Factors of motivation cannot be managed Essay

The term ‘motivation ‘ is derived from the Latin word ‘movere ‘ translated to intend ‘to move ‘ ( Porter, Bigley and Steers ; 2003, p.1 ) . It is frequently associated with the will to execute a undertaking with enthusiasm, without the usage of force or the whip. Organizations that place a high precedence on preparing or developing a extremely motivated work force frequently display alone features amongst which include: high assurance degrees, the absence of industrial struggles and finally noticeable is improved public presentation. A overplus of definitions exist across literature for the term ‘motivation ‘ -while some emphasize its ability to give astronomical additions to the companies using it, others merely mention to it as the indispensable ingredient necessary for the effectual operation of any one organisation.

One definition by Graham and Bennett ( 1998, p.60 ) , defines motive to work as “ all the thrusts, forces and influences -conscious or unconscious- that cause the employee to desire to accomplish certain purposes. ” Another definition by Robbins and Judge ( 2009, p.209 ) refers to motive as being “ those procedures that account for an person ‘s strength, way and continuity of attempt towards achieving a end. ” In all of these, what one would happen common in the foregoing definitions of motive is the ‘drive ‘ and ‘direction ‘ it affords the person. This essay shall concentrate on a discourse trouble oneselfing around the kineticss of pull offing motive at work. In so making, the essay shall research the nature of motive every bit good as an overview of the construct of single differences as it relates to motive. Relevant resort to theories such as the content, procedure and end puting theories of motive shall besides be made in an effort to determine the possibility of pull offing motive.

We will write a custom essay sample on
Factors of motivation cannot be managed Essay
or any similar topic only for you
Order now

Based on its really nature, motive may be loosely categorized under two distinguishable headers, viz. : extrinsic motive and intrinsic motive. While the one is externally induced by such things as inducements and fillips, it is founded on the impression that certain additions would accrue to the person if he engages in a peculiar activity or instead, that peculiar punishments would evade him if an activity were performed or otherwise non executed. On the other manus, intrinsic motive stems from a echt involvement or unconditioned passion for an activity and is more psychological in nature as the benefits merely consist a feeling of interior satisfaction, pleasance or felicity as against executable wagess. To farther buttress this point, Mullins ( 2005 ) points out that extrinsic motive is driven by the being of foreseeable wagess while intrinsic motive is fueled by the activity itself and the passion for it.

Before diging into the complexnesss inherent in pull offing employee motive, it is imperative to foreground the function of single differences at work. Organizations by their very nature consist of a diverse group of people working together to accomplish a common purpose. Diverseness in itself implies that each single holds on to certain beliefs and forms of work that are alone and sometimes conflicting. Similarly, it so applies that what serves as motive to one could most likely differ from what would trip another to surpass his equals. That is, while some may merely necessitate a small push to execute at their optimum degrees, others may necessitate a blend of several motivational techniques to accomplish the same results. It may so be said that the importance of a extremely motivated work force can non be overemphasized in the visible radiation of the fact that people perform at their best when they are extremely motivated. ( See: Porter, Bigley and Steers, 2003 ) .

Several writers have debated on the adequateness of the different motive theories and whether or non there exists a ‘one tantrum for all ‘ . While some may be disposed to bode that employee motive can non be managed, others have rather merely resorted to acquiring the perfect mix for each single instance. In subsequent treatments, accent shall be placed on a treatment from both positions while doing mention to relevant theories or surveies back uping same. This paper shall pull on Maslow ‘s hierarchy of demands theory, Alderfer ‘s ERG theory, Vroom ‘s anticipation theory, Lawler and Porter ‘s anticipation theoretical account every bit good as Locke ‘s end puting theory.

The implicit in dogma of Maslow ‘s demand theory is that the person ‘s demands are at every point in clip ranked in order of precedence. Maslow categorized these demands from the really basic to the most ambitious into five cells that is ; physiological demands, Safety needs, societal demands, esteem demands and self realization needs severally. Physiological or basic demands relate to among other things, vesture and shelter. Safety, societal and esteem demands refer to the demand for security, love and position severally. At the extremum of the hierarchy is what Maslow termed the ego realization demand which is the vertex on the pyramid. It is at this point that Maslow believes persons have realized their full potency. Underliing the theory is the rule that a lower degree demand is satisfied before a higher degree demand and that a satisfied demand no longer motivates ( Mullins, 2005 ; Ramlall, 2004 ) .

