CASE STUDIES CASE 1 McDonald's Restaurants built on motivation 30 September 2013 | By Debbie Lovewell-Tuck Thanks to the nature of its business, fast-food giant McDonald’s Restaurants has employee motivation built into its DNA. With each of its restaurants operating as a separate profit unit, employees have a vested interest in engaging with the concept of teamwork and collaborating to ensure their restaurant is as successful as possible. McDonald’s incentivises and supports these desired behaviours through two bonus schemes for its 400 company-owned restaurants. Each month, all employees in the top 10% of restaurants, based on mystery shopper scores, receive a bonus. In addition, restaurant managers are eligible for a quarterly bonus based on three equally weighted measures: mystery shopper scores, sales growth and profitability. Neal Blackshire, benefits and compensation manager, says: “The entire management team is being aligned as a team to be motivated to, and rewarded for, achieving those business metrics. And the
Transcript
CASE STUDIESCASE 1
McDonald's Restaurants built on motivation30 September 2013 | By Debbie Lovewell-Tuck
Thanks to the nature of its business, fast-food giant McDonald’s Restaurants has employee motivation built into its DNA. With each of its restaurants operating as a separate profit unit, employees have a vested interest in engaging with the concept of teamwork and collaborating to ensure their restaurant is as successful as possible.
McDonald’s incentivises and supports these desired behaviours through two bonus schemes for its 400 company-owned restaurants.
Each month, all employees in the top 10% of restaurants, based on mystery shopper scores, receive a bonus. In addition, restaurant managers are eligible for a quarterly bonus based on three equally weighted measures: mystery shopper scores, sales growth and profitability.
Neal Blackshire, benefits and compensation manager, says: “The entire management team is being aligned as a team to be motivated to, and rewarded for, achieving those business metrics. And the entire team is being challenged to deliver the best customer service they can because they are never exactly sure when they’re going to be visited [by mystery shoppers].”
Both company-owned restaurants and franchises are also eligible for the titles Restaurant of the Quarter and Restaurant of the Year, which can earn them a day or night out, funded by their employer.
These initiatives are part of a wider portfolio ofmotivation and incentive schemes that operate across McDonald’s in the UK as well as its global business.
One of the newest of these is the Ray Kroc Awards, which recognise the best business managers across Europe. Named after the founder of McDonald’s Corporation in the US, the programme replicates initiatives previously available in the US and across Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Africa (APMEA).
For the latest awards, 12 UK winners were selected from nominations by McDonald’s operations managers and directors of franchising, across both company-owned and franchised restaurants, representing the top 1% of performers at this level.
The winners attended a two-day event in Barcelona in June, during which they were presented with trophies at a gala awards ceremony. “It was a full-on production, like a mini Oscars [ceremony],” says Blackshire. “There was a red carpet for them all to walk up, they all had their names printed on stars lining that red carpet, and a specially shot video opened the evening with some of the winners in their usual restaurant.
“All those 12 UK managers came back to their restaurants and will have been talking to their peers about what a fantastic time they had. Undoubtedly, we’ll have 1,200 managers keen to be nominated next year.”
Appealing recognition schemes
Blackshire believes that keeping recognition schemes fresh and exciting is key to maximising staff motivation, which is why, as well as introducing new programmes, McDonald’s also reinvents existing schemes to ensure they continue to appeal to employees.
One of the highest-profile examples in the last couple of years was the evolution of McDonald’s employee of the month scheme into its Olympic Champion Crew (OCC) initiative, for which it won‘Most motivational benefits’ at the Employee Benefits Awards 2013.
Launched in January 2011 to 1,200 UK restaurants, the programme linked employee motivation to the business need to identify top performers to staff McDonald’s four restaurants at the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
In the following 10 months, each restaurant selected an Olympic champion of the month, before nominating their top five champions to proceed to the next stage of the programme. Each monthly champion received an Olympic-themed gift box containing a personalised congratulations card, plus Olympic-themed gifts.
In November 2011, 100 regional skills assessments were held to identify the top 2,500 employees, who were given the opportunity to work at the Olympic Park restaurants during the Games.
The selected staff were given accommodation at a London hotel, where they could enjoy facilities such as a wellbeing zone comprising a beach-themed area and a lounge zone, which included ping pong, pool tables, football tables and large plasma television screens for staff to watch coverage of the Games. A programme of activities was organised to generate a sense of fun and team spirit, and to enable staff to see more of London.
“That really gave it an impetus and breathed new life into a programme that had been around for a number of years and perhaps had been taken a little bit for granted,” says Blackshire. “It took the Olympic element to really inject that extra enthusiasm. Obviously, the ability to have those ambassadors to come back from the Olympic Park, being able to talk about the hotel set-up and all the other things we did to look after them away from actually working in the restaurant, really is more powerful than any number of booklets, videos and face-to-face meetings.”
But the programme did not end with the Paralympic Games closing ceremony. Instead, McDonald’s built on its legacy, evolving and relaunching its champion of the month programme for all hourly-paid employees. This is used as the basis for a much wider recognition programme.
After each restaurant elects a champion of the month, from this group an employee of the quarter is chosen for each restaurant, then an employee of the quarter for each consulting group or operating management group. Finally, each February, an employee of the year for the UK is selected, receiving a cash prize and a week at the company villa in Portugal.
