Need Based Theories Of Motivation Commerce Essay Example

in line with one's self-image. Maslow's theory has brought attention to lower order needs that may be overlooked in certain organizations. Failure to satisfy these needs can hinder the fulfillment of higher order needs within the organization. However, the limitation of the theory is that higher order needs do not necessarily await the satisfaction of lower order needs in any given organization. All needs are active simultaneously. Another psychologist who contributed to need-based theories is Herzberg, who built upon Maslow's concept of needs. Herzberg conducted research on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among individuals in their jobs.He classified the various demands he found into what he called the hygiene factors (factors that may prevent dissatisfaction) and incentives (factors that may provide positive satisfaction). According to Herzberg, preventing or reducing dissatisfaction in the work situation is not the same as providing positive satisfaction. These two aspects of work motivation are qualitatively different. Motivation can be provided if the incentives are used in the work situation. Hygiene conditions include salary, working conditions, company policy, and supervision. Incentives include promotion, development, responsibility, and environment. There are other relevant theories such as Vroom's Expectancy Theory, which explores attitudes and their relation to effective job performance. Porter and Lawler built upon Vroom's initial proposition of job satisfaction and claim that other more significant attitudes relate to differences in job performance.Evidence for the lack of strong positive relationships between job satisfaction, morale, and productivity can be found in research findings. Vroom (1964) stated that effort is influenced by the value of rewards and the belief that rewards are dependent on effort. Porter and Lawler (1976) hypothesized that the greater the value of

a set of rewards and the higher the chance that receiving each reward depends on effort, the greater the effort individuals will put forth in a given situation. Expanding on Vroom's (1964) expectancy-valence theory, Porter and Lawler (1968) proposed a model of intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation. Intrinsic motivation is derived from internal fulfillment in an activity, while extrinsic motivation relies on external rewards. Porter and Lawler (1968) suggested structuring the work environment to provide both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in order to achieve job satisfaction. This could involve enriching jobs to make them more appealing and inherently rewarding, as well as offering higher pay and compensation as a result of performance.The main idea of this text is that wages are influenced by the level of performance. Marylene Gagne connects Porter's and Lawler's model with the Cognitive Evaluation Theory, which suggests that factors such as tangible rewards, deadlines, surveillance, and evaluations can decrease feelings of autonomy, shift the perceived control from internal to external, and undermine intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, allowing individuals to have a choice in aspects of task engagement tends to enhance feelings of autonomy, shift the control from external to internal, and increase intrinsic motivation. The Cognitive Evaluation Theory emphasizes that beliefs of proficiency and independence are crucial for intrinsic motivation. Research supports the notion that optimally challenging job design is highly motivating, and positive feedback reinforces motivation by promoting a sense of competence when success is attributed to performance. Conversely, negative feedback can leave individuals feeling demotivated and destabilize the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.Ryan (1985a) stated that the underlying premise of CET is that people need to

experience autonomy and competency. Factors that promote feelings of liberty and competency enhance intrinsic motivation, while factors that diminish these feelings undermine intrinsic motivation, leaving people either controlled by external factors or feeling unmotivated (Gagne, 2005). Gagne (2005) builds upon CET and proposes SDT, which distinguishes between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Intrinsic motivation is an example of autonomous motivation, while activities that induce pressure to complete a task are an example of controlled motivation. One proposition explored in the paper is that controlled motivation leads to poorer performance on heuristic tasks but can result in equal or better short-term performance on algorithmic tasks. Research in both laboratory and educational settings consistently supports this proposition, showing that tangible rewards, which facilitate controlled motivation, decrease conceptual learning and effective problem-solving (e.g., McGraw, 1978; McGraw & McCullers, 1979).Both trials and classes have been found to decrease deep processing and conceptual performance, but not rote memorization. Additionally, competition, rewards, and evaluations have been shown to decrease creativity. On the other hand, learning material in order to actively use it, evaluate its interest value, or achieve intrinsic goals has been found to facilitate independent motivation, deep processing, and conceptual learning. Understanding these deeper cognitive processes helps understand motivation as well. For example, tangible rewards such as wages and promotions work better with automated tasks in the manufacturing industry, while independent motivation has the opposite effect for automated tasks.Research suggests that environments that are interesting, disputing, and allow for independence support independent work motivation. Additionally, employees who have a high independent causality orientation are more likely to be motivated. Other studies support the idea that an effective rewards system is

