Motivation in the Human Resource Frame
Joseph L.
Miller
Florida State
University
Spring
2000
Motivation in the
Human Resource Frame
Some researchers (Ashkenas, 1999; Ritter & Taylor, 1997; and Varma, Beatty, Schneier, & Ulrich, 1999) approach employee motivation as a purely economic model where supply and demand, incentive pay plans, and career ladders are presented as a method of aligning employee and employer goals. These methods fit the structural or political frames to drive only performance. The drive for performance is often equated to motivation. Salary has been identified as an environmental factor which only lessens dissatisfaction but is not a motivator (Pinder, 1984).
Bolman and Deal (1997) suggest that when motivation and individual commitment are the desired results, one may wish to consider the human resource or symbolic frame. The human resource frame purports that there exists a strong linkage between the needs of the employee, the alignment of individual and organization needs, interpersonal and group dynamics, and management approaches.
Human Needs
The study of human need is a controversial
one. One reason is the lack
of empirical analysis needed for
support. Some researchers describe
the human need component as simply being part of a team and determining
“what’s in it for me” (Motsett,
1998). Douglas McGregor proposed that the motivation of
the individual was largely dependent upon the perspective held by the
manager. Some managers believe
that the employee will work as little as possible, lack ambition, dislike
responsibility, prefer to be led, and resist
change. This manager also believes
that the employee is inherently selfish, gullible, and not particularly
intelligent. This manager holds
a management perspective that McGregor calls Theory
X.
In
contrast, not all managers are practitioners of Theory
X. McGregor refers to this
contrasting belief system as Theory Y.
According to the practitioner of this theory, people have become as
they are as a consequence of the treatment from the
organization. This manager also believes that people possess the
potential to develop, assume responsibility, and behave in accordance with
organizational goals. According
to McGregor, management should structure organizational policies so that
human beings can achieve their own goals (Pinder, 1984).
Managers usually state that wages, security, and good working conditions
motivate employees. Younger
workers and those with limited income do rate these factors highly when
surveyed. However, these factors
do not characterize the primary motives of the general working public (Skopec,
1990). Money is definitely a
motivator of those who have little or none of
it. However, each dollar gained is less valuable than the
one that preceded it. At some
point, money is virtually no motivator at all (Petzinger,
1999). Skopec (1990) suggests that each employee is individual
and it is essential for management to understand what motivates each
individual. When the mission
of the organization, the employee's motives, and employee's opportunity to
achieve are in alignment, motivation takes
place. The more the three are
aligned and overlap, the greater the motivation.
Abraham Maslow described motivation as a series of five categories
of basic needs. According to
Maslow, these five categories account for all of human
behavior. As a lower level need
is satisfied, the need for the next level becomes increasingly
important. These needs include physiological, safety, belongingness,
esteem, and self-actualization.
According to Maslow, the latter is never fully achieved (Triandis,
1990). Maslow, who reportedly
holds the record for the second highest I.Q. ever recorded, stated that man
does live by bread alone when there is no
bread. Yet, as a prepotent need
is satisfied, a higher level need emerges (Petzinger,
1999). Alderfer developed a
theory known as the existence-relatedness-growth (ERG)
theory. This theory stated the
basic tenants of Maslow. However,
Alderfer stated that the needs can function simultaneously (Triandis,
1990).
Interest in the theories of McGregor, Maslow, and Alderfer continue
to decline. Attempts to validate
these theories are limited and very little empirical data exists to support
the findings (Triandis, 1990).
Recent reviews suggest that these theories may not be as accurate
as reported in earlier literature (Pinder, 1984).
Maddock and Fulton (1998) suggest that Maslow was
wrong. Research indicates that
Alderfer was correct in stating that the needs are not
prepotent. This is evident when
people who seem to have it all commit
suicide. Maslow has had a following
much because the theory has superficial
appeal. However, empirical data
and analysis do not support the theory.
Maslow’s theory has more status as a belief system or as a religion
than as a scientific explanation of
motivation. Despite the scant
research and legitimate support, the theory has a tremendous following by
beginning management students and marketing
companies. Management is constantly
in search of a cure for the underlying problems in the
organization. Maslow’s theory seems to give a simple, easily remembered
explanation.
Maddock and Fulton (1998) suggest that motivation occurs in what is
known as the silent side of the human
mind. In this silent side lies
the motives, emotions, and passions that are hidden from the individual as
well as from his peers. Leadership
should be concerned with this silent
side. This area of the mind
is where almost all decisions are made.
Maddock and Fulton describe five categories of motives that include
orientation, survival, adaptation, expectation, and
play. A formula proposed states
that Leadership = Motivation = Emotion.