Company support department staff, meanwhile, are eligible for McDonald’s global President’s Award scheme. Five winners are chosen each year from nominations made by the organisation’s executive team. Winning staff receive an all-expenses-paid trip to Chicago to collect their prize from the global chief executive officer at a banquet event.
In view of the vast range of recognition and incentive schemes in operation at McDonald’s, Blackshire now aims to streamline the portfolio to create a more cohesive offering. “One of my plans over the next 12 to 18 months is to get each of those plans to be a little more connected to each other,” he says. “Like anything, when things [are introduced] over a period of time, some of the interconnectivity and value we can derive can be lost. I think we can improve on our current position.
“Also, for various historical reasons, some of these programmes are run by different parts of the people team, and there is some sense in bringing these together. So, my team will become responsible for managing some of these other ones that we don’t already manage in the coming year or so. We just need to have a planned transition to bring that together.”
Communicating motivation plans
Blackshire is also keen to collate details of, and criteria for, all of these schemes into a single place so staff can easily identify which they are eligible for.
“I want to have that a little bit better defined and better communicated,” he says. “Because of the culture of the organisation, I don’t think we’re going to see a sudden uplift in motivation or productivity because suddenly it’s all there together. In many cases, [employees] aren’t doing what they’re doing because they think they’re going to get an award out of it, but it’s important for us as a business to recognise our people for what they do.”
But measuring the true effectiveness of such schemes, and employees’ engagement with them, can be tricky. “Because we’ve got an awful lot going on in our restaurants at any one time, it is quite hard to distinguish exactly what impact one programme or one activity had in among everything else,” says Blackshire.
But he believes there is a strong business rationale for an employee motivation and recognition strategy. “There is no doubt that happy and motivated employees do a better job,” he says. “If
people have done very good work for you, it’s absolutely right and proper they should be recognised for it.”
Neal Blackshire’s top tips for motivational success
Ensure the right employee behaviours are recognised. Ensure the frequency of recognition and reward is right for the workforce. Blackshire
explains: “Some of our reward and recognitions are annual, some are monthly. If you only recognise the champion of the year in a restaurant, frankly it wouldn’t gain a lot of traction because you would have had a lot of good people doing a lot of good stuff during that year.”
Understand what employees want and value. “About 20 years ago, we had a service award programme in place, which operated a points system for catalogue [based items],” says Blackshire. “That catalogue had lots of garden furniture and home furnishings, but 40-50% of our employees were under the age of 21. Not surprisingly, they didn’t really want these as they still lived at home [for example], so wanted something a bit more useful. That led us to ditching that programme and reinventing it with vouchers for a high-street retailer, which was much more popular because people could find more things they valued with their service awards.”
Have your sayPlease add your comment. Remember that submission of comments is governed by our Terms and Conditions. You can include links, but HTML is not permitted.
CASE 2Motivational Case Study Exerciseexample of self-motivation and motivation training exercise
Motivation is often best explained by reference to real examples. The 'Hellespont Swim' is a true story of unusual and remarkable personal achievement which demonstrates several aspects of motivational theory, plus various other principles of effective management and performance. Use this case study as a learning exercise. Ask people to read and comment on the story from a motivational and performance perspective.
What motivational forces and factors can you see in this case study? What motivational theories and concepts are illustrated in the account - for example, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, McGregor's X-Y Theory, McClelland's motivational theory; and the ideas of Adams, Bloom, Handy, Herzberg, Tuckman, etc. Also, what can you say about the story from the perspectives of teamwork, team-building, communications, planning and preparation, capability and potential, targets and goals, inspiration and role-models, skills/knowledge/attitude factors, humour and fun, project management, encouragement and coaching, project support, achievement and recognition, evaluation and measurement? What aspects of the experience could have been improved or done differently and why? What other aspects of personal motivation and achievement can you see in the story? How might lessons and examples within this story be transferred to yourself, to employees and organisations?
The contribution of this article by writer and adventurer Charles Foster is gratefully acknowledged.
in the wake of leander: swimming from europe to asia (the 'hellespont swim')
With a shout and a prayer and a curse, we leapt at dawn from a boat into the water of the Dardanelles and started to swim from Europe to Asia.
It had all started in London over the umpteenth bottle of Bulgarian red. For a long time, I said, I had wanted to swim the Hellespont - the narrow channel between the sea of Marmara and the Aegean. The Hellespont hit the mythological headlines a long time ago. Leander, who lived on the Asian side, had the misfortune to fall in love with Hero, who lived in Europe. The course of true love did not run smoothly. Geography was not on their side. The Hellespont has a nasty current ripping down the middle of it and a reputation for chewing up ships. And religion didn't help, either. Hero was a priestess of Aphrodite, and sworn to perpetual celibacy. So their meetings had to be covert and at night. Just as in most relationships, ancient and modern, the bloke did all the travelling. She held out a lantern, and he swam each night towards it. They copulated all night, and he then swam back. One night the wind blew out the lantern and that
current took Leander out into the Aegean. He never returned. The heartbroken Hero had the decency to hurl herself into the Hellespont and the myth was born.
