Introduction
A substantial number of organizations have embraced strategic human resource management practices in the modern economic times. The reason for embracing strategic human resource management is that it is comprehensive and responsive to all the issues of management that arise in organizations.
Most of the literature on organizational management point to the fact that employees are the most critical resources in organizations.
This statement is backed by the fact that employees are the key pillars behind applicability and functioning of the non-human resources in organizations.
Therefore, one of the areas that are given a lot of attention in strategic human resource management is the management of the expectations and demands of employees in organizations.
While the management of employees is termed as one of the most complex tasks, it remains to be the most vital role for organizational managers (Armstrong & Baron 2002: 42).
The complexity of managing employees comes from the fact that managing employees entails the management of their needs, expectations, as well as their emotions. Modern human resource managers in organizations are charged with managing performance (Boudreau 1998: 3).
According to Miner (2003: 250), motivation is one of the key functions of organizational performance in contemporary organizations.
A common question that is posed to people seeking human resource management positions in organizations revolves around the techniques that can be used to motivate employees (Katou & Budhwar 2006: 1223).
In this paper, it is argued that employee motivation is a complex exercise, yet the most critical function of organizational performance in modern organizations.
This paper explores motivation as one of the key components of performance management in organizations. The paper begins by developing the real value and meaning of motivation.
The paper transits to the exploration of the manner in which employees are motivated. This is done through digging deep into motivational theories and real examples of how organizations implement employee motivation programs.
Understanding employee motivation
As observed in the introduction, employee motivation is one of the key components of performance management. Different organizations adopt different techniques of motivating their employees. There exists no defined and static way of motivating employees in organizations.
What is evident in contemporary organizational management is that organization’s managers build on motivational techniques, while choosing best practices in employee motivation. This is due to the variation in operational structures and design of human resource development practices in each organization.
It is critical to define motivation in order to give a clear room for putting the term in the context of organizational management. Motivation can be defined as a psychological feature that is meant to make people act towards a given set of objectives.
Digging deeper into the meaning of the term motivation, it comes out that motivation is coined from the verb motive. Motive can mean desires, needs, demands, drives, and wants within a person (Gollwitzer 1996: 476).
Basing on this premise, motivation can be defined as the process of stimulating a person to behave in a way that favours the accomplishment of certain goals. Therefore, the observation that motivation is a process implies that it is a continuous exercise.
This is likened to the fact that the needs of people are complex and keep changing with the environment under which they are placed at a given time.
Moving back to the organizational context, it has been observed that the factors that stimulate the behaviour of employees include the desire for success, the desire for money, the need for recognition, and the desire for teamwork and job satisfaction among other individually and group derived needs (Armstrong 2007: 395).
Bruce (2006: 1) observed that the need for motivation in organizations is inevitable. One of the main roles of organizational managers is to ensure that employees discharge performance in the best of their skills and abilities.
Therefore, the role of organizational leaders is to ensure that they arouse interest in the employees, which is vital for gearing the employees toward improving the standards of performance when discharging their roles in the organization.
Up to this point, it can be said that the role of motivating employees lies squarely with organizational leaders. What ought to be asked is whether organizations can attain their goals without the embrace of motivation.
A simple answer to this question is that performance management is the core pillar of performance in modern organizations. This is evident across almost all industries in the world today (Bruce 2006: 2).
According to Management Study Guide (n.d.: 1), the process of employee motivation can be understood better by putting three stages into consideration.
These stages are: a need or drive, a stimulating ground in which the needs of employees are aroused and the satisfaction of the needs of employees, which is often accompanied by the accomplishment of the organizational performance goals.
The second stage implies that the employees may have needs that are not visible or understood by the management. Therefore, it is the role of the human resource managers to provide a ground on which the employees feel comfortable to raise their demands in which their needs are depicted.
It can, thus, be said that motivation is the source of employee morale, which comes from the feeling that their needs have been met. The needs are best met through development and implementation of a desirable incentive plan.
