Hertzberg’s Theory of motivation consisted of two factors which were ‘Hygiene factors’ and ‘motivators’. These were again closely linked to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs as the ‘Hygiene factors’ reflected the lower level needs, and the ‘motivators’ focused on the higher levels. Hertzberg showed that it was a two-step process in order to motivate your employees providing the ‘hygiene factors were met first and then followed by the ‘motivators’. An important point Herzberg highlighted was that ‘hygiene factors’ did NOT motivate, but if they were not up to scratch or at a poor level then the employee would get even more de-motivated regardless. It basically brought motivation to a zero state and so the ‘motivators’ did all the motivating. In order to motivate workers, managers must focus on these ‘Motivators’ but not overlook the ‘Hygiene factors’ as these are just as important.
As I came across some archive footage on YouTube.com of Hertzberg himself explaining his theory I found something that failed to be mentioned in a lot of Hertzberg material and this was that money is NOT a motivator, instead he called this ‘Movement’. This can come in either a positive or negative way i.e. being rewarded to do something or being forced or threatened to do something.
“Does he want to do a good job because he wants to do a job, that’s motivation.
Does he want to do a good job because he gets a bonus, he wants a house, a Jaguar, that’s
Movement.” (F. Hertzberg – Jumping for Jelly Beans/BBC2)
The last section of the content theories is McClelland’s achievement motivation theory. His theory investigates the relationship between hunger needs and from successive research McClelland identified four arousal-based, and socially developed motives:
Achievement Motive
Power Motive
Affiliative Motive
Avoidance Motive
The first three motives roughly correspond to Maslow’s esteem and self actualisation needs, however the strength of these motives varied between individuals. It also seemed to vary between different occupations. Managers for example appeared to be higher in achievement motivation. If you applied this theory into the workplace it shows individuals with high motivation see financial rewards as more of a feedback on their performance rather than a motivating incentive; for those with low achievement motivation, financial rewards may provide an incentive for performance.
In comparison with content theories, the process theories identify the relationships amongst variables which make up motivation and what’s required to influence behaviour, decisions and actions. Many of the process theories cannot be linked to a single writer/theorist, but the major approaches and leading writers include the following four sections:
Expectancy models – Vroom, Porter & Lawler
Equity theory – Adams
Goal theory – Locke
Attribution theory – Heider, Kelly
Vroom’s model was aimed at work motivation and focused on 3 key variables:
Valance – This is the attractiveness of, or preference for, a particular outcome to the individual (anticipated satisfaction from an outcome) – Mullins 2005.
Instrumentality – The extent to which first-level outcomes (performance related) lead to secondary outcomes (need related).
Expectancy – A developed perception of probability that the choice of a particular action will actually lead to the desired outcome.
Vroom also identified a motivational force, which was a combination of both valance and expectancy. This determines a person’s motivation for a form of behaviour.
‘Expressed as an equation, motivation (M) is the sum of the products of the valences of all outcomes (V), times the strength of expectancies that action will result in achieving these outcomes (E)’ – Mullins 2005.
Porter and Lawler’s expectancy model is a more developed version of Vroom’s as it doesn’t just focus on a motivational force but considers performance as a whole. They identify that effort does not directly lead to performance; instead it is thought-out that individual’s abilities, traits and role perceptions do so instead. Their study also shows that managers whose performance was related directly to their pay had better performance and satisfaction than any other. ‘Their Model recognises that job satisfaction is more dependant upon performance, than performance is upon satisfaction’ – Mullins 2005.
The Equity theory of motivation (in work terms is usually associated with Adams’s work) was based upon the exchange theory. People evaluate their social relationships in the same way as buying an item, they expect certain outcomes in exchange for certain contributions/inputs. People also compare their own position with others and determine the equity that they should be receiving and this is then compared to what happens to other people. According to the equity theory people place a weighting on these inputs and outcomes according to how they see their importance. When the ratio of someone’s ‘outcomes to total inputs’ equals the perceived ratio of other people’s ‘total outcomes to total inputs’, this results in equity. Likewise, when the individual experiences a sense of inequity this is when the comparison is seen as unequal.
“The theory is built-on the belief that employees become de-motivated, if they feel as though their inputs are greater than the outputs. Employees can be expected to respond to this in different ways, including de-motivation, reduced effort, becoming disgruntled, or perhaps being disruptive.” – Adams (1963).
The last process theory is the Goal theory by Locke, this illustrates that people’s goals and/or intentions have an important part in influencing behaviour. Locke realised the importance of alleged value and suggests these values increase the experience of emotions and desires (which people strive to achieve goals in order to satisfy their emotions and desires). Goals guide people’s actions and responses and direct work behaviour and performance. Locke also pointed out that instead of being an actual theory of motivation; goal setting is more appropriately viewed as a motivational technique.
To illustrate adequate application of motivational theories, I contrast two leaders of the retail industry, Tesco PLC (UK) and Wal-Mart Stores (US). Both are dominant leaders in their own countries and highly successful, however the approaches they use to motivate their employees differ from one another. While Wal-Mart focuses on cost reduction as a factor of profit maximisation, Tesco believes motivating employees as an asset to get their profit maximisation and market share growth. The outcome of these practices show Tesco having a very good reputation amongst the public and with it’s employees especially, with over 83% being very satisfied as they offer development programmes, apprenticeship schemes and privilege card schemes (TescoCorporate.com). This has led Tesco to be the largest employer in the UK and in 2004 received the ‘Employer of the year award’. In contrast, Wal-Mart is highly criticized for its procedures and business strategies, which in 2006 resulted in an estimated average of 1100 lawsuits against the company. As a result, an average of 40% employee turnover each year is not unexpected and adds to the awkward reputation of the American retailer ().