The Hellespont was assumed to be swimmable only by gods. But then, after one failed attempt, Byron did it, and it has been done from time to time since. We should have a go, I said to Steve and David (fat, pale, thirty-something pie-eaters like me). If a club-footed syphilitic like Byron could do it, so could we. The Bulgarian red spoke, and it said yes, and before it could withdraw I had put a deposit down and committed us to the swim.
The paperwork is nightmarish. The European shore, at Abydos, is inside a restricted military zone, and rumoured to be mined. The Hellespont itself is a marine motorway, carrying a huge volume of traffic between the Mediterranean and Istanbul and the Black Sea. The Turkish authorities don't like the idea of Englishmen's bodies choking the propellers of container ships, and insist on lots of permits. The man to sort all this out is Huseyin, whose long, white wispy hair makes him look like a mammalian anemone. He has organised most of the successful attempts on the Hellespont in recent years.
So we trained a bit. We lumbered over to municipal pools and floundered up and down. We never seemed to get faster or less tired, but we did seem to get a bit thinner. It was difficult to motivate ourselves, because there really didn't seem to be much connection between the heated human soup of the public baths and the swimming of a major shipping lane. But the calendar ticked on, and we got on the plane, still a bit bemused, and found ourselves somehow in Cannakale.
Huseyin met us, mapped out the route (head on into the current for a mile, and then a gentle swim home), made us eat moussaka and vitamin pills, told the barman not to serve us any beer, and booked our early morning calls for us so that we had no excuses.
With the dawn came renewed incredulity at our stupidity. It was cold, there were some vast tankers plying up and down, and the rip current at the centre of the channel was throwing up white horses that looked like Grand National winners. Also Huseyin had told the press about the attempt. A launch full of photographers was following us, and failure would not be private.
As the sun came up our clothes came off. The lads on the boat rubbed us down with axle grease and with a great scream we committed our bodies to the deep. An underwater gust rolled me over, and from then on, the channel churned me emetically around.
As soon as I hit the sea I was on my own. Yes, somewhere behind me was the grumbling of the escort boat's engine, and somewhere way ahead Steve was burrowing efficiently towards fame, and somewhere to one side David was grunting and swallowing water, but I was in my own tiny world, hedged in by waves and the sides of my goggles, vaguely conscious that stretching down and down below was the vertiginous green of the channel. It was a lonely and disoriented business. If I stretched my neck up I could sometimes see the hills of Asia, but there was never any sense of movement. From the boat there were occasional shouted hints and words of encouragement like: "Sewage slick ahead: keep your mouth shut", and "This is where blood started to pour from the Ukrainian's ears."
Steve had set purposefully off with a front crawl of the sort he'd only ever used before to part crowds to get to the bar. I had thought that the waves would prevent really effective crawl, and
had trained mostly using breaststroke. This was a stupid mistake. Breaststroke has a phase when there is little forward motion. When you are swimming into the current this means that you lose half of whatever distance the stroke has won you. It took me fifty minutes to realise this and change to a continuously propulsive front crawl, by which time Steve was almost in the arms of his very own Hero.
Rhythm is everything, the good swimmers say, and rhythm is hard when the sea which surges around you has no sense of it. You seem to make no progress at all. There was a vague sense of pressure against my chest as I ploughed into that current, but there was no visible fixed point against which I could measure any progress. Failure, though, was unthinkable. Too many people knew about this venture. If I didn't reach Sestos I could never return home. So I kept striking metronomically away and then, suddenly, the current eased. A shout from the boat told me to turn up the strait. That was the indication I had been waiting for. It meant that the back of the Hellespont was broken. I began to realise that there was no need to keep a lot in reserve any more.
From then it all happened quickly. There was a wisp of green weed at the bottom, and a stone appearing out of the gloom. Looking up, I could see the crenellations of Sestos castle on the gorse covered hills of Asia. A thousand miles away there was some cheering as the press men hauled Steve out of the shallows and asked him what on earth he had done this for. And then suddenly we were there too, stumbling out into towels and a posse of television camera men. They asked us for comment. David, mentally enfeebled by the effort, gave them an elaborate and deeply embarrassing pun about Leander's libido based on 'breast stroke' and 'breast stroking' which, laboriously translated into Turkish, started as gibberish and ended as filth. We ate nuts and pulled our bellies in for prime-time silly-season Turkish TV, and drank brandy to the memory of that great hard man, Leander, who had done this every night and back, for love, not glory.
Greek deity, it seems, is a reasonably accessible career. This is a classic swim, but not a particularly difficult one. David and I, who both used that pathetically inefficient breast stroke over the two miles, did it in about eighty minutes. Steve, who is a regular ten pints and three bags of chips man, wallowed home in under an hour. The rumours we had heard about hammerhead sharks, giant squid and solid rafts of jellyfish were unfounded. The rumours about diarrhoea and vomiting, however, are completely true. Those denizens of the deep strait between Europe and Asia are of truly mythological proportions. But that's another story. And who cares? According to the best authorities on Olympus, we were officially gods.
MAY 30, 2012 BY NATASHA 4 COMMENTS POSTED UNDER: CASE STUDY
People spend a considerable part of their lives at work, so it is not surprising that they expect to be rewarded and satisfied with the job that they do.
Motivation is concerned with why people do things as well as what drives them to behave in a particular way. Understanding what motivates individuals is important in the workplace. Research suggests that motivated employees are happier at work. They get more satisfaction from their work, are absent less often, tend to be more loyal and work with more enthusiasm. This in turn encourages them to contribute more to the development of an organisation.