necessary to retain high-performing employees and productivity is directly related to wages. The size of an organization also influences the rewards system. Organizations aim to balance employee loyalty, commitment, and organizational performance in a competitive environment. The pay structure and rewards system of an organization affect motivation and productivity, and individual factors such as attitudes, cognitive styles, personality, age, education background, and prior R experience also influence employees' performance. In terms of organizational backgrounds, expenditure on R&D may also be a factor.Factors that influence an individual's performance include cooperation with external engineering suppliers, the influence of leaders, and the wages system. An efficient wages system can serve as a motivator, while an inefficient one can lead to demotivation. Reio and Callahon (2004) suggest that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards can motivate employees and increase productivity. Many organizations have found success by implementing well-balanced wages and recognition programs. Deeprose (1994) argues that employee motivation and productivity can be enhanced through effective recognition, resulting in improved organizational performance. The overall success of an organization depends on its ability to keep employees motivated and evaluate their performance for job compensation. While extrinsic rewards often receive more attention from management, intrinsic rewards such as appreciation and recognition are equally important for employee motivation. Psychologists, like Andrew (2004), believe that employee commitment is based on rewards and recognition.According to Lawler (2003), the success and longevity of organizations depend on how they treat their human resources. Ajila and Abiola (2004) also discuss intrinsic rewards, such as job satisfaction, recognition from superiors, and freedom within the job itself. The research paper titled "An Empirical Study of the Motivational Factors of Employees in

Nigeria" by Aworemi, Joshua Remi focuses on a survey conducted among Nigerian employees. The survey was carried out in 15 randomly selected companies from Oyo, Kwara, Osun, and Ogun States of Nigeria. The sample size consisted of 300 randomly selected employees, with 20 employees from each company. The paper considers various motivation theories, including Maslow's hierarchy of needs, McClelland's needs theory, Vroom's expectancy theory, and the four drive theory. The findings of the survey suggest that the respondents ranked the motivation factors in the following order: a) Good working conditions; b) Interesting work; c) Good rewards; d) Job security; e) Promotion and growth in the organization; f) Full appreciation of work done; g) Personal loyalty to employees.This survey has confirmed the significance of motivational factors in achieving maximum performance from employees. It has also revealed the order in which these factors motivate employees through ranking. Additionally, it provides useful information for managers and employees. Utilizing this information to motivate employees is complex and depends on which motivation theories are used as a reference point. If Hertzberg's theory is followed, management should focus on pay and job security (hygiene factors) before concentrating on good working conditions and interesting work (motivator factors). If Lawrence's four-drive theory is followed, management should start by focusing on an area where there is an opportunity to satisfy the drives to acquire, bond, learn, and defend. Good working conditions, good pay, job security, promotion, and growth in the organization should be the starting point. If McClelland's theory is followed, management should pay attention to the employees' needs for achievement, affiliation, and power. A comprehensive study by (Manzoor, 2012) explores various researches on

the subject.The literature collected for the survey highlights various factors that contribute to employee motivation, including fair wages, incentives, specific allowances, fringe benefits, leadership, encouragement, trust, respect, collaborative decision-making, quality supervision, equitable working relationships, recognition, growth opportunities, organizational loyalty, meeting their needs, acknowledgement, empowerment, inspiration, value attached to their job, safe working conditions, training and information accessibility, and effective communication for taking action. Another referenced study by Devadass (2011) categorizes the literature themes into four areas: motivation and the nature of the job; motivation and the nature of the employee; motivation and management practices; and motivation and broader environmental factors. In relation to employee motivation, Devadass (2011) identifies certain identifiable characteristics that form the relationship between employees and the nature of their job.The text discusses various factors that contribute to employee development, including job/task design, task significance, performance indicators, career path, extrinsic/security motivators, intrinsic/contact motivators, values/growth incentives, employee development itself, positive work climate, and perceived equity. The empowering nature of work is highlighted as one of these factors.According to Manzoor (2012), empowerment has benefits for organizations and fosters a sense of belonging and pride in the workforce. It creates a Win-Win connection between organizations and employees, which is deemed ideal in many organizations. Empowerment can enhance practical human capabilities, enabling employees to focus on their job and work-life with extra importance, resulting in continuous improvement in coordination and work processes. In empowered organizations, employees contribute their best skills and ideas with a sense of belonging, enthusiasm, and joy. Additionally, they work with a sense of responsibility and prioritize the organization's benefits over their own.