The deduction of this theory to directors suggests that motive can be managed at the workplace. It supports that a director will merely be required to understand each employee to the point of being able to find which demands have been satisfied and which are yet to be satisfied. Hence, it will be expected that at each point in clip, he is cognizant of the degree of demands his staff are soon seeking to fulfill which will help him in his efforts to retain a motivated work force. John Adair ( 1996 ) , in support of this remarks that while Maslow focused on the person as against the group, his theory has been utile in explicating and assisting directors understand the principle behind diverse demands and how best the employees ‘ demands may be satisfied ( besides, see Porter, Bigley and Steers, 2003 ) .

Notwithstanding the seeming cogency behind the theory, it can be said that Maslow ‘s theory provides an excessively simplistic attack to understanding the construct of motive. It poses a series of challenges to the director who seeks to actuate a diverse set of employees at one time ( Adair, 1996 ) . First, it is obvious that persons do n’t pass their full twenty-four hours at the office and as such are non expected to fulfill all their demands in the four walls of the work environment ( Mullins, 2005 ) . The deduction of this to any one director is for him to keep a trail of his subsidiary ‘s activities both within and outside the organisation to enable him understand which demands have been met and which are to be actualized ; the attainment of which is mostly unreasonable, making scabiess in every effort by a director to efficaciously managed employee motive. Second, it is besides known for a fact that while some wagess have the capacity to fulfill more than one strata of demand on the pyramid for peculiar persons, the same set of wagess may merely hardly satisfy another ‘s hence resulting in a deficiency of uniformity in the direction of employee motive at work.

Furthermore, Mullins ( 2005 ) , points out yet another challenge for directors who seek to actuate of course originative people as these persons would continuously seek after self actualization even when lower degree demands are yet to be satisfied ; therefore withstanding Maslow ‘s cardinal rule, which is based on hierarchy of demands with chase of satisfaction traveling from lower/basic demands to the highest. Added to this class are those persons who have suffered traumatic experiences such as chronic unemployment and hence would continually seek to fulfill lower degree demands, seeing no ground to come on up the ladder. Consequently, inventing a individual motive program for all employees utilizing this theoretical account may in fact consequence in pandemonium.

A farther polish of Maslow ‘s theory was done by Alderfer in his Existence-Relatedness-Growth ( ERG ) theory. Alderfer categorised employees ‘ demands as occurring in the order as depicted above -this compressed the original five hierarchies of Maslow ‘s theory into three wide categories, that is ; being, relatedness and growing. While the basic and safety demands fell mostly under being, relatedness covered Maslow ‘s safety, societal and esteem demands. Growth on the other manus referred to respect and realization demands. However, Alderfer ‘s theory both agrees with and differs from Maslow ‘s in the sense that it recognizes the fact that employees would normally fulfill their demands in a forward patterned advance ; nevertheless, when they continually seek to run into a demand but maintain meeting with letdowns, the same employees will ensue to a frustration-regression manner and hence continue to fulfill demands at a lower degree.

The theory tends to do proviso for those originative persons non considered in Maslow ‘s theory by contending that more than one demand may be operative at the same clip and that lower degree demands are non needfully satisfied before higher degree demands. In yet another context, the deduction of this theory is that while employees who have suffered some signifier of letdown in achieving growing demands will non needfully be dissatisfied, such persons will instead seek to achieve the satisfaction of other being and relatedness demands which will function as the new drive force for behaviour ( see Porter, Bigley and Steers, 2003 ; Arnold et al. , 2005 ; Mullins 2005 ) .

The procedure theories are those that are concerned with ‘how ‘ persons are motivated by placing those factors or variables that influence motive ( Mullins, 2005 ) . They include but are non limited to the Vroom ‘s and Porter and Lawler ‘s anticipation theories. The first of these as developed by Vroom is the anticipation theory. The theory holds that employees/individuals will ever seek to maximise pleasance and as such, prefer some results over the accomplishment of others ( Steers, Mowday and Shapiro, 2004 ; Vroom, 1995 ) . The theory supports that employees can be motivated one time there exists a direct relationship between his attempt and his public presentation ; provided that positive public presentation will ensue in wagess that are deemed of import to him. Vroom ‘s theory emphasizes three variables. Valence, which is the feeling the employee has approximately certain results and therefore find his attraction to it ; instrumentality, which refers to the belief held by the employee that a degree of public presentation will ensue in some signifier of result and eventually, anticipation, which relates to an employee ‘s sentiment about the achievability of such public presentations ( Ramlall, 2004 ; Robbins and Judge, 2009 ) .

