motivating factors: case study & brief lit review

8/17/2019 Motivating Factors: Case Study & Brief Lit review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/motivating-factors-case-study-brief-lit-review 1/10

IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016

Organisational Behaviour

1 | P a g e

Motivating Factors in the New Operating

Model of a Digital Retail Company: the

Influence of Organisational Re-Structure

on Motivation Factors

MSc Management and Information Systems: Change and Development

University of Manchester

Institute for Development Policy and Management

School of Environment, Education and Development

IDPM 70040 Organisational Behaviour

Course Tutor: John Hassard

Student ID: 9621548

Word Count: 3597

ContentsIntroduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Part 1: Review of the literature .............................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Content Theories..................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Process theories ...................................................................................................................... 3

Part 2: Discussion of the arguments ....................................................................................................... 4

Part 3: Motivation theories applied to changes in the Digital Engineering operating model ................ 5

3.1 Monetary reward .......................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Non-monetary reward .................................................................................................................. 6

3.2.1 Recognition ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.2.2 The creation of Autonomy ..................................................................................................... 6

3.2.3 Ownership and Agile: Kaizen as a motivator ......................................................................... 6

Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 8

References .............................................................................................................................................. 9



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


2 | P a g e

Introduction

‘Motivation is a theoretical construct employed by experimental psychologists andphilosophers when they seek to explain specific patterns of behaviour ’ (Encyclopaedia of

Neuroscience, 2009). Every behaviour is the output of the computation of a vast number of inputs by

the brain. In organisational behaviour, we use ‘motivation’ to attempt to describe the arousal and

initiation of certain behaviours, and test the specific inputs under which these occur in an

organisational context. Part of this is understanding that it is an imperfect science – whilst

neurobiologists are able to be precise about the pathways within the brains of 1mm earthworms,

restricting those to demonstrate cause and effect, scaling this up to the human brain is not yet

possible. We are therefore unable to answer the question of whether motivation is a ‘rule’ or a

principle’, a distinction drawn by Goldstick (2000). He cites Dworkin’s definition that ‘only rules dictate

results… [principles] incline a decision one way, though not conclusively’ (Dworkin, 1977, italics mine).

However, as we cannot yet sufficiently understand if motivation is dictated by ‘rules’ it is

necessary to use the motivation construct to understand the behavioural computations of our brains

in different contexts – we do not in fact need to decide to use observable behaviour to draw

conclusions. The fields of study range vastly, with some focussing on psychology, others social science,

and yet others on management practices. Motivation, is present in all actions we take (even inaction

is motivated), however, in order to use the construct to understand organisational behaviour, it will

be used in this context to describe the arousal of desire to perform a particular task (such as an

individual’s job).

Part 1: Review of the literatureThere are many theories on motivation, and from these, Barry and Wilson (2008) derive two

broad types. First those which concern themselves with content – specific motivators and influences

which are internal to how people think. As discussed in the introduction, the complexity of the inputs

the human brain receives renders this somewhat problematic. There are also those which cover

process – the observable behaviours which occur when influences are applied. Enhanced process

theories include Cognitive Evaluation Theory, and Self-Determination theory. Whilst there are clear

limitations with content theories, they tend to pervade popular science and management teachings,

whilst academia continues to enhance and follow process theories.

1.1

Content Theories

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is an important concept in the sphere of motivation. Maslowdescribes 9 needs, ranging from biological to self-actualisation. He argues that a need is not an

effective motivator unless those below it are satisfied – it is hard to place value on aesthetics when

biological needs such as sustenance are not met (Maslow, 1943 in Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013). As

Huczynski points out, the relevance of this to organisational behaviour is clear, although often

misappropriated in management studies such that trends have arisen where managers believe a need

lower down the hierarchy (such as safety – in job security, remuneration) can be ignored if suitable

focus is placed on ‘higher’ needs (Huczynski, 1993).

Herzberg (1968) suggested a two factor approach, separating hygiene factors from motivating

factors. Hygiene factors may be described as experiential, those which affect the day-to-day

experience of an employee, for example pay, office space, and working conditions. Motivators arethose which might be considered part of an individual’s ego: responsibility, recognition, growth, etc.