This case study focuses on how Kellogg’s motivates its people. It illustrates how the use of motivational techniques helps to develop the business as a ‘great place to work’.
The Kellogg Company is the world’s leading producer of breakfast cereals. Its products are manufactured in 18 countries and sold in more than 180 countries. For more than 100 years, Kellogg’s has been a leader in health and nutrition. It has done this by providing consumers with a wide variety of food products.
Within Kellogg’s, there is a variety of functions and work roles. These include engineering operatives in the manufacturing section. Others work in finance, marketing, sales, information technology or human resources. Keeping everybody motivated no matter what their role is not easy. Kellogg’s was recently placed in the top 100 of the Best Companies to Work For list in The Sunday Times.
Kellogg’s values and culture support its role as a good employer. Encouraging everyone to live by the K-Values throughout the whole business creates a culture of people that have ownership over their own projects and strive for continuous improvement and industry-leading results.
These values influence the behaviour of individuals within the workplace, making Kellogg’s a positive place to work. Employees are encouraged to speak positively about each other when apart, focusing on their strengths. This involves listening to others and accepting their right to their own views regarding the workplace.
The benefits of Kellogg’s investing in people can best be illustrated by looking at the work of some of the theorists who have worked on motivation. The remainder of the case study shows how Kellogg’s commitment to creating a ‘great place to work’ is supported by these theories.
Taylor
Frederick Taylor was associated with what has become known as ‘scientific management’.Taylor believed that monetary reward was an important motivating factor. Pay could simply be used to increase rates of output. Taylor’s view of motivation applies to people who tend to work within narrow job confines such as on a production line. These are people who can be paid according to the amount of work that they do or units they produce. This is known as ‘piece work’.
For many people pay is still a prime motivator. For example, within Kellogg’s many employees are motivated by cash alternatives which include the opportunity to buy and sell their holiday days.
Taylor’s theory breaks down jobs into components or specialist tasks through the division of labour. This especially applies to production processes within large companies like Kellogg’s. These rewards can help to increase productivity and profitability. The danger with this is that individuals are simply focused on output to get rewards so quality might suffer as a result of employees rushing to do the job.
Limitations of scientific management
Scientific management is not a process that allows development of people. It limits their ability to take ownership of what they do. Kellogg’s staff are encouraged to be creative and use their imagination to contribute towards change. Consequently, Taylor’s view of monetary reward for output is not appropriate for the motivation required for this type of workplace.
Maslow
Maslow’s theory relates motivation to a hierarchy of needs. At the bottom are essential physiological needs such as air, food, shelter and clothing. As individuals satisfy one level of need, their motivations change as they aspire to reach the higher order needs. Therefore, to motivate an individual Maslow suggests that it is necessary to know where within the hierarchy each employee is placed so that these factors can be taken into account.
Within Kellogg’s every employee is motivated to work through each of these levels. As they do so, this provides positive effects for each employee and the organisation. For example:
Physiological needs – Kellogg’s offers competitive salaries. This gives people the means to acquire the basic needs for living. The Kellogg’s Cornflex flexible benefits programme allows employees to choose those benefits that suit them. This includes childcare vouchers, cash alternatives to company cars and discounted life assurance schemes. These savings and competitive salaries help workers’ pay go further and so motivate them to be loyal to the company.
Safety needs – Kellogg’s values the safety of all employees. The company is committed to providing a safe and healthy work environment to prevent accidents. Employees are however accountable – that means they have to take responsibility for observing the health and safety
rules and practices. Kellogg’s also offers employees a range of working patterns. Some may want to work part-time, others may want career breaks or undertake homeworking. This helps employees to choose the best option for a healthy work-life balance.
Social needs – These are associated with a feeling of belonging. Kellogg’s operates weekly group ‘huddles’. These provide informal opportunities for employees to receive and request information on any part of the business, including sales data and company products. This helps strengthen teams and enhances workers’ sense of belonging. Having an open approach to communication keeps everybody focused on the company’s aims helps individuals contribute to the company’s K-Values. They include values such as being positive, seeing the best in people and recognising diversity. Kellogg’s positively recognises and rewards staff achievements.
Self-actualisation – Kellogg’s provides employees with the opportunity to take on challenging and stimulating responsibilities. For example, the business provides the opportunity for individuals to take ownership of projects. This enables them to develop and improve.
Laura Bryant joined Kellogg’s straight after university in 2002. She joined the Field Sales team initially. This involved visiting five to ten supermarkets a day to develop relationships at a local level. After two years her hard work was rewarded and she was promoted to Customer Marketing Manager at Head Office. This helped to raise her profile as she wanted to move into marketing. With support from her manager, Laura made the transition from Sales to Marketing as Assistant Brand Manager on Rice Krispies and Frosties. In 2009 she was promoted again to manage the marketing plan for Special K and she is now Brand Manager for Kellogg’s Cornflakes. The company has helped motivate her to climb the hierarchy of needs and achieve her career ambitions.MayoElton Mayo was the founder of the Human Relations Movement. His experiments were conducted at the Hawthorne plant in the USA during the 1930s. His work showed that taking an interest in and caring for employees can have a positive effect on employee motivation and productivity.
