Discussion of employee motivation - Different theories

Résumé du document

Motivation comes from the Latin word "movere", to move (Kreitner, 1998) and is defined in organizational context as "the willingness to exert high levels of efforts towards organizational goals, conditioned by the efforts' ability to satisfy some individual needs" (Robbins, 1993). For Robbins, unsatisfied needs create tension that in turn makes the individual act to reach satisfaction. More clearly, people are always looking for satisfying their needs; making them feel that by acting in a certain way, they will receive a fair compensation that will help them to fulfill their needs is a strong motivator.

The perceived importance of motivation in firms' success is illustrated by the huge amount of research and papers concerning the subject, bringing sometimes confusion instead of understanding, due to their important divergences (Tai K. Oh, 1972). However, in spite of this apparent diversity, Ramlall (2004) highlights that the differences between theories come only from different views of the needs that people try to satisfy. Motivation is a quite complex field, as it has to do with human beings; as Adair (2007) illustrates, 50% of motivation come from the environment but the remaining 50% come from inside the individual. This is why there is no "universally established rules" to be followed by leaders willing to motivate their staff, different motivation theories and the advice they bring are based on different views of human beings.

Extraits

[...] Erwin, P.J. Iverson R.D. & Ambrose M.L. (1995), determinants of absenteeism : evidence from Australian blue-collar employees', International journal of human resources management, pp. 825-848 Guerrero S. & Barraud-Didier V. (2004), ‘High-involvement practices and performance of French firms', International Journal of Human Resource management, 15: pp. 1408-1423 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Mass: Addison- Wesley. Herzberg, F. [...]

[...] However the common point of all of these theories is that they have been produced because motivation has been found to have great positive effects on organizations. Stumpf & Hartman (1984) showed that motivation improves perceived work performance and lowers intention to quit. Guerrero & Barraud- Didier (2004) suggested that motivation results in higher involvement and thus in higher productivity & effectiveness, etc. (cited in Vithessonthi & Schwaniger, 2008). References Adair (2007), Leadership and Motivation: The Fifty-fifty Rule and the Eight Key Principles of Motivating Others, Kogan Page Ltd Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimential social psychology 267-299. [...]

[...] (2008), motivation & self-confidence for learning and development as predictors of support for change', Journal of organizational transformation and social change, pp. 141-157 Vroom V.H. [...]

[...] New York: Harper. Maslow, A.H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: The Viking Press. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. New York: Free Press. McGregor D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise New York McGraw-Hill Miller W.B. (1981), ‘Motivation techniques: does one work best?' Montana, P.J. & Charnov, B.H., Management 4th edition Morrow P.C. [...]

[...] (1972), Existence, Relatedness, and Growth; Human Needs in Organizational Settings, New York: Free Press Blau G. (1986), involvement and organizational commitment as interactive predictors of tardiness and absenteeism', Journal of management, 12: pp. 577-584 Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity theory: the recent literature, methodological considerations and new directions. Academy of Management Review(3), 202-210. Champagne, P., & McAfee, B. (1989). ‘Motivating strategies for performance and productivity: A duide to human resource development'. New York: Quorum Books. Deery, S.J. [...]