U1435976 U1400002 U1412651 U1437892

Motivation

“An individual’s self-esteem, formed around work and organizational experiences, may well play a significant role in shaping employee intrinsic motivation, attitudes…and behaviours” -Pierce and Gardner, 2004: 613

This literature review will set out to discuss the case study Pearl Beer (Elrod, 2008) and analyze their truck driver’s; (Wayne) actions and attitude towards work in terms of motivation, particularly looking at why he went on strike for 6 months with no pay in an attempt to fulfil higher needs before fulfilling lower needs first. After drawing upon various aspects of motivation and identity, this review will then attempt to decipher what can be argued as the best theory when motivating staff members in regards to this particular case.

Adair’s fifty-fifty rule (2009) suggests that 50% of motivation comes from the individual, and that the other 50% comes from external influences, therefore it is implied that it is crucial for managers to find compelling incentives to motivate their staff. However, it can become quite a challenge in itself to pin-point what exactly those incentives should be. To elaborate on Adair’s fifty-fifty rule,

Herzberg’s two-factor theory implies that humans have two types of needs, and that different elements of the workplace can either satisfy or dissatisfy these needs (Herzberg, 1971, cited in Lundberga, et al, 2009). These two types of needs can be seen under the hygiene and motivation factors:

1

U1435976 U1400002 U1412651 U1437892

Figure 1: (Herzberg, 1971 and Herzberg et al., 2005).

Herzberg goes on to explain that features found under the hygiene factors derive from the working environment itself, and can influence an individual’s performance in a negative way. The motivation factors refer to an individual’s personal development and growth, also contributing to an individual’s performance, however in a positive way (Herzberg, 1971, Herzberg et al., 2005 and Tietjen and Myers, 1998). According to Herzberg, employees who receive aspects that fall under the motivation factor tend to work beyond their capabilities (Herzberg, 1971 and Herzberg et al., 2005). Contrary to most, Herzberg states that pay leads to dissatisfaction, which is evident in the Pearl Beer case study, when the employee, Wayne goes on strike for 6 months with no pay in an attempt to improve other aspects of the job (Elrod, 2008).

Additionally, Fomenky (2015) describes two types of motivation; extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic motivation is described as when an individual takes part in an activity in order to gain some type of a reward, such as a cash prize in a competition. Whereas intrinsic motivation is described as an individual taking part in something purely for the enjoyment and satisfaction of taking part and/or achieving a goal, such as a sports game (ibid). For extrinsic motivation, reward schemes have been used as an incentive by many companies for a long period of time (Pink, 2015).

Although reward schemes have been proven to help motivate employees at times, Gerdeman (2013) points out that it is a flawed method, as employees will only become motivated by the reward if it appeals to them. Alternatively, if the rewards are perceived as appealing, some employees could end up taking advantage of the rewards scheme; showing up on time only when they are eligible for the reward and, in some cases, calling in sick rather than reporting late (ibid). Pink (2015) also explains that using rewards as incentives for motivation, first off; creates the idea that the reward is more important than the work, unintentionally encouraging employees to think up shortcuts, which supports Gerdeman’s point. Secondly, it stifles intrinsic motivation and lastly but most importantly; will often backfire and won’t work as well in the modern world, as modern humans are increasingly driven by purpose, given that they have obtained a suitable amount of rewards already. Pink justifies this by reiterating Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid”:

2

U1435976 U1400002 U1412651 U1437892

Maslow stated that; “people are motivated to achieve certain needs. When one need is fulfilled a person seeks to fulfil the next one, and so on” (1943, cited by Saul McLeod, 2007: 1).

3

U1435976 U1400002 U1412651 U1437892

Figure 2 (Maslow, 1943, 1954)

Maslow’s (1943, 1954) model is divided into basic needs and growth needs. Physiological, safety, social and esteem are part of the basic needs while self-actualisation, which is at the top of the pyramid is considered as growth needs. Maslow’s theory indicates that when the basic needs are not met, people become increasingly motivated as the desire to fulfil such needs will become stronger. However, when Wayne lost his house after being unpaid during the strike, he had not even met his basic needs and yet is striving for his growth needs instead, contradicting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory completely. Shamir (1991) explains that this is because motivational theories are restricted due to overly relying on individual-hedonist assumptions and calculative processes. Therefore, differences between individuals’ needs and values should be taken into account when deciding how to motivate employees.