Understanding this relationship can greatly enhance employee performance
and management effectiveness.
Fit Between the Individual and the
Organization
Studies show that goals are generally set higher when employees are
involved in setting their own goals as compared goals that are just handed
down from their superiors.
However, those studies do not show that either group of employees
performed any better than the other.
One may question the importance of having employees involved in goal
setting or even the existence of goals at
all. Goals have continued to
be a part of the management activities simply because goals attract attention
(Pinder, 1984).
Studies do indicate however that when an employee has little control
over a situation, upset and distraction
occur. This phenomenon is evident
even to the highly motivated employee.
Studies further acknowledge that upset and distraction impair performance
(Orpen, 1994). Companies may
not be able to give employees total control of their
goals. Research indicates that
total control of goals from top-down is not effective
either. With this approach,
employees feel that their needs are
neglected. A top-down, bottom-up
approach has shown promise in some research
studies. In top-down, bottom-up
approach, needs are addressed from the top by senior management, but also
from the bottom-up by employees.
Employees have ownership in this process and many times will identify
needs generally overlooked by management
alone. This method leaves employees
feeling that objectives are implemented
effectively. Goals also tend
to be aggressive, yet realistic (Keeling, 1998).
Eric Skopec (1990) suggests that there must be an alignment between
the individual’s goals and the organization’s
goals. A trichotomy of employee
motives, organizational mission,
and the employee’s opportunity to achieve frame his
theory. Determining employee
motives is a never-ceasing task.
Factors driving employee behavior change and are different from one
employee to the next. Employees
list interesting work, appreciation, and being informed as the top reasons
for achieving higher motives.
Employers generally misunderstand employee
motives. Wages are generally
quoted as being a top motivator.
However, research indicates otherwise.
Organizational mission can be described as a purpose or reason for
being. Many companies use symbols
for describing the mission.
“Quality is job one”, “Do it right the first time”,
and “Building for a better tomorrow” are just a
few. These catch phrases translate
the parent companies’ mission into memorable terms.
Missions don’t only have to be statements from the big corporation
down. Individual units or
departments can have symbols as well that describe their
commitment. Missions give employees
a sense of value and generally focus on non-financial
objectives. Few employees are
driven by investors’ concerns for return on investment or other economic
measures.
The employees’ opportunity to achieve is the final piece of the
motivation puzzle according to Skopec.
Opportunity to achieve describes what people believe will happen if
they work hard. If working hard
brings opportunity to achieve, this will satisfy their
motives. This sounds ideal,
and it is. Imagine a Venn diagram
with employee motives, organizational mission, and employee’s opportunity
to achieve as the three groups.
When all three groups intersect, they bring about
motivation. The more they intersect,
the greater the motivation. The
groups may not all be equally aligned and the overlap may never be
complete. Some factors may begin
to conflict with others. For
example, the desire to sale more cars than anyone else, the desire to spend
more time at home with the children, and the corporate mission for profits
may begin to conflict as one impedes upon the
other. Therefore, a delicate
balance must exist for optimum motivation to be a
reality. If this is a model an employer wishes to use to evaluate
motivation, special care must be taken to understand all the elements and
how the three align (Skopec, 1990).
The human resource frame places emphasis on the relationship between the individual and the organization. However, people at work relate mostly to other people either individually or in group settings. The Hawthorne studies sparked an interest in group dynamics about seventy years ago. In this study, people performed at a higher level simply because attention was being paid to them. Interest in the human resource movement continued for a couple of decades after World War II. However, psychologists’ interest in the movement began to die out. Fortunately, industrial and organizational psychologists have begun to take an interest again. Interest has grown so much that everyone seems to be pursuing management using teams and groups (Daniels, 1989). Hackman (1992) showed that individual behaviors are affected by the groups to which they belong. Veteles in 1932 asserted that the individual is always acting under group conditions. The effects can be either for the better or the worse (Triandis, 1990).
Group size is cited as being most effective when the membership is
from five to seven people.
However, many groups are forced to have greater or fewer members based
on the size of the project or size of the budget (Skopec,
1990). Group performance is
often cited as being much more productive than the average of the contributions
of the individuals (Triandis, 1990).
Some researchers assert that the most acquired by individuals working
independently is the sum of their actions, while group performance is
multiplicative (Losoncy, 1994).
However, other researchers have concluded that groups perform at a
level less than that of what an individual can perform on activities that
can be completed by the individual (Hill,
1982).