He showed that employees were best motivated if they worked in teams. They were also motivated if managers communicated and consulted with them more and took a greater interest in their views and wellbeing.
Communication
Kellogg’s keeps a two-way dialogue with employees through its communication programmes. This helps to empower the workforce. For example, its open-plan lobby area with coffee bar accommodates as many as 200 people. It provides an informal venue for briefings and presentations. The WK Kellogg Values Awards programme provides special recognition for what employees do and rewards them for how they perform.
‘Here at Kellogg’s listening is a central premise of the way we work. We believe that our employees have some of the best ideas and that a successful company is one that listens to the grass roots feedback and acts on it. Any employee can raise an issue or a suggestion via their rep who will raise it at one of their monthly meetings.’ (Sue Platt, HR Director)Generating ideas
The Kellogg’s suggestion box scheme helps to generate ideas and improve productivity. Kellogg’s has an initiative called ‘Snap, Crackle and Save’ – an employee suggestion scheme to save costs within the supply chain. Hundreds of ideas have been put forward over the last couple of years. One idea suggested that the same thickness of cardboard could be used for packaging in all manufacturing plants in Europe. This saved around £250,000 per year.
Kellogg’s also shows its commitment to making its business a great place to work. It provides personal development planning for employees which includes provisions such as secondments and study leave as part of staff development. This reinforces staff commitment and their sense of being treated well.
HerzbergHerzberg felt that satisfied employees would be productive employees. Herzberg’s theory is sometimes called the two-factor theory. These factors are hygiene factors and motivators.
Hygiene factors are often referred to as ‘dissatisfiers’. These are elements in the workplace that could make employees unhappy, such as excessive company bureaucracy or an autocratic working environment.
Herzberg motivators (sometimes called ‘satisfiers’) are aspects of any workplace that give individuals job satisfaction. These include, for example, the level of responsibility of the job, promotion or recognition for effort and performance. Herzberg believed that businesses needed to ensure hygiene factors were minimised in order to enable motivators to have their full effect.
Motivating factors
Kellogg’s has developed a number of motivating factors. These are designed to ensure that Kellogg’s is perceived as a good place to work and a desirable employer of choice. For example, Kellogg’s has a ‘Fit for Life’ programme offering employees access to fitness centres, free health checks and annual fitness assessments by healthcare specialists every spring.
It also provides a ‘summer hours’ programme from May to September so if employees have worked a full week’s hours by noon on a Friday, they can finish work at that point. This means
employees can adjust their working hours to balance their work against family or lifestyle commitments.
Awareness of motivating factors helps Kellogg’s to build a business that delivers consistently strong results. Other initiatives within the organisation include:
flexitime, home working, part-time working and job sharing career breaks, parental leave, time off for dependents and maternity and paternity leave on-site gyms or subsidised access to local facilities.
Claire Duckworth works in the Consumer Insight team at Kellogg’s. She takes part in Latin American ballroom dancing competitively with her partner. They are ranked 7th in England in the over-35 category. Flexible working at Kellogg’s enables her to travel to events and provides her with the opportunity to pursue her hobby at a serious level. This opportunity to adjust her working life to accommodate her personal ambitions makes Claire feel respected and supported.
Motivators within the Kellogg’s company reflect the different personal aspirations of staff. The working environment provides the opportunity to move forward and take on responsibilities. There is clear recognition and reward for performance.
For example, the Kellogg’s sales team meets every Friday morning to share success stories of the week. Once a month it recognises individuals that have worked above and beyond the K-Values. Winners receive a range of awards ranging from cash prizes, vouchers or holiday entitlements.
ConclusionThis case study illustrates the range of different motivation measures in practice at Kellogg’s. It demonstrates that highly motivated employees can improve efficiency, output and quality for a business.Motivating staff helps to make them more committed to the workplace. By understanding the effects of different motivation techniques, Kellogg’s is able to make work a more exciting and interesting experience for employees whilst creating a more productive, profitable and competitive business.(Source: Times 100 business case studies)
CASE 4The Motivational Theories of Human Resources Managers
Human resources managers perform key functions to help sustain business operations. They outline policies that are imperative in facilitating employer-employee relations. Their main task is to successfully motivate employees to meet a company’s financial goals while still maintaining its principles. Many theories seek to explain how motivation works in attaining the best results from workers.
Sponsored Link
Villas in Sarjapur indiaproperty.com / sarjapur
10000+ Genuine & Verified Listings. Find One Within Your Budget Today!
Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory
Maslow’s theory explains that an individual is motivated according to the level of needs, and he will progress depending on how well these needs are addressed at each level. Needs at a basic level include security, social needs, psychological needs and favorable working conditions. The needs are addressed by ensuring there is security at the workplace and workers are friendly and respectful. Companies also should allow bathroom breaks and refreshment breaks and reasonable working hours to avoid extreme exhaustion. Needs at a higher level such as self-actualization and self-esteem can be handled by providing challenging projects and offering rewards such as promotions and benefits.
Herzberg's Two-Factor TheoryThe Two-Factor theory argues that that there are two factors that motivate workers: hygiene and satisfiers. These factors are not determinants of success, but their absence results in underperformance. Hygiene factors in this case refer to job security, salary, organizational policies and working conditions. Satisfiers, also known as motivators, include growth opportunities, responsibility and recognition. A human resources manager needs to do research to find out what workers really need and then make necessary improvements to increase performance. For example, creation of a non-smoking section or involving employees in development plans and decisions of a company helps them feel recognize and appreciated.
