Introduction
This report intends to present a solution to a motivation problem facing an employee who has been unable to interact with other employees despite two years in the labor force. Three distinct sections address specific notions regarding the case. The first section shall provide a background; the second with some reason behind the present situation; and the last part with solutions. Philosophical theories will adversely be used in all sections of the paper.
Identifying the problem
As just mentioned in the introduction, the member of staff in question has been with the company for two years yet he has not been in a position to develop a working relationship with the rest of the labor force. Indeed, this employee has not even been reported intermingling with the resort of the staff in and off the workplace; he just keeps to himself at all times, which is disturbing to colleagues, clients, and senior management. It is due to this reason that analysis regarding the employee has been conditioned. Some initial analysis regarding the employee has already been done. For instance, it has been established that he is the only member of the labor force that does not have an academic degree, which is causing some questions about whether he suffers from some inferiority complex. Though this is the management’s view, colleagues in the office are quick to dismiss the qualification pretext, because they have never discussed academic achievements and there is no possibility he could have accessed that data anywhere. In any case, the employee has been behaving that way since he joined the company. There could be some behavioral change if he had arrived in the company without knowing others’ academic status. The behavior change could have changed after getting such information.
The employee has also exemplified lower motivation in tasks assigned to him. Collogues are baffled by fact that he never asks for assistance even when it is clear that the task in question is tougher for his skills. In addition, it has been reported to the management that the employee does not have any self-initiative skills. That is, he cannot think of starting a project, directions have to come from the supervisor or other employees. After being assigned projects, the assignee has to keep monitoring progress; this employee hardly submits progress reports. Colleagues have complained that this member of staff has been delaying them when it comes to team projects. Teammates have sometimes performed tasks that were assigned to the troubled employee, for the sake of meeting deadlines. Team members have been forced to keep monitoring his progress during projects, which is purely counterproductive. His teammates have on several occasions preferred to ignore him, and thus perform tasks on their own. Awkwardly, he has never expressed displeasure when such actions are taken.
Clients, too, have been complaining of a lack of follow-up on their appeals. This is the most worrying about the employee’s conduct in the company. The management has been willing to tolerate his self-exclusion from the rest of the team but is talking tough about consumer complaints. It has also been established that the employee does his private things while at work. Fellow officemates have reported seeing him booking social events with friends for longer durations of working time.
Explanations through Psychological Theory
One of the best theories to explain what is going on with the employee is the Attitude-Behavior-Theory, which states that individuals behave in certain manners because of attitudes held towards something (Kallgreen & Wood, 1986, 96). This employee is therefore behaving in a current manner because of his attitude towards the job or his employees. It is therefore important for the management to consider knowing whether employee attitude towards his position in the company, his thoughts on management and fellow employees. In that regard, it shall be possible to embark on measures that would lead to a change of behavior through the improvement of attitude. It has to be established whether this employee’s attitude is developing from outside the company or from within (Noelle-Neumann, 1984, p203). Some of the reasons that his attitude could be coming outside the company could be caused by experiences in former employment place, background, or some prior information regarding the company. Reasons for the attitude to develop from within the company could be caused by the welcome he received from members of staff during the beginning of his work in the company. It is therefore vital that the involved management officials. When this happens it shall be possible for the management to develop a successful course of action. The management should also investigate whether the employee has a history of exemplifying the behavior associated with him currently. Such information can be obtained from former employers, educational facilities, family, and friends. This should however be done in ways that would not interfere with his privacy. If possible, the employee should be involved in the search for the historical reason for his behavior and attitude. The management should however be keen on the possibility of causing confusion or offending the employee in this fact-finding process (Stiff, 1994, p. 201).
Theory to Suggest Solutions
After gaining an understanding of the causes leading to the current behavior, the management should embark on helping the employee reform. Reason: the change of behavior shall be mutually beneficial to himself, fellow employees, and the company. The use of Goal-Changing-Theory is advised at this solution stage (Thibaut, 1959, p. 44). The management should first develop goals that will help the employee, management, and colleagues in changing the current attitudes that are resulting in self-seclusion and lack of motivation. The goals being set should be clear and realistic to achieve (Locke, 1990, p. 129), failure of which would lead to the continuation of the current problem in the organization. Secondly, the goals should be challenging enough for the employee and other stakeholders, because simple goals might end up achieving nothing. The management should therefore be keen on the ability of all stakeholders, especially the affected employee, to handle and successfully make the problem a thing of the past (Rusbult 1983, p 109). The Goal-Changing Theory also calls for stakeholders to ensure that the set goals are achievable in the right time frame (Janis, 1982, p. 19). It would be counterproductive to spend time developing strategies that would take long periods to achieve when results are needed in the short run. In the same token, the management should not develop rushed strategies to tackle problems that require longer periods to solve. Balance is the key in ensuring that measures being implemented would be achieved on time (Kelley, 1978, p. 73). After implementing the strategies developed at this stage, the management should ensure establishing follow-up procedures. Such a move would help in understanding whether the measures taken had been successful or not. In case the measures have not been successful, stakeholders in the process should embark on developing new strategies that have more chances of being successful. On the other hand, the management should work towards improving strategies that were successful in the said process. This evaluation of employee progress should be done consistently (Tetlock & Kim, 1959, p. 59); it helps it tracking progress.
Recommended Solutions
The first step to helping the employee is by involving him in the solution-finding process. This shall make him feel part of the process, which increases his chances of success. Other members of the labor force that are somehow close with the employee should be requested to join in. In addition, a representative from the employee’s family should also be involved. All these people should nonetheless happen with the employee’s consent. One theory that should be applied in the solutions is the Investment Model, which works through the cost-benefit analysis approach (Rusbilt, 1986, p. 125). The model asks stakeholders to weigh the cost of different solutions to the benefit that would accrue for each of them. As it happens in all other cost-benefit analysis cases, it is the solution with the biggest gap between benefits and costs that should be considered (Seligman, 1992, p. 67). Another approach that should be considered is the one involving Expectancy Theory, which enables stakeholders to understand whether the results of measures being taken would be attractive to the company (Vroom, 1964, p. 98). In this case, company management should motivate the affected employee by explaining the benefits that would accrue from his change of behavior. The rest of the labor force should also be motivated in supporting measures taken because they will benefit from an improved working environment that leads to greater job satisfaction.
References
Janis, L. (1982). Groupthink, Houghton, Boston.
Wood, D. & Kallgren B. (1986). Consistencies in altitude behaviors. Social and Psychology Journal, 27, 300-318.
Thibaut, J, & Kelley, H. (1978). Interdependence in Interpersonal Relations, New York: Wiley & Sons.
Latham, G. & Locke, A. (1990). Task performance. Englewood, Prentice Hall.
Noele-Neuman, E. (1984). Spirality in Silence. , Chicago, Chicago University.
Tetlock, R., & Kim, J. (1987). Accountability in personality tasks. Cognition and Social Attitudes, 57, 701-706.
Kelley, H. & Thibaut, J. (1959) Group Psychology. New York, Wiley & Sons.
Seligman, M. (1993). Organizational Helplessness, New York, Freeman.
Stirff, B. (1994) Persuasiveness in Communication, New York, Guilford
Rusbullt, C. (1983). Longitudinal investment model. Journal of Psychology and Personality, 46, 170-189.
Vroom, U (1964). Motivation and Work. New York: Wiley & Sons.