Collinson (2003) and others argue that workplace cultures can often have a negative effect on self- esteem, when an individual is persuaded to focus on extrinsic rewards at the expense of preferred needs for affiliation, trust and self- actualization and in turn, it inevitably leads to demotivation. Fisher (2010) suggests that in order to increase happiness at work in an attempt to produce motivation, jobs need to provide skill development to improve employee’s capabilities and allow growth, (which is relevant to Pearl Beer’s lack of safety training, despite there being a high number of back injuries) and also to be challenging, interesting, rich in feedback and autonomous. Grimsley and Heinichen (2003-2015) imply that autonomy in the workplace may be better suited for those who are growth motivated. Something Wayne is denied at Pearl beer. Jaskyte and Kisieliene (2006) also discuss the importance of job autonomy in terms of influencing an individual’s productivity. Both consider job autonomy as an important aspect of job design for employee effectiveness. Several additional studies have also indicated that when autonomy is given to individuals, it is highly probable to inspire greater motivation, satisfaction and performance (ibid).

To conclude Wayne’s behavior towards his workplace, it is possible to assume that while extrinsic motivational incentives can be sufficient at times, intrinsic motivational incentives seem to have the better advantage when producing quality results and are better suited long-term. We can also come to conclude that motivation will depend on how much a person’s self-concept is in harmony with their job, its contents and its situational context (Gardner, 2004).

4

U1435976 U1400002 U1412651 U1437892

5

U1435976 U1400002 U1412651 U1437892

References

Adair, J. (2009) Leadership and Motivation: The fifty-fifty rule and the eight key principles of motivating others. London: Kogan Page.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013) “Does Money Really Affect Motivation?” A Review Of The Research. Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv (Accessed: 27 February 2016).

Collinson, D.L. (2003) “Identities and Insecurities: Selves at Work”, Organisation articles, 10(3), pp. 527-547, doi: 10.1177/13505084030103010.

Cullen, D. (1997), “Maslow, Monkeys and Motivation Theory” Organisation articles, 4(3), pp. 355-373, London: Thousand Oaks and New Delhi

Ellerman, D. (2001) "McGregor’s Theory Y vs. Bentham’s Panopticism: Toward a Critique of the Economic Theory of Agency" Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 14(1), pp. 34-49, doi:10.1007/s12130-001-1002-9

Elrod, H. (2008) “Pearl Beer”, Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, 14(1), pp. 31-36

Fisher, C.D. (2010), “Happiness at Work”, International journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), pp. 384-412. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.x.

Fomenky N.F. (2015) “Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings”, The Institute for Business and Finance Research. 10(1), pp. 1-1454.

Gerdeman, D. (2013) “How To Demotivate Your Best Employees”. Available at: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/how-to-demotivate-your-best-employees (Accessed: 27 February 2016).

Grimsley, S., Heinichen, I. (2003-2015) “Participative Leadership Style: Definition, Theory & Examples”. Available at: http://study.com/academy/lesson/participative-leadership-style-definition-theory-examples.html (Accessed: 3 March 2016).

Herzberg, F. (1971) Work and The Nature of Man. New York: World Publishing

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B.B. (2005) The Motivation to Work. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers

6

U1435976 U1400002 U1412651 U1437892

Jaskyte, K., Kisieliene, A. (2006) “Determinants of Employee Creativity: A Survey of Lithuanian Non- profit Organizations.” International Society for Third-Sector Research and the Johns Hopkins University, 17(1), pp. 133–141

Lundberga, C., Gudmundsonb, A., Anderssonc, T.D., (2009), “Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism” Tourism Management, 30(6), pp. 890–899. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.003.

Maslow, A. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.McLeod, S. (2014) “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs”. Available at: http://scannedretina.com/2014/07/24/maslows-hierarchy-2/ (Accessed: 25 February 2016).

Müller, C. (2011) Employee motivation and incentives at Apple. London: GRIN Verlag

Pink, D. (2015) A Joosr Guide to Drive by Daniel Pink : The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. USA: Bokish Ltd

Shamir, B. (1991) “Meaning, Self and Motivation in Organisations”, Organisational Studies, 12(3), pp. 405-424. doi: 10.1177/017084069101200304.

Sripirabaa, B. Sudha Maheswari T. (2015) Individual Creativity: “Influence of Job Autonomy and Willingness to take Risk”, SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(4), pp. 110-118.

Tietjen, M.A., Myers, R.M. (1998) “Motivation and Job Satisfaction” Management Decision, 36(4), pp. 226–231. doi.org/10.1108/00251749810211027

7