Of critical relevance in employee motivation is the increase of the level of attachment of the employees to the organization (Management Study Guide n.d.: 1).
A brief review of motivational theories
A critical observation of management denotes that employee motivation is an exercise that has been in application in organizations even before the 20th century.
The existence of motivational theories that date back to the pre-classical times to the classical theories of motivation and the contemporary motivational theories denotes that motivation is a vital and an applicable theory in organizational management.
The classical theories of motivation were prevalent during the 1950s, the time when most organizations in Western Europe were setting up proper structures to enhance competitiveness.
The three main motivational theories that were developed in the mid 20th century and which have remained relevant into modern organizational managers include the Maslowâs hierarchy of needs theory, Herzbergâs two factor theory and the theory X and theory Y (Management Study Guide n.d.: 1).
These theories provide the main ground on which the modern concepts and models of motivation are derived.
It can be noted that the contemporary organizational environment depicts an increase in the number of factors that are affecting organizational management, yet the classical theories remain to be the core pillars on which the foundations of motivation are based (Hoffmann 2007: 11).
The contemporary theories of motivation try to absorb emerging issues of management. This is due to the observation that the contemporary environment in which employees work is quite dynamic.
Contemporary theories bring out the significant changes in human behaviours and non-human factors and how they play out in the motivation of organizational employees.
These theories include: the goal setting theory, the reinforcement theory, the expectancy theory of motivation, the equity theory of motivation, and the McClellandâs theory of needs among other theories and models of motivation.
One of the main differences between the classical theories and the contemporary theories is that the contemporary theories of motivation are applied within the spectrum of human resource management.
This implies that the contemporary theories are more responsive to organizational change compared to the classical theories, which were based on the principles of personnel management (Hoffmann 2007: 11).
There is another category of employee motivation theory known as content motivational theories. These theories are often based on the needs of the workers in organizations.
The needs of employees keep shifting and so do these theories seek to explore how employee motivation can be attained within such an environment. Motivation is mostly seen as a factor that comes from the internal drive of the employees, which comes from the satisfaction of the demands of the workers.
The role of managers is expansive under these theories. Managers are charged with an extra role of ensuring that employees air out their views about the developments in the external and internal environment of the organization.
Changes in the internal and external environment of the organizations result in shifts in the demands and needs of employees. The change may be positive, meaning that it has a minimal impact on the employees and their needs.
The change may also be negative, meaning that it attracts new demands and needs of the employees. Most of the contemporary theories of employee motivation mentioned in the above paragraph can also fit in this category of motivational theories (Naoum 2001: 230).
The complexity of employee motivation
Ankli and Palliam 2006 (7) observed that the most critical question that comes to the mind of people when talking about employee motivation is whether employees can be motivated.
According to Meyers et al. (2004: 991), research in the field of organizational motivation is still highly fragmented, which makes it difficult to develop a common understanding of how motivation ought to be implemented by organizational managers.
Instead of building on each otherâs findings, researchers prefer to explore their researches on factors that impact on employee motivation solely. This is one of the sources of difficulties in comprehending the issue of employee motivation.
The other concern about the applicability of employee motivation comes from the fact that the operational environment in which organizations prevail is quite dynamic and often results in changes in the needs of employees.
The dynamics of the environment can result in scenarios where the needs of employees override the capacity of the organization to fulfil or respond to the needs and demands.
An example is the recent global economic recession where the financial needs of employees rose significantly, yet most organizations suffered massive financial losses and could not meet the financial needs of their employees.
However, it has been observed that organizations apply diverse tactics of managing the needs and expectations of employees (âKeeping employees motivated during difficult timesâ 2009: 53-54).
According to Ankli and Palliam (2006: 8), the needs of employees may be satisfied directly or indirectly, which means that motivation is exercised irrespective of the conditions that are facing the organization.