The deduction of this theory is that motive may be managed one time realistic marks are set and one time results which are attached to high public presentation are efficaciously communicated to employees. A good illustration of how directors can guarantee motive utilizing Vroom ‘s theoretical account is by using the construct of public presentation related wage, a system that attaches the promise of wages to public presentation and in relation to some pre-set targets/objectives ( Beardwell and Claydon, 2010 ) . That is, in an attempt to bask the benefits of high public presentation, employees would seek to run into their aims, which will in bend encouragement overall organisational public presentation. However, while Porter and Lawler modified Vroom ‘s theoretical account, they believe that non all attempt consequences in public presentation as employees may be motivated but might miss the necessary accomplishment to put to death their undertakings or may be missing in the cognition of the demands of the occupation ( Ramlall, 2004 ) .

Besides pointed out by Porter and Lawler ‘s theoretical account of anticipation is the relationship between public presentation and satisfaction. They portend that while some public presentation may non ensue in the expected wagess, thereby non ensuing in satisfaction ; public presentation of other undertakings may instead take to intrinsic or extrinsic wagess ( Porter, Bigley and Steers, 2003 ) . In kernel, when a undertaking is performed and wages is received, the employee measures this against his outlook and the result of that comparing determines whether or non satisfaction will be achieved or whether or non he will go on to endeavor towards higher public presentation. A large challenge nevertheless lies in the subjectiveness of public presentation steps and its appraisal in work organisations which may be seen to present serious deductions for the effectual disposal of employee motive.

Another motivational theory that has received enormous support in its impression of how motive may be managed is Locke ‘s ‘Goal-Setting ‘ theory. The theory is built on the premiss that specific ends drive persons to execute better and later attain fit ends as against a general and obscure end ( Arnold et al. , 2005 ; Seijts, Latham, Tasa and Latham, 2004 ) . The theory besides identifies that persons have differing end orientations which may either be a ‘learning ‘ type on the one manus ; where the accent is to be skilled in the public presentation of a given undertaking or a ‘performance ‘ type on the other, where the focal point is on the completion of a undertaking.

The theory farther posits that persons with a learning end tend to see improved public presentation once the undertaking is a spot hard while those with public presentation ends improve with the simpleness of the undertaking assigned as their accent is on undertaking completion. In add-on, while feedback serves to help the public presentation of those with learning ends, it motivates them every bit good ( see Porter, Bigley and Steers, 2003 ) . However, the same can non be said for persons holding public presentation ends due to their antipathy for unfavorable judgment. Hence, in efficaciously pull offing his staff, the director is therefore expected to put clear and realistic ends, he may besides bind the accomplishment of such ends to certain inducements which will better employees ‘ committedness to public presentation.

Merely like every other theory on human existences, the end scene has its defects. An observation made of the theory by a series of writers is that public presentation decreased when people who were given specific larning ends to execute did non hold the cognition required to execute the undertaking ( Seijts, Latham, Tasa and Latham, 2004 ) . Hence, the deduction of this theory is that a high public presentation end will merely be achieved when employees have been equipped with the relevant accomplishment to execute such undertakings. It is besides worthy to observe that one deduction of the end puting theory is that when an inducement is attached to a end that can non be attained, it consequences in reduced public presentation for the employee and frequently times, a incentive to affect in unethical behaviour in meeting such ends particularly among persons who are public presentation driven ( Schweitzer, Ordonez and Douma, 2004 ) .

The being of conflicting ends which is frequently a characteristic at work organisations besides poses serious restrictions for the application of end puting theory as one would constantly endure for the other to be achieved. Then once more, when faced with a hard undertaking or end, there is besides a high chance for persons to concentrate on undertaking scheme ; that is how to demystify and decide the complex undertaking ( which is a learning end ) as against its existent public presentation. This will in bend consequences in lower public presentation on the undertaking and accordingly queer efforts at guaranting high public presentation motive ( see Seijts, Latham, Tasa and Latham, 2004 ; Schweitzer, Ordonez and Douma, 2004 ; Arnold et al. , 2005 ) .