A study by researchers
at the University of Sheffield in England concluded that no distinguishable
advantages or benefits exist from the use of teams (Daniels,
1989). This is partly due to
the organizing and motivating required to accomplish
tasks. “Social loafing”
also has been evident in groups where individual identity is lost (Latane,
Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Well-coordinated groups generally have access
to more talent, information, knowledge, and broader networks of
individuals. Similarly, they
can often solve complex problems quicker than individuals (Skopec,
1990). However, groups pressured
for quick decisions often make poor decisions (Janis,
1982).
Teams are not the answer to all performance problems
either. If only one member of
a team is an expert, the team can diminish that member’s
expertise. One critical question
typically not asked by management is if a team is the best method to solve
the problem at hand.
Behavior is the key to successful teamwork and motivation through
teams. The most important
consideration in team performance is the behavior of the
individuals. Human behavior
is the single greatest cause of team failure (Daniels,
1989).
An important feature of group dynamics is the development of cohesiveness (Pinder, 1984). Building blocks to motivate teams include ownership, personal responsibility, communication, involvement, reward, and recognition. Managers (or leaders) must understand the goals of their people and meld them into a team that transcends the accomplishments of the individuals alone. The task is complicated because we work in an individualistic, competitive society (Petzinger, 1999).
Management or leadership is an elusive profession that few people
master. The job of leader is
multifaceted with many concerns and
demands. Dealing with employee
motivation is simply another obstacle that seems to get in the way of doing
business. However, dealing with
employee motivation is a major part of doing
business. Furthermore, employee
motivation is a major factor in corporate success or
failure. The task at hand is
to determine what management practices are the most successful for increasing
employee motivation.
Many managers feel that to motivate employees, one must provide rewards.
Using rewards for motivation can be
deceptive. Over seventy studies
exist that show extrinsic motivators such as grades, praise, incentives,
etc. are not only ineffective, but can be counter-productive in the long
run. Rewards detract from the
natural tendency to learn and satisfy
curiosity. One caution for educators
to remember is that control or compliance is not equated to motivation (Maddock
& Fulton, 1998).
The successful leader must first realize that performance is not equal
to motivation (Pinder, 1984). Just
because employees or students do more does not mean that the workforce or
student body is motivated. Leaders
must gain commitment from employees and students to perform to optimum standards.
Studies indicate that such commitment correlates to human resource management
practices. Studies by Ogilvie
(1986) and Gaertner (1989) were among the first to investigate the correlation
of employee perceptions to affective
commitment. Employee commitment
does correlate to the level of pay, accuracy of the rating system, and the
fairness of promotions (Meyer, 1978).
Many management actions effect employee motivation or
commitment. Management
practices, which show that employees are valuable, bolsters their sense of
self worth and therefore increases motivation (Meyer, 1978). High consideration
for employees is generally associated with lower turnover, fewer grievances,
and less absenteeism (Bolman & Deal,
1997). Many managers assume
the role of a coach. They have been taught that coaching is the latest, most
effective practice. They tend
to coach employees concerning their behavior or
performance. However, coaching
for performance can only begin after employees are properly trained and
understand the mission and goals of the organization (Motsett,
1988).
Leaders identify and communicate goals. They are typically the persons of highest visibility. Their actions communicate the goals even if their words do not. Leaders must keep everyone focused on the vision of success and what it takes to be successful (Motsett, 1998). Good leaders tell subordinates what they want, why, identify possible problems and develop contingencies, and identify potential resources. They then follow up and follow through. Leaders allow their people perform their job within established guidelines and parameters (Motsett, 1998).
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Studies by Meyer and Allen (1997) show that people working under a charismatic boss or leader report greater job satisfaction than those under more traditional or structural leadership. It is important to note that charisma is not equal to leadership. Neither is charisma necessary or efficient to cause leadership. However, charismatic leadership is the strongest factor in transformational leadership (Maddock & Fulton, 1998). Although transformational leadership is generally viewed as being in the symbolic frame, it is worth mentioning here because of the transformational leader’s concern for the person and need to the need to understand the mission, vision, and values of the organization.
Leadership is motivation; yet, we have had difficulty measuring leadership. Maddock and Fulton purport that there exist eleven motives that managers can utilize to be more effective leaders or motivators. Leadership is made operational by the elements within each motive. These eleven motivators consist of circumstance orientation, play, time orientation, place orientation, sexual survival, expectation orientation, territorial survival, adaptation, physical survival, spiritual survival (passion), and personal orientation. These motives are listed from weaker to stronger respectively. The importance of the motives in the human resource frame is that they are universal, explain the underlying dynamics of the human need and motivation, and explain why transformational and other forms of leadership work (Fleischman, 1990).