In fact, the real test of the potential of human resource managers to motivate organizations is seen during times when organizations are facing tough economic times. This implies that other tactics, other than the direct fulfilment of the employee needs and demands, have to be applied.
A lot of uncertainties take course in organizations during tough times. This raises the level of anxiety among employees, who worry about the potential of the organization to meet their needs. In such events, organizational managers are forced to reassure the employees through application of motivational models that are meant to retain the employees.
This is a daunting task, considering the fact that other organizations may be offering attractive opportunities to the skilled employees. This can come out clearly when trying to explore the relationship between motivation and employee retention.
What is evident in the study of employee motivation is that motivation is a complex activity that has to be effectively approached by the organization in order to meet the goals of organizational performance (âKeeping employees motivated during difficult timesâ 2009: 53-54).
In their exploratory research, in which they sought to establish the sources of employee motivation in organizations, Ankli and Palliam (2006: 8) found out that motivation is directly linked to the behaviour of employees. Therefore, motivating employees entails the effort to change the behaviour of employees.
By factoring the aspects of organizational behaviour in organizational performance appraisal, it comes out clearly that motivation is a complex process since it is not only bases on changing behaviour, but also a set of behaviours. In a number of circumstances, the behaviours may be generative and circular.
The aspect of employee behaviour change in motivation invites organizational managers to divide motivation into distinct categories of factors that affect the needs and demands of employees, and by extension affecting the behaviour of employees (Ankli & Palliam 2006: 8-9).
According to (Beswick 2007: 1), the linkage between employees and rewards, on the other hand, depicts a broader picture of the concept of motivating employees. The rewards go hand in hand with motivation. However, it is not clear whether all rewards fulfil their intended purpose.
Rewards may fail to achieve the desired objectives, especially in scenarios where organizational managers have not fully inspired the employees to bring out their needs and demands (Management Study Guide n.d.: 1).
How organizations motivate their employees
As noted earlier in this paper, organizational performance management is one of the most critical parameters that determine the ability of an organization to compete with other organizations in the industry and the collective economy in which an organization operate.
Performance management cannot be fully explored without the explication of performance appraisal. According to Benson and Dundis (2003: 315), one of the key components of organizational appraisal systems is motivation. By extension, it can be said that motivation lies at the centre of performance management.
A deeper look across most organizations in the contemporary world reveals the emphasis on strategic human resource management (Latham & Pinder 2005: 485). One of the strategies of managing employees, which receives a vast amount of attention in most organizations, is motivation.
This can be understood by factoring in the theory of hierarchy of needs by Abraham Maslow. Irrespective of the fact that it is a classical theory, the Maslowâs theory provides the ground on which motivational practices are devised and implemented in contemporary organizations.
The main feature of the Maslow theory is the needs of people (Benson & Dundis 2003: 316).
Evidence across a substantial number of organizations across the globe reveals that motivation often begins with the unearthing of the needs of the employees and the devise and the implementation of plans to satisfy the needs of the employees.
The question that should be posed at this point is whether motivation is only founded on the needs and satisfaction of the needs.
This is not the truth; however, it is evident that motivation cannot be fully attained in any organization without satisfying the needs of employees.
It is the needs of employees that have to be opened up in order to reflect the increasingly challenging and competitive environment in which organizations operate (Latham & Pinder 2005: 485).
Having noted that the modern operational environment is very dynamic and challenging, it is apparent that modern managers ought to be proactive in the application of motivation in organizational functioning. There are a lot of changes in the functional environment of modern organizations.
These changes include the emerging technologies and the need for organizations to adopt the technologies, mounting competition between firms and the dynamic economic conditions.
Organizations that have proven to have the power to thrive in the current economy are those that balance the needs of employees and the organizational dynamics.
Benchmark organizations like Apple Incorporated, Microsoft Corporation and Tesco among others are often reported to invest vast amounts of resources in human resource development.