Before conveying this paper to a stopping point, it is imperative to touch on the function of money as a incentive. This thought stemmed from the scientific direction school where employees were seen as economic animate beings that merely appreciated higher rewards as a agency of motive and were willing to seek same even at the disbursal of their leisure hours ( Mullins, 2005 ) . Money in itself is a incentive. In add-on, it motivates by virtuousness of the fact that it affords the person a means to fulfilling his other demands ( Stajkovic and Luthans 2001 ) . However, it gets to a point in the life of an employee when money no longer motivates, where he would prefer to hold more leisure clip and would non mind sing merchandising off any increase of salary for increased leisure. This is the construct of the backward inclining curve derived from the extra unit of money received for every hr worked ( Fajana, 2001 ) .

Furthermore, while the anticipation and the end puting theories are advocators of the actuating power of money and its ability to status behaviour towards accomplishing certain results, the cognititive rating theory proposes that wage diminishes overall motive when applied to a undertaking that ab initio provided intrinsic wagess to an person ( Robbins and Judge, 2009 ) . In add-on, Herzberg in his two factor theory classified money under the hygiene factors saying that its presence will non needfully actuate or give improved public presentation while its absence will ensue in dissatisfaction. All this lone seeks to further intensify the complexnesss inherent in actuating persons.

In decision, it is common cognition that for the accomplishment of organisational ends, the director is saddled with the duty of organizing the attempts of other employees who may non needfully portion the same involvements. To this consequence, he is expected to actuate each member of the squad if the undertaking is to be completed within the clip specified. Equally simple as this may sound, this poses the most hard of responsibilities for the director as there is an absolute demand to understand each person ‘s complexnesss and what drives them to execute. At this occasion, it is pertinent to notice that employees have divergent motivations for taking up occupations.

While some have been found to take up employment for grounds runing from the fiscal benefit it confers and the societal demand it meets, others work merely to go through up idle clip or by ground of irresistible impulse from their partners or households. Furthermore, it should besides be noted that single motivation factors may alter over clip for the same person: a alteration in precedences or involvements for illustration. Obviously, it goes without stating that a director who has in his squad one of the less interested classs of people would finally be faced with constrictions even when all attempt has been spent on motive.

The modern work organisation consists of a broad assortment of persons working closely together to accomplish the aims of the whole. What sets a successful organisation apart from the remainder lies in its ability to form this diverseness for its ain good. Often times, employees come from changing backgrounds with each holding its ain unique involvements, passions and work manner. The ability of a director to synchronise their several accomplishments, cognition and abilities determines how successful the endeavor would finally be in achieving its corporate ends. The will to work is experienced otherwise by different persons. While some may be of course inclined to work, detesting any province of idling, others need to be stimulated, motivated or even forced to acquire their work done. The word ‘motivation ‘ has its beginnings in Latin. Originally coined from the Latin word ‘movere ‘ which means to travel ( Mowday and Shapiro, 2004 ) , motive may be likened to a driving force that stimulates an person or a group to execute.

A figure of definitions have been tendered for the term motive, each seeking to supply an apprehension for human behaviour. Porter, Bigley and Steers ( 2003, p.1 ) define motive in three parts. First, they refer to it as ‘what energizes human behaviour ‘ , so they label it as that which ‘directs or channels such behaviour ‘ and in conclusion, they province that its duty involves ‘maintaining and prolonging the behaviour ‘ already energized and directed. In clearer footings, they define motive as a force that energizes, directs and sustains human behaviour. Another definition by Robbins and Judge ( 2009, p.209 ) define motive ‘as the procedures that account for an person ‘s strength, way and continuity of attempt toward achieving a end. ‘ In the class of this essay, an overview of a few motivational techniques shall be described and later, motive shall be explored by doing mention to both old and new theories as a usher towards assisting us develop a wide apprehension as to why motive may or may non be managed.

A broad assortment of motivational techniques have been employed by organisations for grossly similar grounds. While some invest in such strategies for mostly public presentation related intents, others have merely imbibed a civilization that encourages a uninterrupted procedure of employee motive to further construct its image in the eyes of the populace or better still, number itself as note worthy, following the very rules of best pattern. Of the countless motivational techniques that exist, a few would here be described in brief. Employee engagement which dates as far back as to the nineteenth century was originally employed to derive the committedness of employees over a background of trade brotherhood combativeness ( Brannen, 1983 ) . However, in recent times, it has evolved to include giving a voice to the single employee every bit good as affecting them in the determination devising procedures of the organisation. By so making, it is believed that this increased liberty will ensue in a more motivated work force ( see Robbins and Judge, 2009 ) .