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


3 | P a g e

He argues that the improvement or removal of a problematic hygiene factor (such as improvement of

pay) may reduce dissatisfaction, but does not increase performance. That outcome is achieved by the

increase/improvement of motivating factors.

Another cornerstone piece in the motivation canon is the work of McGregor. He postulated

that in management studies, there were two sets of assumptions made about employees. Theory Xcontained the assumptions that people are inherently lazy, and therefore rely on ‘rewards, promises,

incentives, or threats and other coercive devices’ (McGregor, 1960). The inverse Theory Y suggests

that work comes naturally to people, and assumes people naturally aim to achieve. He suggested that

managerial (and research) theories and practices rely on assumptions based on either Theory X or

Theory Y.

1.2

Process theories

There are several problems with content theories, amongst which lack of cultural

transferability, difficulty in collecting empirical evidence, and inaccuracy in teaching of these theories

feature highly (Barry and Wilson, 2008). A contrasting approach to interrogating the content of

motivation is to observe behaviour when external stimuli are applied. A proponent of this was Skinner,

who believed in modification of behaviour via application of reward for desired behaviour and

punishment for undesired, which he called “shaping” of operant behaviour via reinforcement (Skinner,

1938). Once again though, the problem of cultural universality arises, as Skinner’s theory relies on

immediate reward acting as a motivator, where in some cultures (for example those with strong

religious cultures) a longer term (or even eternal) reward is a more powerful motivator. The theory

supposes that immediate reward is a more powerful motivator than more complex or cerebral

motivations such as ethics, or ego.

Some theories make an attempt to quantify (even in abstract) motivation. Equity theory posits

a constant comparison amongst people within a social context, whereby the radio of rewards and

efforts between individuals must be balanced to avoid tension (Adams, 1963). Vroom proposes a more

complex calculation for the force of motivation (Vroom, 1964) . His equation is F = Σ(VxIxE), where F

(force) is the strength of your motivation, V (valence) is an individual’s p erceived preference for the

outcome, I (instrumentality) is the perceived probability that good performance will be rewarded),

and E (expectance) is the perceived probability that effort will lead to good performance. Given there

may be multiple rewards (and therefore outcomes), the sigma (Σ) function summates these possible

outcomes. In brief, this theory suggests it’s possible to calculate the strength of someone’s motivation

towards an outcome by interrogating their perceived alignment with the outcome, likelihood of

reward(s), and that their effort will lead to good performance.

One route of study has focussed on learning of behaviours, into what Gagné1

and Decidescribe as Self-Determination theory (2005). They describe how pre-cognitive evaluation theories

(such as Skinner’s) undermine autonomy and intrinsic motivation by focussing on purely extrinsic

influence. Cognitive Evaluation Theories (CET) developed throughout the late 70s into the end of the

millennium, and sought to prove the assumption that people need to feel autonomous, and place

value on intrinsic motivation. Studies in CET implied that intrinsic motivation and extrinsic were both

positively and negatively interactive, rather than additive – that is, more granular extrinsic motivators

such as operand control and intrinsic motivators such as feelings of autonomy and value do not stack

(ie. F2=In+Ex, but rather influence each other (a change to the value of In changes the value of Ex too).

1

The author appreciates the irony of the surname Gagné (meaning to win, in French, including to win/earnmoney) in the field of motivation.2 F = Force of motivation, In = Intrinsic, Ex = Extrinsic.



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


4 | P a g e

Over time, extrinsic reward becomes internalised and autonomous: ‘integrated regulation’.

Behaviours become part of the identity, and if the identity aligns with the organisation’s purpose then

self-determination and autonomy is possible, as the need for extrinsic motivating factors is reduced

significantly.