Part of the human resource development activities that are given maximum attention is the motivation of employees through physical rewards (Latham & Pinder 2005: 485).
MĂŒller (2011: 2) argued that the rise of the Apple Incorporated into the scale of production that it enjoys today is largely attributed to the motivating factor in the organization. One can simply inquire about the mode of organizational motivation that is utilized in Apple Incorporated.
An exploration of the theories of motivation reveals that no organization can rely on a single source of motivation. Apple embraces both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The balance between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation is crucial to the balancing of performance in the company.
This is backed by the 50/50 theory of motivation by John Adair, which emphasizes on the need to strike a balance between extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation.
According to Adair (2006: 43) intrinsic factors of employee motivation include job design and the culture of the organization, while extrinsic factors include positive and negative incentives.
Most organizations, Apple included, are trying to draw away negative incentives, such as threats. The argument behind this development is that negative incentives have proven to be unsustainable since they only shape behaviours and actions of employees in the short-run.
In the long-run, negative incentives often degenerate into revolt by the employees, thus failing to attain its key goal of motivating employees (Wang & Lim 2008: 701-702). According to the motivational crowding theory, extrinsic motivational factors undermine the worth of the intrinsic factors of motivation in organizations.
Extrinsic motivational factors, like the fear of sanctions, put a lot of pressure on the employees, and may kill the will and the desire of the employees to work for results (Dzuranin & Stuart 2012: 3).
MĂŒller (2011:3) observed that the organizational culture of Apple Incorporated is moulded around innovation. As part of the intrinsic factors, the company often ensures that the employees are presented with all the possible resources that are required to advance the projects of the company.
A similar practice is embraced in Microsoft Corporation. This is justified by the billions of dollars that are spent by these companies in enhancing research and development. Once the intrinsic factors have been accomplished, it becomes easy for Apple to factor in the extrinsic factors of motivation.
Not all attributes of extrinsic motivation give attention to the motivational practices in the Apple Company. The company ensures that all its employees are retained in order to enhance organizational projects, which results in innovation.
The company has an elaborate benefit scheme that ensures that its employees are remunerated accordingly. The company also offers its employees other non-performance driven incentives like insurance cover and product discounts. This creates an enabling room for a competitive organization (MĂŒller 2011: 4).
Motivation is, thus, one of the main success factors for Apple Incorporated. The company has demonstrated its ability to sustain organizational motivation, thus remaining to be one of the most flexible organizations in the world today.
This gives the company an upper hand when it comes to competition and attraction of employees in the competitive global labour industry.
Organizations keep competing for employees who have outstanding skills; therefore, lack of motivation among employees in one company can be used as an attracting factor in another company.
Organizations value experienced employees and they are often willing to go an extra mile to maintain skills and experience (MĂŒller 2011: 3).
While a substantial number of organizational management researchers argue for tangible rewards as one of the most embraced ways of motivating employees, the reality on the ground shows that both the tangible and intangible rewards are utilized by organizational managers.
The most common tangible reward that is used to motivate employees in organizations is financial rewards. However, it has been noted that employees do not only value financial rewards.
In order to fully motivate the employees, as opined by the Maslowâs hierarchy of needs, the financial rewards often come first because they help employees to fulfil their basic needs. However, the other level of motivation, which is the fulfilment of the psychological needs of the employees, is also critical.
Employees value the sense of belonging and feel more motivated when they are appreciated by the organizational management. This is better understood through an exploration of the psychological theories of organizational behaviour.
Research on organizational performance has revealed that both tangible and non-tangible resources complement one other, especially in the production setting in organizations (Dzuranin & Stuart 2012: 3).
Conclusion
Employee motivation if one of the most valid practices in organizational management. Most theories of organizational management point to the critical relevance of organizational employees to the existence and sustainability of organizational operations. This paper has explored the topic of employee motivation deeply.
The paper sought to answer three main questions, which are: What is employee motivation? Can employees be motivated? How can employees be motivated? As observed in the paper, there are positives and negative to each side of the questions posed.