Other techniques frequently utilised are inducements, occupation rotary motion and occupation enrichment. Incentives play a critical function in the motive of employees and could either be in pecuniary or non-monetary signifier ( Stajkovic and Luthans, 2001 ) . While they may be used to honor singular public presentations, they are besides utile in arousing certain desirable traits from employees which are necessary for the accomplishment of a house ‘s overall corporate end. That is, one time employees are cognizant that executing to certain criterions will pull wagess, they tend to endeavor towards achieving and keeping such degrees of work. As the name implies, occupation rotary motion is a technique that involves traveling an employee across assorted units in a house to execute undertakings that are about similar in context to his original work. It particularly holds true in organisations where there is a high inclination for occupations to be everyday and humdrum ( Robbins and Judge, 2009 ) .

Job enrichment as described by Mullins ( 2005, p.280 ) entails broadening the ‘five nucleus occupation dimensions ‘ : that is, skill assortment, undertaking individuality, undertaking significance, liberty and feedback. In add-on, Robbins ( 2009, p. 254 ) referred to it as being “ perpendicular enlargement of occupations. ” In simpler footings, occupation enrichment screens all those procedures that involve increasing the degree of liberty or control accorded to the employee in the public presentation of his daily activities, the impact of his responsibilities to individual ‘s lives and its overall meaningfulness to the employee.

However, while 1000000s of dollars are being invested in achieving a extremely motivated work force, it is a known fact that no individual motivational tool creates that perfect tantrum for all employees. This essay shall go to in great item to the theories of Maslow, McClelland, Adam ‘s equity theory, Skinner ‘s support theory and the end puting theory in a command to detect the effectivity or otherwise of using the rules of motive at work.

Maslow ‘s hierarchy of demands theory posits that demands of the person may be categorized into five strata. He referred to these demands as runing from physiological demands, which is the desire for the basic things of life such as vesture, nutrient and shelter to the self realization demands which is the ultimate demand of any single ( Ramlall, 2004 ) . Harmonizing to the theory, one time a demand has been met, it ceases to actuate as the single tends to seek satisfaction for other higher degree needs that take its topographic point. Other demands include the safety demand which covers things like occupation security, the societal demands which refers to our natural disposition to be loved or to be affiliated to societal groups and the regard demand, that is ; the demand for position and influence. Maslow ‘s demand theory holds certain distinguishable deductions for the direction of employee motive. The theory has been labeled by bookmans as holding small or no utility at assisting the director at work understand the import of pull offing employee motive ( Mullins, 2005 ) .

While the theory makes valuable part about the different degrees of demands experienced by persons, it besides provides a usher for directors to invent plans to guarantee motive of staff every bit good as mechanisms to cover with cases of emphasis that will happen from an employee ‘s inability to fulfill certain demands ( Ramlall, 2004 ) . However, this theory gives the director no intimation as to when certain demands would go the prima demands or which 1s have stopped being of import to the person. The theory besides mistily depicts the relationship that exist between demands and behaviour ; such that while it is possible for certain demands to be reflected by the same behaviour, a diverse scope of behaviour may be expressed to denote a individual demand, therefore missing the lucidity required to steer any director efficaciously actuate his staff ( Arnold et al. , 2005 ) .

Another concern with the application of Maslow ‘s demands theory is the fact that it emphasizes that satisfaction consequences in improved work public presentation which is non needfully a given ( Mullins, 2005 ) owing to the fact that these demands met are frequently individualistic ( personal ) , their attainment may non hold an impact on the employee ‘s end product. Last, the theory does non account for persons who would instead seek to fulfill other higher degree demands on the hierarchy if they are unable to fulfill their immediate present demands, therefore, non conforming to the traditional measure by measure patterned advance as stipulated in the demands theory and therefore a challenge for effectual direction ( see Porter, Bigley and Steers, 2003 ) .