McClelland's Acquired Needs TheoryThe Acquired Needs theory recognizes that each individual prioritizes needs differently and that some needs are not hereditary but acquired in life. A high achiever for example, has a need for achievement and power; this means that his preferred workplace environment might differ from the average worker. A high achiever is driven by responsibility, a degree of risk and feedback of his performance. He wants to know whether he is improving. A team player has a need for affiliation; he desires a friendly, social and conflict-free and cooperative environment, rather than competitive work situation.
Alderfer's ERG TheoryAlderfer's ERG (existence, relatedness and growth) theory is built on Maslow’s theory. However, it groups an individual’s needs into three: existence, relatedness and growth needs. The needs are material and deal with an individual’s physical and social needs that cover interpersonal relationships and development needs that involve a person’s development and psychological growth.
Scope, Terms of Reference and AimsThe scope of this paper is motivational theory in terms of organisations with specific reference to how it fits with the human resources model. The terms of reference are to examine content and process theories of motivation and to relate these to human resource management (HRM). The aims are to establish HRM in a motivational context and to examine the relationship between motivational theory and HRM. DefinitionsJudging by the large number of theories that try to explain motivation, the concept is difficult to define (Industrial Society 1990, Gross 1992). For example, it has been defined as; “…a process of choice made by persons or lower organisms among alternative forms of voluntary action…” (Vroom 1964); the Industrial Society (1990) describe it as “…the difference between one individual putting in greater effort and energy into an activity than another…” and Buchanan and Huczynski (1997) as “…the internal psychological process of initiating, energizing, directing and maintaining goal-directed behaviour…” More simply put, motivation has also been defined as; why people do things (Gross 1992) and the incentive for action (Collins 1995). Human Resource Management (HRM) has been defined as a“re-conceptualising of personnel management and industrial relations with the focus being a redefining of the workforce in terms of organisational goals” (Redman and Wilkinson 2001). Two further definitions, which illustrate the breadth of opinion regarding HRM, could be said to be particularly pertinent to motivation; HRM is a; “…humane people-orientated employment management…” (Keenoy 1990): HRM is a “…blunt instrument to bully workers…”(Monks 1998). The Human Resources Model from a motivational perspectiveWith HRM, the HR model could be said to view humans as being motivated by a complex set of interrelated factors, such as money, need for affiliation, and desire for meaningful work. It is argued that each different employee will seek a different goal, have a diversity of talents in completing the task and add their own uniqueness to the organisation (Porter et al 2003). This is a conceptualisation that sees employees as reservoirs of potential talent and suggests it is a managerial responsibility to find how best to tap such resources (Redman and Wilkinson 2001). There appears to be a basic assumption that people want to contribute positively to a job; e.g. they are pre-motivated, and that therefore, the more they are motivated the more meaningful the job becomes to them (Porter et al 2003). However, if this is not the case, then the employer should seek to make it so by redesigning the job to, for instance, make it more varied, be autonomous, or allow a greater devolution and trust (Mabey and Salaman 1995). From a motivational perspective, the managerial task could be said to be clear; determine the best use of the workforce’s resources, assist employees in the achievement of goals in an organisational context, introduce a philosophy that leads to greater employee participation in decision making and
set up a situation where the organisation and the employee meet their goals at the same time (Porter et al 2003). Organizational theories of motivationPorter et al (2003) suggests there are two schools of motivation research; content theory and process theory. The first contains Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Alderfer’s ERG theory, Hertberg’s Movitator-Hygeine theory, and McClelland’s Learned Needs theory. To this could be added McGregors X and Y theory (Armstrong 2002). The second group consists of Vroom’s expectancy theory and the Port-Lawler model; these are then expanded upon with recent research into self-efficacy (Porter et al 2003). Content Theories Gross (1992) suggests Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is based on a central concept that suggests humans are motivated to satisfy their needs before progressing to a higher stage. These are categorised in three deficiency and two growth needs, following a hierarchy of; psychological (relating to survival); safety and security (for example job security); belongingness (for instance a desire for acceptance); this is turn leads to esteem and ego (for example, greater concern for the job); and finally peaks with self-actualisation (realisation of the person’s full potential). Alderfer’s ERG theory argued that there need not be five needs and reduced them to three: existence [E], relatedness [R] and growth [G] (Porter et al 2003). However the two theories could be said to be analogous; existence relates to survival and safety; relatedness to belonging and self-esteem (and ego); and growth to the development of human potential as in self-actualisation (Buchanan and Huczynski 1997). WhereAlderfer did add to Maslow was in the recognition that not only was there a satisfaction/progression relationship, there was also one of frustration/regression. This could mean, for instance, that an employee could reach a sense of high self-esteem, lose their job and regress to survival mode, in other words, one state does not necessary lead to another, the element of the hierarchy can change, retrench, regress, and also co-exist (Porter et al 2003). Although, it could be argued Maslow’s and Alderfer’s theories are not fully effective at explaining employees needs (Porter et al 2003), they appear to still resonate with several concepts in HRM. For example, the emphasis on the needs of an individual employee for security and for a sense of belonging may lead to identification with the company. This could be said to be further reinforced by the fact that within a secure environment the individual is encouraged, and feels safe, to grow to their full potential, and therefore enhances and add to the corporate identity (Mabey and Salaman 1995). A closer fit with HRM may be McGregor’s Y theory which states that if the working