Part 2: Discussion of the arguments

It has been briefly mentioned that there are some problems with content theories. Barry and

Wilson (2008) observe that whilst Maslow’s theory is widely accepted and taught, it lacks the empirical

evidence of many other studies. This does not discount it entirely, as the social construction they

describe has come about due to a certain level of resonance with the cultural understanding of many

subsequent writers and teachers, but care should be taken to supplement the theory with other

studies in the application of Maslow’s model, to ensure its points are considered in an appropriate

context.

Regarding Herzberg, often subsequent research does not distinguish factors into motivating

or hygiene, for example Sonawane (2008), who performed a study of Indian organisations, describing

that: ‘At the top of the managers’ list was interesting work, followed by appreciation of work, a feeling

of being “in on things”, job security and good wages.’ This list contains both motivating and hygienic

factors, and does not discuss Herzberg’s proposition that job performance would not be improved by

improvement of the latter (such as good wages), rather just a decrease in dissatisfaction.

As discussed in the Introduction, human behaviour is considerably more complex than that of

an earthworm. A similar argument is put forward by Boulding (1974) in suggesting that Skinner does

not offer a suitable level of transferability of concepts proven in animals. Seligman (1970) further

rebuts Skinner by suggesting that Skinner’s experiments extend only as far as unprepared behaviour,

and humans exhibit vast amounts of prepared or learned behaviour (such as Gagné and Deci’s

integrated regulation), as well as intrinsic motivators which are difficult to measure in experiments for

operand conditioning.

Attempts have been made to improve or refine equity theory, as discussed in Huseman,

Hatfield and Miles (1987). However, these exhibit the phenomenon discussed by Wilson and Barry –

academics have been able to see the oracle value of the research, but point out the flaws in the

collection of evidence and formulation of the theory. They propose a classification of people into

benevolents, equity sensitives, and entitleds – noting that people in these categories react differently

to imbalances in equity. They go as far as to say that equity theory may only exist for people with

specific traits, rather than as a general behaviour. Other problems with equity theory exist, such as:individuals’ can only perceive an inequity, which may be different amongst peers; there are usually

many more factors than simply pay, effort, time, respect, and other reward, rendering it difficult to

reach true equity; and in a capitalist society there is a normative level of inequity (“life isn’t fair”).

Despite this, equity theory is useful in understanding motivation, and manipulating equity can be a

tool in management.

Locke and Latham (2004) believe that rather than conflicting, the plethora of available studies

in motivation theory are in fact simply focussing on different features of motivation. Indeed, Locke

produced a somewhat complicated model (Locke, 1997) attempting to link all of these together

(Appendix 1). They point out that significant further work is necessary to clarify the concepts used in

the study of motivation, and provide meta-analyses of the existing work.



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


5 | P a g e

Part 3: Motivation theories applied to changes in the Digital

Engineering operating model‘The organisation’ or ‘the company’ is a UK based retailer transitioning from a high-street store

trading model to digital trading. As such, it is undergoing vast organisation change, as the traditional

business model does not fit the rapidly changing technological sphere – frictions exist between digitalaspects of the business eager to develop quickly and keep up with predominantly digital retail

competitors (such as vast emergent internet companies3), and existing departments such as trading

and merchandising, who are unused to the uncertainties this often brings. This has led to something

of a division between Digital Engineering (a relatively new and quickly expanding department) and

other sections of the organisation and differences in the way these sections operate; HR practices,

reward, and motivation are no different in that Digital Engineering is having to develop a new set of

working methods which do not necessarily align with those of the more traditional aspects of the

business. For the purposes of this essay, the Digital Engineering department will be the prime focus.

Another consideration is the use of 3rd party vendors for some ICT development. This practice is

reducing, as the business desires to be able to undertake this work itself (for cost reduction, and goalalignment), however this is in a stage of transition.

