BUSM 2311

07005195

BUSM 2311 Managing People Course Leader: Catherine Ross Student Number: 07005195 Submission Date: 13th November 2008

Motivation

Word Count: 2188

1|Page

BUSM 2311

07005195

Contents
y Introduction y Two-Factor Theory y Strengths and Weaknesses of The two-factor theory y Goal Theory y Strengths and Weaknesses of The goal theory y Comparisons, Differences and Discussion
y

Page 3 3 4

6 6

7 8

References

2|Page

BUSM 2311

07005195

The essay will analyse two theories of motivation. A critique of Herzberg s two-factor theory and Locke s goal theory will be summarised, by outlining the two theories, analysing their strengths and weaknesses, compare the two models based on these strengths and weaknesses and produce conclusions with an in -depth analysis and discussion. Introduction Traditional motivation theories from both the content and process perspectives suggest that there is a strong link between motivation and performance (Herzberg 1968; Maslow 1943; Porter & Lawler 1968) In order to explore this link it is impo rtant to understand the nature of motivation. (C.Rayner & D.Adam -Smith, 2005. Pg 99) Motivation can be defined as Some driving force within individuals by which they attempt to achieve some goal in order to achieve some need or expectation (L.Mullins, 2007. Pg 250) A variation of this definition is Motivation involves the internal processes that give behaviour its energy and direction. Motivation originates from a variety of sources (needs, cognitions and emotions) and these internal processes energize behaviour in multiple ways such as starting, sustaining, intensifying, focusing, and stopping it. (Reeve, 1996. Pg 14) Two-Factor Theory Content theories attempt to explain those specific things that actually motivate the individual at work. These theories are concerned with identifying people s needs and their relative strengths, and the goals they pursue in order to satisfy these needs. Content theories place emphasis on the nature of needs and what motivates. (Mullins, 2007. Pg 256) One theory of motivation was developed by Frederick Herzberg. His original work was based on interviews with accountants and engineers, and sought to discover what incidents made them feel particularly good or bad about the jobs they had held. ( C.Rayner & D.Adam-Smith, 2005. Pg 76). He used the critical incident method for data collection. Herzberg made a theoretical departure from the traditional continuum...on another continuum which ranged from no to high job satisfaction. ( E.Maidini, 1991) From the results he identified two sets of factors, and presented the two-factor theory, often known as the motivation-hygiene theory (1968). The hygiene factors were simple factors such as working conditions, job security, status and salary. These factors would not lead to higher levels of motivation, but if they were not present would cause dissatisfaction for the individual. The other set of factors were related to motivation; if they were present then employees would be more motivated to work, yet if t hey were not present then there would not be dissatisfaction. These factors were referred to as motivation factors. The opposite of dissatisfaction is not satisfaction, but simply, no dissatisfaction. (L.Mullins, 2007. Pg 262) Herzberg s two-factor theory bares resemblance to Maslow s Hierarchy of Needs theory, published originally in 1943. Herzberg s hygiene factors can be related to

3|Page

BUSM 2311

07005195

Maslow s lower level needs, and the motivation factors are connected to Maslow s higher level needs.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Two -Factor Theory Studies have been conducted to investigate Herzberg s theory and from the results positive and negative criticisms can be concluded. Ebrahim A. Maidani carried out an investigation into How Herzberg s theory of job satisfaction applied to two different working populations using a questionnaire based on Herzberg s classification scheme. The study intended to retest Herzberg s theory of job satisfaction by using a questionnaire similar to the one used in the original study, using the same Critical Incident Technique. It used public and private sector employees to evaluate the two different working environments and analyse any differences that were present. Four hypotheses were then devised for testing. When the results were analysed, two of the four hypotheses were supported; both supporting and criticising Herzberg s theory. One hypothesis found that the satisfied group values motivato r factors significantly higher than the dissatisfied group, corroborating Herzberg s theory. However another hypothesis claimed that dissatisfied employees in both of the sectors would put emphasis on the hygiene factors considerably more than satisfied workers: results suggested this was not the case as there was no significant difference between the two sets of employees. This result does not support Herzberg s theory because he believed that hygiene factors would only prevent dissatisfaction, yet no more emphasis was placed on the factors by the satisfied, when compared to the dissatisfied. There were more satisfied employees within the public sector, so therefore the employees in search of the hygiene factors would naturally be more attracted to work w ithin the public sector. This was due to the differences of the working conditions between the two sectors. However seeing as Herzberg believed that satisfaction would only be achieved by motivators, this conclusion disproves his theory. The study showed t hat hygiene factors WERE sources of satisfaction in BOTH sectors. Though it must be noted that the study did indicateby G.Gardner questions the validity of Herzberg s two-factor theory. theory. that A study that motivators were sources of satisfaction, supporting Herzberg s He states due to the nature of the study and how the theory is dependent upon its method, it limits the generalisation of the theory in real-life situations. Second, one may question the robustness of a theory which cannot stand up to methodological variations. (G.Gardner, 1977) Another criticism is highlighted in Gardner s study that is related as to how Herzberg gathered his data when producing the two -factor theory. (Vroom, 1964) argued that it is retrospective and selective to ask an employee to remember a time in the past wh en they felt particularly good within their job. Respondents are likely to be defensive and recall more readily those favourable events which reflect credit upon themselves and those unfavourable events which can be attributed to others or to external con ditions. (G.Gardner, 1977)