conditions are favourable, employees will be motivated to perform efficiently, growing and developing with the organisation to fulfil their potential (Armstrong 2002), however Evans (1999) argues that maybe McGregor puts too much emphasis on the importance of work in a person’s life and does not take into account how outside interests could fulfil their psychological needs. McGregor however does appear to recognise this in his X Theory, which assumes the opposite from Theory Y, suggesting people do not like work and can only be made to do so by coercion and threats (Armstrong 2002). It could argued, as HRM accepts no alternative view to the company voice in setting employment policy, there is a degree of control implied in accepting terms and conditions that could undermine employee rights and be interpreted as coercive (Redman and Wilkinson 2001). Although motivation was an important consideration in the theories mentioned above, it is generally considered that until Herzberg, there were few people who were calling attention to the need for increased understanding of motivation’s specific importance in the workplace (Porter et al 2003). Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory, also called the Two-factor theory, looked at employees’ levels of job satisfaction within an organisation (Hersey and Blanchard 1993), or more precisely the nature of the work itself and how it has the potential for arousing both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Motivators arousing satisfaction include factors such as achievement, recognition and responsibility. Discrepancies in motivators, which led to employee discontent, or hygiene factors as Herzberg termed them, could include things such as company policy, salary, managerial style, and relations with work colleagues (Porter et al 2003). In terms of HRM, if achievement and recognition were within the corporate goals, then responsibility could be said to equate with identification. The concept of hygiene factors could also work well with an HRM model as it would be the managerial task to focus on the work the employee is expected to do, and where there is discontent, for example because of routine or boredom, to strive to achieve a motivational atmosphere, for instance, by introducing multi-tasking or changing the conditions in some other way (Mabey and Salaman 1995). The final content theory, which departs from those above in some ways, is McClelland’s Learned Needs theory, which, as a psychological principle, advocates nurture to be as important as nature; in other words the circumstances encountered, and activities experienced are equally as important as whatever qualities you are born with (Porter et al 2003). Briefly, the theory comprises of the need for achievement, n ach, need for power, n pow and the need for affiliation n aff. It could be argued that the first two elements of McClelland’s theory fit well with the HRM: for example, n ach is said to see achievement from an organisational standpoint where challenge triggers motivation and calculated risks are taken to achieve goals, for example, the job description is exceeded; and n pow recognises a need to follow leader-follower relations and to control the environment, such as, managerial control over corporate action (Porter et al 2003, Redman and Wilkinson 2001, Mabeyand Salaman 1995); however n aff promotes a tendency to
conform and a strong need for approval, thus, indicating a motivation that is less proactive and pluralist as opposed to unitary nature of HRM (Farnham and Pimlott 1994). Process Theory From what could be called the ‘thoughtful’ category of cognitive research into motivation theory, Vroom developed Expectancy theory. As viewed by John (1992) expectancy theory consists of four elements. Firstly outcomes, defined as anticipated consequences of a certainbehaviour at work, which may lead to, for example a pay rise, fatigue and so on. Secondly, valence, which is the degree to which an outcome is attractive or unattractive, for example, good pay, extra workload, a feeling of achievement in helping people. Thirdly, effort-performance, an individual’s subjective probability that effort will actually lead to performance, for instance, working another day for a salesman means he will get more money; finally, performance-outcome an individual’s belief that a certain performance will lead to a certain outcome, such as, believing achieving targets leads to a positive outcome (pay rise) – or a poor performance leading to dismissal. To simplify even further, the level of motivation depends on the valence of the outcome that can be achieved through effort leading to performance and that performance achieving the outcome desired (Porter et al 2003). Therefore, it could be argued that simply satisfying basic needs alone is not enough, individuals only become motivated when they have a reasonable expectation their actions will lead to achieving, self-determined, desirable goals; the strength of this desirability is termed valance (Guest 1984). However, expectancy theory relies on employees being able to rationally evaluate their work behaviours and to choose to do actions that they believe will lead to work-related rewards; for example doing overtime instead of leaving work early may show commitment and lead to promotion (Porter et al 2003). In reality, there may be other habitual and unconscious motivations, which may mean that no matter what degree of the effort shown by the employee, it will make no difference to the outcome because what constitutes effort can be a very subjective judgement (Porter et al 2003). This theme is taken up in the Porter-Lawler model in which effort doesn’t necessary lead to reward (outcome), and other factors such as employee ability and personality traits may mean no matter what the effort; the performance will not increase (Porter and Lawler 1968). The effect could be a highly motivated worker who may perceive a reward is deserved for hard work, but if the work is not an organisational goal then the organisation will not perceive it as such (Porter et al 2003). In relation to the place of motivation in HRM, expectancy theory and the Porter-Lawler