3.1 Monetary reward

As mentioned, the Digital Engineering function differs from the standard HR practices of the

business, which rely on a ‘broad banded’ system of pay. Job roles are divided into bands from A to E,

with A restricted to the upper echelons of senior management (one assumes board level colleagues

only), and E comprising entry-level jobs. Within these bands, some have numerical enhancers, such

D1, D2 (junior management roles), with D1 being higher. Pay was scaled according to this banding,

and roles assigned to bands based on factors such as financial responsibility, number of

reports/subsidiary employees, and so on. This has problems, such as those who perform expert roles,

but do not have financial responsibility or reports – it is difficult for them to receive sufficient increases

in salary due to the banding system. This has been overcome in some places by the use of contractors,

who can be paid at industry standard rates, but this practice in turn leads to spiralling costs. Therefore,

Digital Engineering has moved away from the banding system for two reasons; to allow hiring of higher

salary employees with no managerial responsibility (ie. experts), and to allow the internalising of roles

currently contracted to 3rd parties or individuals. Currently, there are multiple remuneration systems

in place in Digital Engineering: those still on the banding system; those still contracted (via 3rd parties,

or individually); those who have been employed since the change, and have new non-specific

contracts; and those who used to be broad banded, but have now had their contracts changed.

There are several impacts of this change which exhibit the fundamentals of equity theory.

Consider an internal broad banded employee, in comparison to a 3rd party vendor employee.

Currently, the 3rd party employees receive much higher salaries, and have a hard work culture far

exceeding that internally (whether the high effort causes or is caused by the high pay is hard to

discover, and does not add to the argument). What motivation is there for an internal employee to

work hard, given the discrepancy in reward? How should management increase or retain existing

motivation levels, whilst trying to internalise those high-value external resources? The same goes

comparing a banded internal employee with a new starter. Many of these have been recruited via

graduate schemes, and with equal qualifications and less experience, many of these employees are

on higher salaries as well.

3 Examples might be Amazon, eBay, Alibaba.



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


6 | P a g e

3.2 Non-monetary reward

3.2.1 Recognition

Recognition is considered as a motivating factor, either at a precise granularity such as

Skinner’s operant conditioning, or more generally. The organisation used to work in a project-led way;

a team would be put together to work on a specific project, and once it was finished, the team would

either disband, or move onto a different project. After projects, often a meal or drinks would be put

together by way of thanking those involved with literal reward (such as food, and drink), and as a form

of recognition. Less formally, senior management would thank those involved, either personally, or

via email communications. However, the new operating model has ‘feature teams’ taking

responsibility for different areas (either website areas, or business areas). From these teams, virtual

teams are constructed, devoting part of their time to projects, and part to their existing team. Whilst

some teams and individuals are involved specifically on one task, project, or area, most are now

required to split their time and effort according to these dual purposes. This creates a problem in both

formal and informal recognition for success, in that it can be almost impossible to attribute that

success to specific teams and individuals. Any senior manager wishing to host an event in thanks, or

even email their gratitude must first unpick the web to find those involved (and risk not including

everyone), or thank everyone, diluting the impact of that recognition.

3.2.2 The creation of Autonomy

The project rewards that used to exist were a fairly simple extrinsic motivator, providing a

tangible reward in status, food, and recognition benefits. One goal of the organisation restructure is

to move towards what Gagné and Deci call autonomous intrinsic motivation, one end of a continuum.

Rather than top-down hierarchical management, each team takes not only control of an area, but

responsibility and accountability. Within that team, there is no hierarchical leader, so the burden of

responsibility is shared. Telfer highlights the importance of this, saying: ‘tapping into their own

intrinsic motivation can enable them to unlock the personal power that lies within us all. So, whenpeople have the desire to take more control of their working environment, we must place more power

in their hands by trusting their own decision making capabilities’ (Telfer, 2008). What Telfer assumes

is similar to Theory Y, in that people are already able to exhibit behaviours of self-improvement, and

trusting in this will yield positive results. However, Gagné and Deci suggest that these behaviours

become learned over time through integrated regulation, and are created through careful use of

extrinsic motivation, rather than inherent.

So how, in teams without a hierarchical leader, are extrinsic rewards embedded into intrinsic

motivators to change behaviours? The teams are aiming to achieve Katzenbach and Santamaria’s

(1999) definition of teams, with rotating leadership, collective outputs, and shared accountability. The

distinction between this and a work group is the presence of an individual leader. On the face of it, itmay seem like without a focal leader, a group cannot demonstrate integrated regulation, however,

lean development aims to overcome this with the Japanese phenomenon of Kaizen.