Let us suppose that we are designing our leadership program. A leader would select the stronger motives since they bring quicker, long-lasting results. Therefore, we should begin with physical survival, spiritual survival and personal orientation. Elements of physical survival would include salary, bonus and incentives. We would therefore recognize outstanding performance with incentives and bonuses.
Spiritual survival has as its major elements, witness significance, membership, calling and wholeness. The manager would therefore establish goals in the leadership program that address these elements. A few may include having management directly involved in the program, scheduling one-on-one meetings with hourly and management, become outstanding by being a member of an outstanding team, doing what one is trained to do, and finding out what it means to be a key player.
Personal orientation
has self-concept, self-control, and resolution as its
elements. One would set goals
for using abilities he never knew he had, develop new skills, and resolve
outstanding issues with management and other
employees. This is only an abridged
version of the total plan.
However, when motivation is defined as leadership, and leadership
as emotion or motives, motivation takes on a tangible characteristic that
is not well defined outside of this model (Maddock & Fulton,
1998).
Transformational leaders exhibit other characteristics. Transformational leaders define the need for change. They create commitment to the vision and concentrate on long-term goals. They also inspire others to transcend personal interests, change the organization to accommodate vision. They also mentor others to assume leadership. Key behaviors of transformational leaders include creating a common vision, building trust, and empowering others (presentation notes – Jones, 2000).
Transformational leadership is characterized in police and fire
organizations. This type of
commitment is typically seen in organizations where pay low and risk is
high. Examples can be seen in
religious, community, and college organizations as
well. The leaders are often
charismatic, magnetic, and charming.
Charismatic leadership can bring about other
problems. However, the traits
of leadership, motivation, and emotion prevail as the common theme leading
to the success of transformational leaders (Maddock & Fulton,
1998).
Summary and Conclusion
Motivation continues to be a topic of much discussion. Everyone is in need of motivation. However, the literature is so full of the latest and greatest method to achieve motivation that the issue quickly confuses the public. It is obvious that all people are different and have different motivators. A common theme which is emergent among recent writers of the topic is that there must exist adequate communication of missions, visions, and goals. When individuals believe that there is a purpose for their being and that they have had some input in to their destiny, motivation will occur or the individual will search for a way to cope with that unhappiness. However, motivation will only occur when there exists a strong linkage between the needs of the employee, the alignment of the individual and organizational needs, interpersonal and group dynamics, and management or leadership approaches.
Ashkenas, R. (1999).
Breaking down barriers.
Industrial Management, 41 (1).
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations.
San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.
Daniels, A. C. (1989). Performance management. Improving quality
productivity through positive reinforcement. Tucker,
GA: Performance Management
Publications.
Fleischman, P. R. (1990). The healing spirit. NewYork:
Paragon.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette
& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hill, M. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + I heads
better than one?
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Houghton
Mifflin.
Jones, L. (Spring, 2000). Presentation notes. Transformational leadership.
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Keeling, D., Jones,
E., & Botterill, D. (1998). Work-based learning, motivation and
employer-employee interaction: Implications for lifelong learning.
Innovations in Education and Training International, 35
(4).
Latane, B., Williams,
K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light
work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
Losoncy, L. (1994). Teamwork makes the dream
work. Solon,
OH: Matrix Essentials
Press.
Maddock, R. C.,
& Fulton, R. L. (1998). Motivation, emotions, and leadership: The
silent side of management. Westpoint, CT: Quarum
Books.
Meyer, J. P., Y
Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Meyer, J. W. (1978).
Strategies for further research:
Varieties of environmental
variation. In M. W. Meyer and
Associates, Environments and organizations (pp. 352-368). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Motsett, C. B. (1998).
If it wasn’t for people…this job would be fun!: Coaching
for buy-in and results. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie
Press.
Nelson, B. (1995). Right ways to reward Productivity. Potentials
in Marketing, 28 (2).
Orpen, C. (1994). Interactive effects of work motivation and personal
control on employee job performance and satisfaction. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 134 (6).
Petzinger, T. (1999). The new poineers: The men and women who are
transforming the workplace and marketplace. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Pinder, C.C. (1984).
Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.
Ritter, J. A., & Taylor, L. J.
(1997). Economic models of employee
motivation. Review, 79 (5).
Skopec, E. (1990). Communicate for success. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Triandis, H. C., Dunnette, M. D., Hough, L. M. (1990). Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed)
(4).
Varma, A., Beatty, R. W., Schneier, C. E., & Ulrich, D. O. (1999).
High performance work systems: Exciting discovery or passing fad? Human
Resource Planning, 22 (1).
Veteles, M. S. (1932). Industrial psychology. NewYork:
Norton.