In order for an employee to be motivated, they must be satisfied

with their occupation. This satisfaction can only be achieved if the employee is motivated to work. It is challenging to identify the cause and effect relationship. To analyze motivation, it is also important to consider its opposite. Examining the causes of demotivation can help discourage them, thus promoting employee motivation.

Saks (Feb 2011) conducted a study on the impact of demanding job demands on employee attitudes and attention. The study combined survey data from 90 male manufacturing employees regarding their control beliefs, objective job analysis data regarding mental demands, and one year's worth of archival data on unexcused absences, sick days, and late days.The study found that there were significant interactions between control and nonsubjective psychological demands, indicating that these demands were only associated with higher levels of tardiness and ill days under conditions of low perceived control. The occupation in question had three variables that were examined: job demand, control, and satisfaction. Job demands were primarily psychological, with high ratings given to occupations that required high levels of attentiveness, precision in handling machined parts, and low rates of errors and defects in materials. Control referred to the worker's perception of how much control they had over various aspects of their work environment, including the tasks performed, task order, pace, scheduling of breaks, workplace procedures and policies, and physical environment arrangement. Satisfaction with the job itself and overall job satisfaction were measured using a neutral version of Kunin's Faces scale. A fourth variable was employee withdrawal. The research indicates that when employees have a high level of control over their workplace, increasing their workload results in significantly reduced absenteeism.While employees may believe they have some

control over their job description and workplace, research shows that high psychological demands are associated with increased absenteeism. This indicates that employees perform better when they feel empowered. The relationship between workload and job satisfaction, as well as its negative correlation with voluntary absenteeism, further supports the idea that workers prefer a higher workload when they have a sense of control. This concept, referred to as an "active occupation" by Karasek (1979), suggests that jobs with high workload and high control contribute to employees' well-being by providing challenge and opportunities for growth. Conversely, low authority and low control are significant demotivators. Another study by Igalens & Roussel (Dec., 1999) explores the connection between extrinsic incentives and job satisfaction and performance among French workers. The research aims to understand how different elements of total compensation impact job satisfaction, as well as the direct correlation between compensation and worker motivation.The efficiency of an organization's compensation policy is determined by the increase in satisfaction and motivation resulting from each compensation component. This empirical study utilized data from 269 exempt employees and 297 non-exempt employees. Exempt employees are defined by the Federal Labor Standards Act as being exempt from certain labor laws, such as minimum wage and overtime requirements. Non-exempt employees are subject to these conditions. There are three elements that need to be defined: total compensation, fixed wage, and flexible wage. Fixed wage refers to guaranteed payment amounts, such as base salary and bonuses. Flexible wage includes variable payments and deferred income. Variable wage involves uncertain distribution or variable amounts, such as gain-sharing, incentives, and overtime pay. Deferred income refers to amounts that are blocked for a specified

period before becoming available, such as profit-sharing and employee stock ownership plans. The concept of flexible wage also includes forms of payment that aim to reduce the ratio of fixed costs to variable costs in labor charges.The third component of overall compensation includes various types of benefits (e.g., allowances for different expenses). The second component, worker motivation, is based on the model developed by Porter and Lawler (1968) and improved upon by Vroom's expectancy theory. The process of motivation in relation to compensation can be described by three independent variables: effort-performance expectancy, performance-outcome expectancy, and valency. Outcome and valency are related to the different categories of overall compensation mentioned earlier. However, empirical studies in France based on this theoretical model show that employees' motivational process only distinguishes three independent aspects of compensation: fixed wage, flexible wage, and benefits (Roussel, 1996). In addition, Igalens and Roussel (Dec., 1999) propose the following three hypotheses. The third component of the study is "Pay Satisfaction," aimed at measuring the relationship between satisfaction with different forms of compensation and the dependent variable "job satisfaction." Job satisfaction, as it relates directly to compensation, is multifaceted. It depends not only on the amount of pay but also on three other factors.The second factor relates to the creation and removal of direct compensation, while the third factor pertains to the extent of wage increases. The fourth factor involves the level and removal of benefits (Igalens & Roussel, Dec., 1999). One challenge when dealing with these closely linked factors is determining the causal relationship between them. It is particularly difficult to establish this relationship among three variables. For example, one solution could be to