Closely related to Maslow ‘s demand theory is McClelland ‘s demands theory. Unlike Maslow ‘s hierarchy of demand theory, he illustrates that human demands are frequently viing and each type of demand ( as will be discussed later ) serves to actuate behaviour ( Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro, 2004 ) . McClelland ‘s categorized the demands into four which include: the demand for accomplishment, the demand for power, the demand for accomplishment and the demand for liberty. The theory provides that while employees with a high accomplishment demand would ever seek the accomplishment of reasonably hard assignment every bit good as a desire for feedback on such undertakings to enable them cognize how successfully they have performed ( Mullins, 2005 ) , employees with high association demands would prefer working in squads as against entirely. Those with power demands would otherwise hunger control while employees exposing a high demand for liberty would prefer independency every bit good as control over their work.

This theory provides directors with a clear usher on how to pull off persons one time their dominant demands have been identified and portends that employee public presentation and motive is as a effect of the degree of one ‘s desire for accomplishment ( Mullins, 2005 ; Ramlall, 2004 ) . However, it should be noted that McClelland argued that these demands operate in the subconscious which means a possibility exists whereby 1 has a demand but is incognizant of such demands, hence doing motive challenging ( Robbins and Judge, 2009 ) . Another challenge posed by this theory in efforts aimed at pull offing employee motive is the fact that persons possessing a high accomplishment need make non do the most successful directors because their demand fusss around them wining personally as against act uponing others to win ( see Robbins and Judge, 2009 ; Steers, Mowday and Shapiro, 2004 ) . Hence, the successful motive of persons would imply a comprehensive apprehension of the demand that dominates each personality, a undertaking which is both cumbrous and resource demanding.

Another theory utile for our intent is Adam ‘s equity theory normally referred to as distributive justness ( Porter, Bigley and Steers, 2003 ) . Unlike other theories that focus on what motivates persons to work, the equity theory is concerned with how employees are motivated and those factors that can otherwise facilitate or inhibit motive. The implicit in dogma of this theory focuses on equity. That is, when employees perceive that they are reasonably treated in comparing to their co-workers, feelings of motive will result. The premiss of this theory is that persons weigh certain inputs and end products and by comparing themselves with other employees, feelings of equity or unfairness would happen depending on how favorable or otherwise the comparing was ( see Locke and Latham, 2004 ) . In pull offing motive, the director is to guarantee equity in honoring employees with each wages being justified by nonsubjective parametric quantities chiefly because feelings of unfairness frequently result in tenseness, a diminution in public presentation from the affected employees or an issue from the organisation where such unfairness is seen to prevail.

A major reverse of sing motive in this light lies in the subjectiveness employees may put on the sum of input invested in any piece of undertaking. While the employee may exaggerate their attempts without holding the full cognition of the sum of attempt exerted by another, other factors such as professional makings, length of experience may non be factored into his analysis, therefore supplying an unequal footing for comparing. In deciding the happenings of employees experiencing displeased or tensed, employers may nevertheless, seek to develop reward systems that are both nonsubjective and just ( Ramlall, 2004 ) . Notwithstanding, this besides is non without its challenges particularly when faced with employees who already have a fixed mentality of such unfairness at work and therefore, turn outing hard to be convinced or motivated.

The importance of reinforcing stimuluss on behaviour besides provides an penetration for understanding motive and why employees would reiterate a peculiar behaviour instead than another. The support theory as developed by Skinner believes that behaviour is influenced by factors external to the person ; that is environmentally caused ( Steers, Mowday and Shapiro, 2004 ) . The dogmas of the theory is that the chance of a behaviour been repeated remainders on the effects of the responses to that behaviour ; that is whether the behaviour is welcomed by wagess or penalties ( Locke and Latham, 2004 ) .

Although originally a theory in larning ( Robbins and Judge, 2009 ) , its utility may be utilized by directors in placing acceptable and productive behaviour and utilizing appropriate theoretical accounts or tools to prolong such desirable behaviors. However, the support theory suffers restrictions like all other theories on the topic. The theory fails to acknowledge the importance of person ‘s emotions, attitudes or outlook on their behaviour but merely attributes behaviour to the effects of external responses ( Robbins and Judge, 2009 ) . In kernel, a director who may be seeking to reenforce productive behaviour of employees at work may non needfully acquire consistent consequences due to the huge assortment of internal factors that operate to do an employee to desire to give more attempt or retreat an every bit important step of same towards accomplishing organisational ends.