3.2.3 Ownership and Agile: Kaizen as a motivator

Another aim of the organisational restructure is to create a sense of ownership over the

technology. Each feature team looks after a specific area – they have expert knowledge and skills of

that area, and their work is tangible in improvements to that area. Sonawane states that a ‘job is

meaningful for employees if it involves them in the identification and solution of the problems that

affect them’ (Sonawane, 2008). The feature teams are set up to follow Agile practices and lean

development. One of these is Kaizen, the process of continuous improvement (Imai, 1986). There are

many methods by which groups try to achieve this, but the focus is on each team member having a



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


7 | P a g e

voice. As such, individuals feel ownership not only over the area they work in, but the process and

way in which they go about it. In fact, ‘Kaizen needs to address efficiencies in… areas, such as

organisational culture, staff morale, communication and management’ (Leybourne, 2013, italics

mine). Staff morale may be seen to be a key factor in motivation, as this book then states ‘an

organisation with low morale… will suffer from high absenteeism, poor engagement, and reduced

productivity’ – that is to say low morale can be equated to poor motivation.



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


8 | P a g e

Appendix 1Locke (1997) – diagram attempting to unify the various facets of motivation theory.



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


9 | P a g e

ReferencesAdams, J.S. (1963), ‘Toward an understanding of inequity,’ Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology , 67(4), pp. 422-36.

Barry, P. and Wilson, E. (2008), Unit Four: Motivation, [course unit document], IDPM70040

Organisational Behaviour . University of Manchester.

Boulding, K.E. (1974), ‘B.F. Skinner: A dissident view’, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 7(4), pp. 483-

484.

Dworkin, R. (1977), Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

Encyclopaedia of Neuroscience (2009), ed. by Binder, M.D., Hirokawa, N. and Windhorst, U., Berlin:

Springer.

Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), ‘Self -Determination Theory and Work Motivation’, Journal of

Organisational Behaviour , 26(4), pp. 331-362.

Goldstick, D. (2000), ‘Motivation’, Philosophy , 75(293), pp. 423-436.

Herzberg, F. (1968), ‘One more time: how do you motivate employees?’, Harvard Business Review ,

46(1), pp. 53-62.

Huczynski, A.A. (1993), ‘Popular Management Ideas,’ in Management gurus: What makes them and

how to become one. London: Routledge, pp. 22-27.

Huczynski, A.A. and Buchanan, D. A. (2013) Organisational Behaviour . 8th edn. Edinburgh: Pearson

Education Limited.

Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, W.E. (1987), ‘A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity

Sensitivity Construct’, Academy of Management Review , 12(2), pp. 222-234.

Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen, The Key To Japan’s Competitive Success, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Katzenbach, J.R. and Santamaria, J.A. (1999), ‘Firing up the front line’, Harvard Business Review , 77(3),

pp. 107-17.

Leybourne, E. (2013), Directing The Agile Organisation: A lean approach to business management ,

Cambridge (UK): IT Governance Publishing.

Locke, E.A. (1997), The motivation to work: what we know. In Maehr, M. and Pintrich, P. (eds),

Advances in motivation and achievement , vol. 10, pp.375-412, Greenwich (CT): JAI Press.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2004), ‘What should we do about motivation theory? Six

recommendations for the twenty-first century’, Academy of Management Review, 29(3), pp. 388-403.

McGregor, D.M. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1970), ‘On the generality of laws of learning.’, Psychological Review, 77, pp. 406-18.

Skinner, B.F. (1938), Behaviour of Organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Sonawane, P. (2008), ‘Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organisational Practices’, Indian

Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(2), pp. 256-271.



IDPM70040 9621548 17th April, 2016


10 | P a g e

Telfer, G. (2008), ‘Trust, fear and motivation’, article published by The Leadership Trust.

Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, New York: John Wiley.

motivating factors: case study & brief lit review

Documents