model have several inconsistencies, which could lead to the conclusion that they are not compatible with HRM. For example, the subjective nature of both effort and desirability could lead to a lack of corporate identification, however the implication that goals can only be achieved as part of an organisational aim may mean, that if staff are inducted better in the company policy and culture (Redman and Wilkinson 2001), that weakness could be nullified. A further refinement of Expectancy theory, Self-efficacy “…refers to an individual’s belief (confidence) about his or her capabilities to execute a specific task within a given context…” (Stajkoic and Luthams 2003). As a motivation process it operates as follows; before organisational participants select their choice and initiate their effort they tend to evaluate and integrate information about their perceived capabilities; self-efficacy determines how an employee’s work behaviour will be initiated, how much effort will be expended how long the effort will be sustained. This produces a degree of predictability in performance that has been proven in research with one study showing a 28% increase in performance due to self-efficacy (Stajkoic and Luthams 1998). It could be argued that the element of empowerment within the corporate setting, that is a hallmark of HRM (Mabey and Salaman 1995), would benefit from an individualised system of motivation such as self-efficacy in the sense that employees are cognitive in their choice as to use their performance for the good of the company. It also brings a level of predictability, that unlike a pluralist organisation where employees confine themselves to within the job description, here employees have the belief and confidence to regularly seek to exceed their role (Rosenthal et al 1998). It could be said that with so many competing theories that somewhere a common thread must run through and a simple picture of motivation will emerge. However, human behaviour is not like physics and the holy grail of a “the grand unified theory” (Hawking 1988) of human behaviour does not about seem about to emerge. Human Resource Management could be said to be more solid, hard, some would say, but it seems to pick and choose in each of the motivation theories as suits management, and more often that not, employees, particularly in the charity sector, who give commitment, flexibility and motivation, find themselves on the wrong side of a business strategy that calls for minimising labour costs (Legge 1988). ConclusionMotivation is a vital tool for the Human Resources manager as it is a way of enhancing and improving the quality of an organisation’s knowledge and ability. It is a way of achieving corporate aims through the enthusiasm and belief of its workforce. By analysing motivation theory it is clear that there is no clear conclusion to be drawn as to what definitively motivates an employee in the workforce, and while all the theories above have
some merit, few have conclusive research to back them up. Elements of McGregor’s Y theory, Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene theory, and self-efficacy, with it’s ability to predict motivational behaviour, would seem to go the furthest to meeting this requirement, but in the end it would appear that motivation is a subjective and emotional issue that does not easily fit into any model and therefore, for the purpose of HRM it is better to cherry-pick ideas from each theory, when and as, they add to the organisational aims and objects.
ReferencesArmstrong M, 2002, Employee Reward, Third Edition, Chartered Institute of Personnel and DevelopmentBuchanan, D, Huczynski, A, 1997, Organizational behaviour, Third Edition.Prentice Hall.Collins, 1995, Collins Concise English Dictionary, Third Edition (Revised), Harper CollinsEvans D, 1991, Supervisory Management Principles and Practice, Third Edition, CassellFarnham D, Pimlott J, 1994, Understanding Industrial Relations, Continuum International Publishing GroupGross R, 1992, Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, Second Edition, Hodder & StoughtonGuest D, 1994, “What’s New in Motivation?” Personnel Management, MayHawking S, 1995, A Brief History of Time, Bantam PressHersey P, Blanchard K.H, 1993, Management of Organizational Behaviour – Utilizing Human Resources, Sixth Edition, Prentice Hall InternationalIndustrial Society, 1990, The Industrial Society Handbook of Management Skills, The Industrial SocietyJohn G, 1992, Organizational Behavior, Understanding Life at Work, Third Edition, Harper CollinsKeenoy, T, 1990, quoted from Redman T, Wilkinson A, 2001, Contemporary Human Resource Management, Prentice HallLegge, K 1988 – ”Personnel management in recession and recovery” Personnel review 17/2Mabey C, Salaman G, 1995, Strategic Human Resource Management, BlackwellMonks J, 1998, quoted from Redman T, Wilkinson A, 2001, Contemporary Human Resource Management, Prentice HallPorter L.W, Bigley G.A, Steers R.M, 2003, Motivation and Work Behavior, Seventh Edition, McGraw-HillPorter L.W, Lawler E.E, 1968, “Managerial Attitudes and Performance” in Dipboye R.L, Howell W.C. Smith C.S, (Eds.), Understanding Industrial and Organisational Psychology: An Integrated Approach Harcourt Brace.Redman T, Wilkinson A, 2001, Contemporary Human Resource Management, Prentice Hall
Rosenthal P, Hill S, Peccei R, 1998, “Checking out service: evaluating excellence, HRM and TQM in retailing” Chapter 11 in Strategic Human Resource Management – a reader Mabey C, Salaman G, Storey J, (Eds), The Open UniversityStajkoic A.D, Luthams F, 1998, “Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta analysis”, Psychological Bulletin quoted in “Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy: Implications for Motivation Theory and Practice”, Stajkoic A.D, Luthams F, 2003, chapter 2 in Porter L.W, Bigley G.A, Steers R.M, 2003, Motivation and Work Behavior, Seventh Edition, McGraw-HillStajkoic A.D, Luthams F, 2003, “Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy: Implications for Motivation Theory and Practice”, chapter 2 in Porter L.W, Bigley G.A, Steers R.M, 2003, Motivation and Work Behavior, Seventh Edition, McGraw-HillVroom V.H, 1964, Work and Motivation, Wiley