It can be concluded that the concept of employee motivation is one of the critical features in the management of performance in organizations.
The definition of employee motivation brought about the aspect of needs, demands and aspirations, which must be guarded in order to propel the organizational employees towards attainment of the goals of organizations.
In an attempt to factor whether employee motivation is a possible exercise, it came out that employee motivation is an activity that has been implemented by organizations for a long period, ranging from the pre-classical times to the contemporary managerial era.
This was backed by the existence of theories of employee motivation theories, whose development can be traced from the early years of the 20th century.
Motivation is a complex activity, though it remains critical to the performance of organizations. The first aspect of complexity in employee motivation is the fact that the needs of employees are diverse, which makes it daunting for organizational managers to meet these diverse needs.
This compounds the problem of attaining the desired level of motivation in employees.
The second complexity of employee motivation resonates from the fact that the contemporary operational environment of most organizations keeps changing at paces that cannot be easily anticipated, thus swaying the needs of the employees.
In spite of the complexities, organizations keep inventing techniques of managing the needs, aspirations and expectations of their employees. This is due to the fact that motivation is one of the core tools for developing an efficient workforce, which can help organizations beat the odds of competition.
Reference List
âKeeping employees motivated during difficult timesâ, Leader to Leader, vol. 2009 no. 51, pp. 53-54.
Adair, JE 2006, Leadership and motivation: The fifty-fifty rule and the eight key principles of motivating others, Kogan Page, London.
Ankli, RE & Palliam, R 2012, âEnabling a motivated workforce: exploring the sources of motivationâ, Development and Learning in Organizations, vol. 26 no. 2, pp. 7-10.
Armstrong, M & Baron, A 2002, Strategic HRM: The key to improved business performance, Chartered Inst. of Personnel and Development, London.
Armstrong, M 2007, A handbook of employee reward management and practice, Kogan Page, Philadelphia, PA.
Benson, SG & Dundis, SP 2003, âUnderstanding and motivating health care employees: integrating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, training and technologyâ, Journal of Nursing Management, vol. 11 no. 5, pp. 315-320.
Beswick, D 2007, Management implications of the interaction between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards, paper presented at a Seminar, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Boudreau, JW 1998, âStrategic human resource management measures: Key linkages and the peoplevantage modelâ, Strategic HR Metrics and PeopleVantage, WP, pp. 98-128.
Bruce, A 2006, How to motivate every employee: 24 proven tactics to spark productivity in the workplace, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Dzuranin, A & Stuart, N 2012, âThe effect of tangible and intangible noncash rewards on performance and satisfaction in a production settingâ, Management Accounting Quarterly, vol. 13 no. 4, pp. 1-9.
Gollwitzer, PM 1996, The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behaviour, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hoffmann, S 2007, Classical motivation theories – Similarities and differences between them, GRIN Verlag GmbH, MĂŒnchen.
Katou, A & Budhwar, P 2006, ‘Human resource management systems on organizational performance: A test of mediating model in the Greek manufacturing context’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 17 no. 7, pp. 1223-1253.
Latham, GP & Pinder, CC 2005, ‘Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 56, pp. 485-516.
Management Study Guide n.d., What is motivation? Web.
Meyers, JP, Becker, TE & Vandenberghe, C 2004, âEmployee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative modelâ, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89 no. 6, pp. 991-1007.
Miner, JB 2003, ‘The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior theories: a quantitative review’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 2 no. 3, pp. 250-68.
MĂŒller, C 2011, Employee motivation and incentives at Apple: Do incentives really help to motivate employees?, GRIN Verlag GmbH, MĂŒnchen.
Naoum, S 2001, People and organizational management in construction, Telford, London.
Wang, H & Lim, SS 2008, âReal options and real value: the role of employee incentives to make specific knowledge investmentsâ, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 29 no. 7, pp. 701-721.