improve fixed wage to enhance job satisfaction, without necessarily influencing work motivation. Similarly, implementing a more motivating distribution of flexible compensation might positively impact work motivation, but not necessarily job satisfaction (Igalens & Roussel, Dec., 1999). The data collected for analysis employed a structural equations model with LISREL VII. Two groups were examined separately: non-exempt employees and exempt employees. Exempt employees, such as professionals, managers, engineers, and executives, demonstrated high levels of job satisfaction and motivation, as well as greater satisfaction with their wages. On the other hand, non-exempt employees (i.e. supervisors/foremen, technicians, employees, and industrial workers) expressed higher levels of dissatisfaction and demotivation regarding their jobs and compensation. The study investigated two sets of employees, with 269 exempt employees and 297 non-exempt employees (Igalens & Roussel, Dec., 1999).A mail-distributed questionnaire revealed intricate and elaborate findings, leading to three chief decisions. According to Igalens & Roussel (Dec., 1999), the first decision was that individualised compensation can be a factor of work motive for exempt employees under certain conditions. The second decision was that flexible wages do not motivate or increase job satisfaction for taxable employees. The third decision was that neither exempt nor taxable employees are motivated or experience increased job satisfaction from benefits.

Hypothesis 1, which stated that the anticipation of effort leading to performance positively influences work motive, was supported by the survey. The effort-performance anticipation was found to be positively and significantly related to work motive, with a t-value greater than 2. This finding highlights the importance of worker motive in determining performance for both exempt and taxable employees.

Another interesting hypothesis regarding the impact of rewards, such as benefits or flexible wages, on

work motive was proven incorrect. There was no significant correlation between these rewards and work motive. However, the exempt group showed more support for this hypothesis compared to the non-exempt group. These findings provide insight into a crucial aspect of our subject matter.Controlled incentives can have varying consequences for different occupations. A separate article explores different motivational methods and their effects on a firm's competitive advantage. The study specifically focuses on the kinds of motivation needed to generate and transfer tacit knowledge, rather than explicit knowledge. The importance of distinguishing between tacit and explicit knowledge is discussed, with explicit knowledge being able to be written or symbolized, while tacit knowledge remains unexpressed. This distinction is important because explicit knowledge can be shared and traded, whereas tacit knowledge is personal and cannot be transferred separately. Tacit knowledge is identified as a significant source of sustainable competitive advantage as it is difficult for competitors to replicate.Secondly, the article discusses the inability to measure and compensate an employee's tacit cognition, which has significant motivational implications (Osterloh & Freynd, 2000). The article also suggests that extrinsic incentives, when added to intrinsically motivating activities, can negatively impact long-term work performance. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999a) conducted a meta-analysis that supported this claim, finding that monetary rewards undermine intrinsic motivation for challenging tasks in a significant and reliable manner. This effect was stronger with perceived controlling monetary rewards and was also more pronounced with expected rewards compared to unexpected rewards. Furthermore, the negative relationship between rewards and performance was stronger when dealing with complex problems (Deci and Ryan, 1985).According to Heckhausen (1991, Ch.15), the original belief in every experiment was that

the public presentation would be appealing and rewarding. This article focuses on the "Organizational Consequences of Motivation Crowding Effects" and emphasizes three key components that a company should consider when deciding on their motivational and profit strategies, as they are interconnected. Engagement is seen as an alternative to markets in coordinating efforts, signifying a collaboration on shared goals. This increases the employees' sense of autonomy and leads to greater satisfaction with their work. Experiments have shown that self-determination and intrinsic motivation are strengthened when goals primarily serve as self-control and self-obligation, while perceived external control hinders creativity in pursuing goals (Schwartz, 1990). These findings support the theory of management.