The end puting theory, inspired by some of the Hagiographas on direction by aims was pioneered by Ed Locke. The implicit in basicss of the theory posits that people tend to move in conformity with ends and would concentrate behavior into accomplishing those ends. The theory emphasizes the importance of puting really specific ends whose accomplishment may be measured. While the advocates of the end puting theory believe that hard ends ensures a higher public presentation than when a simpler end is set, they besides emphasize the importance of feedback in measuring the extent to which the particular and hard ends have been attained. Similarly, the deduction for a director is that at every point in clip, he is to guarantee specific ends are accorded to each staff. The theory supports the ability for fiscal inducements to better public presentation every bit long as the end is seen as accomplishable and the wages in inquiry is of a significant amount, fiscal inducements may be used to hike committedness to the end. One good thing about this theory as remarked by Arnorld et al. , ( 2005 ) is the fact that it has been tested across a assortment of work contexts and have been proven to be operable.

The end puting theory besides makes a differentiation between larning ends and public presentation ends. While the former is connected with people who enjoy larning procedures and understanding the elaboratenesss of a undertaking, the latter relates to persons whose chief focal point is the successful completion of a undertaking. This has some deductions for directors who have these classs of people in his squad in the sense that while those with learning ends may welcome hard undertakings and see feedback as a manner of measuring successes, those with public presentation ends would prefer simpler ends that would ever guarantee success. However, holding mentioned this, the function of a director is to guarantee that staff are equipped with the necessary accomplishments and resources to execute on tasks/goals allotted them ( see Seijts, Latham, Tasa and Latham, 2004 ; Arnold et al. , 2005 ) .

The end puting theory although has enjoyed much support and credence has been seen to holding certain effects on its users. However, Arnorld et al. , ( 2005 ) suggest that puting hard ends affects employees in a manner that causes them to concentrate on such short term undertakings where feedback is quickly received and at the hurt of longer term ends. Another setoff is that the theory may non turn out effectual in a scene where employees have a clear apprehension of what constitutes public presentation and would instead concentrate on achieving such parametric quantities as against any other ends that may be set ( Arnold et al. , 2005 ) . A counter statement would be to rede directors to change over such public presentation parametric quantities into accomplishable ends, ends with alternate solution waies therefore taking employees to concentrate on the undertaking itself and how it should best be solved ( see Seijts, Latham, Tasa and Latham, 2004 ; Arnold et al. , 2005 ) .

A expression at the predating theories may convey one to oppugn if they still retain their relevancy in present times. While Mullins ( 2005, p.274 ) opines that directors can evidently use the older and newer theoretical accounts to guarantee function public presentation in their organisations, they portend that a more modern construct of motive is one that emphasizes ‘friendship, work and regard ‘ . Sing the fact that there has been an rush in the growing of cognition workers over the past two decennaries as a consequence of technological progresss, globalisation every bit good as the new signifiers of work, these workers unlike their manual opposite numbers are those who apply the theory and pattern of expertness to bring forth value to their several employers.

It so becomes cardinal to acknowledge how such employees should be motivated. Assorted writers have emphasized the importance of competency, support and lucidity of undertaking in the motive of such cognition employees ( Mullins, 2005 ) . This rapidly brings to mind Herzberg ‘s two factor theory of motive which categorizes incentives as including a sense of accomplishment, acknowledgment, duty for one ‘s work, nature of work and promotion ( see Robbins and Judge, 2009 ) . The function of money as a incentive besides suggests that while certain persons respond about instinctively when motivated with money, others do non.

Although this may be attributed to differences in age, precedences or the position of such persons, these changing responses to actuating tools merely communicates that human existences are distinguishable and alone entities. Evidence of this exists in a recent survey conducted by the Economic and Social Research Council where it was found that employees are non wholly motivated by pecuniary inducements but by values and societal norms such as calling patterned advance, vacation interruptions, the quality of the work environment, work hours and even flexible working clip all inspire employees ( Mullins, 2005 ) . This displacement off from fiscal inducements holds certain deductions for directors whose purpose is to win at directing and organizing the attempts of an of all time turning diverse work force.

In decision, it has been established in this paper that motive of employees is possible. However, personal precedences, single differences, perceptual experience about direction, its motivations or the systems in topographic point for honoring public presentation at work and a host of other factors may be said to perplex all attempts wheeled at guaranting its direction. This essay focused on a treatment trouble oneselfing around the significance of motive, some techniques employed by employers in actuating employees and the complexnesss inherent in actuating people. Relevant theories were besides explored with a position to foregrounding the statements that pertain to the positions of whether or non motive can be managed while associating the deductions of each to the modern organisation.


Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out