Applying the theories of Maslow and Herzberg to these retailing giants shows the sheer contrast of between them more clearly;
In relation to Maslow’s first physiological need Tesco provides a flexible working package and offer adequate pay (higher than that of the minimum wage). However Wal-Mart only pays an average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. Also, Wal-Mart staff are expected to work around the clock when asked without getting paid extra for the overtime put in. (Wakeupwalmart.com)
The next level of needs are the safety needs which have great concerns with the future. Tesco has a great track record of retaining staff with 84.4% kept on, exceeding their target of 80%. This could be down to holiday/sick pay, pension schemes and health benefits offered, not forgetting the positive approach Tesco takes on unionization. Wal-Mart on the other hand, displays a hostile view on union policies (www.pbs.org).
The third level of the hierarchy are the ‘Love/Social needs’, to satisfy these needs in the work place it is vital to create a sense of belonging and community. Sports events/teams, charity activities and celebrations are just a few ways of attending to these needs, and within a large organisation these features help employees to feel involved. An integrated atmosphere, small hierarchies and close relationships among employees add to a warm atmosphere of belonging at Tesco (Tescocorporate.com). To add to this, Tesco encourages participation among employees by offering prizes ranging from discount vouchers to holidays. Tesco and Wal-Mart both make use of uniforms so that it helps establish a group feeling. However, at Wal-Mart high hierarchies and a ‘non-personal relationship’ procedure, make it difficult to satisfy these social needs (Walmartfacts.com).
The next level are the ‘esteem needs’, which can be satisfied by the employer if they successfully identify and match the employee’s skills and ability to do a job. Managers can help further by showing recognition to workers that their work is appreciated by using an ‘Employee of the week/month’ award which both Tesco and Wal-Mart use. On the contrast, Wal-Mart do not offer equal opportunities especially concerning female employees, especially less than 30 years of age. In fact, less than one third of management positions in the whole of the Wal-Mart organisation are taken by females, furthermore on average they earn 7-15% less than male colleagues (Walmartfacts.com).
The final need located at the top of the hierarchy are the ‘self-actualisation needs’. This is where the individual is ready to innovate and challenge ideas, plus also learn and create at high level. To fulfil these needs the employee must receive one or more of the following; training, a challenging assignment/task, job enhancement and power enrichment. Tesco provide their employees with various opportunities to develop with training schemes for all, regardless of their position/experience. In relation, this year Tesco has a 84.1% internal retention rate (exceeding their targets of 80%) and encourages employee input and inventiveness. (TescoCorporate.com)
“We believe in 'growing our own' talent: in the last three years we have appointed 27 Directors, 200 Store Managers and 8,000 Department Managers from within Tesco.” – TescoCorporate.com.
In comparison, Wal-Mart focuses their career development schemes for its higher ranked workers and stop minorities from enhancing further. In a sense, this creates a social barrier and class system which would have been found back in the early 1960’s/70’s.
In relation to Herzberg’s theory it is clear to say Wal-Mart’s motivational intentions are destined to fail miserably, because the stress on motivating employees by solely relying on a sense of belonging is clearly not enough, as long as basic hygiene factors are not met. Tesco however, seem to be fully aware of this concept and the benefits of application, since correct execution of hygiene factors for their employees allow a strong basis to build upon.
Analysing the above sources and evidence it’s clear that organisations need motivation as this enables staff to reach their potential, and sometimes excel it increasing productivity, and without it performance suffers. It’s also obvious that employees are an essential factor to a company's growth and success, and a well-motivated staff can be seen as a valuable long-term asset. what's more it seems when companies recognise their employees as an asset and manage them well, with performance management and motivation where appropriate, these valuable ‘assets’ will generate maximum output and live up to their fullest potential. Consequently, companies should create a modified motivational package that, when put into operation, will lead to optimal employee motivation and satisfaction. Therefore, will increase performance and help employees reach their full potential, and even excel it. Crucially, the staff will contribute to the company’s success and growth through meeting objectives and eventually maximising profit and market share. However the difference between Content and Process theories suggest different theories motivate different people and in different circumstances. Therefore it’s critical to apply the correct type of theory to an organisation, as the incorrect choice may slow down a business’s progress and let other competitors gain market share, which Tesco has been doing in rapid succession. Corporate culture and management styles are a key ingredient to fulfilling individual’s needs especially if you adopt a style that specifically focuses on this approach i.e. Human relations approach.
References
Adams, J. Stacey (1963), "Toward an understanding of inequity", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 426
F.Hertzberg (unknown), “Jumping for jelly beans”, The Business collection – BBC 2 watch?v=o87s-2YtG4Y
Mullins (2005), “Management & Organisational behaviour” 7th Edition, Prentice Hall pg 480-490
Wal-Mart Stores -
Wal-Mart Facts -
Wake up Wal-Mart -
Tesco Corporate – -us
Tesco PLC -
Bibliography
HM Treasury -
Sloman & Sutcliffe (2004) “Economics for Business” 3rd edition, Prentice Hall