4|Page

BUSM 2311

07005195

From personal experience I would argue that Herzberg s theory has positive and negative points. On the positive side I would agree with Herzberg s thoughts related to hygiene factors: it is usually expectant, in a job, for the working conditions to be at a good standard, and therefore would not motivate an employee to work harder. However if the working conditions were not at a good standard (i.e. poor lighting, cold temperatures etc) then the employee would indeed become satisf ied. When relating a personal experience of mine to the hygiene factors, I had a part-time job which was exceptionally poor at maintaining its hygiene factors and therefore I found myself very dissatisfied. On the other hand I would debate that, contrary to Herzberg s theory that salary is only a hygiene factor and not a motivator, that this is not the case for myself: as a student when finances are poor, the salary or wage I receive is very much a motivator. Nonetheless further analysis of this could possibly lead to a strong disadvantage in Herzberg s theory. Some people would argue that they are not motivated by job satisfaction or increased responsibility, but solely motivated by the wage slip they receive (be it weekly or monthly) yet is this attitude as a result that that person does not enjoy the job they do? Herzberg s theory is not contextual and therefore, as mentioned before, the validity can be questioned.

Goal Theory A different theory usually considered under the heading of motivation to work is Locke s goal theory. The principle of Locke s theory is that a person s goals are an integral part upon
5|Page

BUSM 2311

07005195

how they are motivated. People strive to achieve goals in order to satisfy their emotions and desires. Goals guide people s responses and actions. (L.Mullins, 2007. Pg 273) Research done by Locke showed that there were links between how well people would perform of a task, and how challenging and specific it was. The results showed that the more specific and complicated goals led to higher motivation and greater responses from employees, compared to simple tasks. Locke subsequently pointed out that goal setting is more appropriately viewed as a motivational technique rather than as a formal theory of motivation. (L.Mullins, 2007. Pg 273) The goal theory has numerous implications as outlined by Locke. Firstly specific performance goals should be identified between the manager and the employee so that the employee has a clear sense of direction and knows exactly what is expected of them. ..identified and set in order to direct behaviour and maintain motivation. (L.Mullins, 2007. Pg 274) However it must be noted that the theory states that the goals can be determined by the individual or the manager. Employee participation in the setting of goals may lead to higher performance. Secondly, Locke stated that the goals set should be challenging for the employee . Simple tasks that will not take much effort will be regarded as futile and the level of motivation will hinder. If the tasks are challenging then the employee will feel that their ability would be used to its maximum potential, increasing the levels of m otivation. This factor is linked to Gratton s idea of stretch goals. ..ambitious, highly targeted opportunities for breakthrough improvements in performance. (L.Mullins, 2007. Pg 274) Another practical implementation is feedback. For goals to be effective, people need summary feedback that reveals progress in relation to their goals...strategies to match what the goal requires. (Locke, E.A. et al, 2002. Pg 708) Feedback is an essential part of the goal theory as it is a way of checking progress for the individual. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Goal Theory Studies have been conducted to investigate Locke s theory and from the results positive and negative criticisms can be concluded. One major strength of the goal theory is its high validity. With goal-setting theory, specific difficult goals have been shown to increase performance on well over 100 different tasks involving more than 40,000 participants in at least eight countries wo rking in laboratory, simulation, and field settings. (Locke, E.A. et al, 2002. Pg 714) On the other hand the methodology behind the theory is in question as there is a sense that the factors involved could be subjective. In the goal setting process between the manager and the individual, it is hard to determine what goal would be classed as too simple and what woul d be too challenging? A major strength of Locke s theory is its recognition and reputation as a reliable theory to motivate. However according to L.Mullins, 2007, Locke p ointed out that goal setting is more appropriately viewed as a motivational technique rather than as a formal theory of motivation.

6|Page

BUSM 2311

07005195

From personal experience I would argue that Locke s goal theory, as before with Herzberg s two factor theory, has positive and negative criticisms. Locke s goal theory has a set format for managers wanting to motivate their staff, and Locke outlines the major points in simple stages. It recognises that staff needs feedback to reflect upon achievemen ts and this can be loosely related to Maslow s hierarchy of needs. employees need to feel a sense of self achievement in order to be motivated and move onto the next level which is why the feedback stage is essential. Having been in a situation of meeting a manager to discuss goals for myself, it is worth mentioning that the process is useful in other ways as well; it builds relationships with the manager, and having discussed and agreed goals I would comment that I felt more motivated to work. Comparisons, Differences and Discussion Considering both theories were created to achieve the same objective (to motivate employees) they approach the situation in entirely different ways. Herzberg concentrated on the physical factors within the organisation i.e. the working conditions, and factors that would motivate the employees (job satisfaction, relationships with managers etc .) Locke concentrated on the employees themselves, and how to motivate them intrinsically. Taking into account that both theories have t heir strengths and weaknesses, Locke s theory appears to be a more reliable way of motivating an individual. The way the two -factor theory is so dependent on its method lowers its validity greatly. Locke s theory is a simple step process that makes it easier for managers to motivate their staff and the studies to investigate the theories corroborate this. However as a final word it is must be said that Herzberg s theory was, and still is, hugely recognised in the professional world because the ideas behind the theory still stand today.

REFERENCES

C.Rayner & D.Adam-Smith, 2005, Managing and Leading People .

7|Page

BUSM 2311 y

07005195

E.Maidini, 1991, Comparative Study of Herzberg s Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction among Public and Private Sectors, Public Personnel Management, Vol.20 No.4 G.Gardner, 1977, Is there a valid test of Herzberg's two-factor theory?, Psychol. Vol. 50, p. 197-204 J.Reeve, 1996, Motivating others: nurturing innerMotivational resources . L.Mullins, 2007, Management and Organisational Behaviour, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall. Locke, E.A. et al, 2002. Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation, Vol. 57, No. 9, 705 717

y y y

8|Page