and other rewards in some many cases could decrease the intrinsic motivation. The development of a system just base on rewards can create an elevated dependency to elaborated remuneration systems to motivate your employees.

Hawthorne Studies

Source: http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/hawthorne/big/wehe_073.html (September, 2010)

The Hawthorne Studies are an important and long research on the significance of physical, economical and social variables for the work force conducted on the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company (Jones, Was There a Hawthorne Effect?, 1992). The main investigations were carried out between 1927 and 1932, exactly after the Great Depression. It has five principal stages. The Stage I: The Relay Assembly Test Room Study, with a new incentive system and new supervision given by the experiment. The Stage II: The Second Relay Assembly Group Study, with just a new incentive system. The Stage III: The Mica Splitting Test Room Study, with new supervision only. And finally the Stage IV: The Interviewing Program and the Stage V: The Bank-Wiring Observation Room Study (Carey, 1967).

The Stages I and II are the ones related with the exploration in work behavior variations on physical conditions of work as pauses in hours of work, payment system, temperature, humidity and others (Carey, 1967). As for instance, they wanted to establish a physiological relationship between intensity of illumination and workplace efficiency. In these cases they concluded that worker could maintain efficiency even under very low intensity of light (Jones, 1992).

These studies in one way inspired the disciplines of sociology, psychology and social anthropology and other emerging fields as social psychology, industrial relations, organizational development and design (Jones, 1990). However, at the same time they generated two schools of critics. One complained about the treatment of class conflict and others about the study conditions, the research design and the data analysis (Sonnenfeld, 1983). After twelve months of work, the investigators came to the entirely unanticipated conclusion that social satisfactions arising out of human association in work were more important on work behavior than physical and economic aspects. This conclusion was from Stage I of the studies, and all later Stages were subordinated to it (Carey, 1967).

Other of the main limitations of the studies as for instance, is the one from the Rely Assembly Test Room with five women which took 270 weeks, from April 1927 to June 1932 and involved 24 different “experimental periods”. In this case is possible to critic that “From [the] attempt to set the proper conditions for the experiment, there arose indirectly a change in human relations which came to be of great significance in the next stage of the experiment" (Jones, 1992, p. 455). This means that investigators in one way or another manipulated the objectiveness of the results.

The original Hawthorne researchers did not use multivariate statistical techniques, in contrast with most recent researchers, is for that reason that they did not investigate the interdependence of the variables. If the original data is used considering the multivariable relationship is possible to identify that worker output levels were interdependent (Jones, 1990). This means that it is not just the social incentives what motivates people to work.

However, one of the most important things from the Hawthorne Studies was the challenge to the notions from scientific management, based on time and movement studies in which was not space for human issues. In that way the main contribution was the understanding of the workplace as a social system and not only as a production system (Sonnenfeld, 1983), in which employees cannot be seen always as machines.

Flight 001: Motivating Employees

Based on the reading available at: Nelson, D.L. & Quick, J.C. 2010. Organizational Behavior: Science, The Real World and You. South-Western College Publication, 7th. Pp. 178-179, it is possible to identify that not only external conditions could motivate an employee. Emily Griffin as a crew development in Flight 001, she said that the industry where she works is a temporary industry, and most of associates are working for money, and there is no more intrinsic motivation or interesting in anything else.

Within these attitudes toward motivation, the best theories that could explain her behavior could be the Douglass McGregor Theory X and Y and the ERF Theory. The Douglas McGregor Theory X and Y applies because she thinks that many people is motivated for money, categorizing many of his associates to people with Theory X. Her motivations plans would be conducted with the assumptions that people dislike to work and try to avoid it. She can use a hard approach, as supervision, coercion, control implicit or a soft approach with the provision of harmonious environment so in that way employees will cooperate in return.

However, it is possible that Emiliy Griffin stayed at the company because something else, besides money, motivated her to continue and create new objective to reach for. From the ERG Theories employees have different type of necessities simultaneously, looking for basic needs and the recognition needs. Another theory that could explain her situation is the McClelland’s need theory, in which she acquired needs as achievement, power and affiliation. In the beginning she was not interested in the company for personal career, but with time created the need of achievement, that was to stay at the company and not to be a temporary employee. Then she created the need of power, in that way she could have influence over others and finally to create a better affiliation to the company.

In this way is possible to identify the importance of intrinsic motivation, rather to focus just on external factors to motivate employees, is necessary to think about in how to make better intrinsic synergies within. Here is a funny video about intrinsic motivation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbkJ5MKEVEE&feature=related.

Bibliography

Carey, A. (1967). The Hawthorne Studies: A Radical Criticism. American Sociological Review , 32 (3), 403-416.

Jones, S. R. (1992). Was There a Hawthorne Effect? The American Journal of Sociology , 98 (3), 451-468.

Jones, S. R. (1990). Worker Interdependence and Output: The Hawthorne Studies Reevaluated. American Sociological Review , 55 (2), 176-190.

Sonnenfeld, J. (1983). Commentary: Academic Learning, Worker Learning, and the Hawthorne Studies. Social Forces , 61 (3), 904-909.