Individual motivation assignment
Introduction
Motivation is what got you out of bed this morning, something which have you a reason or cause to start your day with some sense of enthusiasm. It can be defined as “A reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way” (English Oxford Dictionary).
The concept of motivation is a vital one and it’s importance becomes paramount in any organisation in this world. Strong motivation leads to strong performance – in the world of sport motivation is a central tenet. This is no different for employees in any organisation. To ‘tap into’ the source of motivation for a worker is to find the ‘holy grail’ that leads to greater creativity, focus and overall success. The key to a efficient workplace is this source of drive and enthusiasm which compels any competent employee to strive for themselves and hence the organisation which they are an employee of.
In order to maintain a consistent and sustainable momentum of productivity and achievement in an organisation, a manager must understand how motivation plays a pivotal role in attaining these goals. As anyone who has been in employment will be aware, an organisation’s ability to develop and maintain an inner motivation within the workplace is a key factor in ensuring high levels of productivity and job satisfaction. To explore the concept of individual motivation I have chosen Douglas McGregor’s (1960) ‘Theory X and Theory Y’ as explored in his book ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ and I will also discuss Locke and Latham’s (1968) ‘Goal Setting Theory’.
Theory X and Theory Y
McGregor’s theory of motivation which is outlined and explored in his book ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ (1960). The theory make two very distinct and heavily contrasting observations on the motivation of workers. Theory X emphasises of type of leadership in an organisation which could be interpreted as a more authoritative management relative to Theory Y. McGregor states that ‘The average man is by nature indolent – he works as little as possible’ (The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960). This theory has what could simply be described as a pessimistic view of employees and the motivation of the workforce.
The phrase ‘no mon’ no fun’ is a truly fundamental example of how income is perceived to be a supreme source of motivation for people however this is not strictly true.
The Theory X is one which is adopted by many organisations in my experience, with the expectations that an employee by their nature ‘lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility, prefers to be led’ (The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960). For example, as a student who has worked in the hospitality sector I can verify the widespread utilisation of the Theory X. It assumes that an employee ‘is inherently self centred, indifferent to organizational needs.’ (The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960) and while this may be a particularly disappointing belief on the motivation of employees – it may hold merit.
In an organisation that operates say, a nightclub or any alcohol and nightlife related venue, turnover of staff is often quite high. As someone whose parents are familiar with the industry I can completely and utterly agree with the sense that Theory X is a useful and practical theory for motivation. While many of my generation may be of the inclination that Theory Y is far superior to that of the traditional Theory X, one cannot assume that an organisation is always led by competent employees.
To assume that the employees are competent and motivated by an inner ambition is to also assume that the manager who hired the employee is also competent. This may not always be the case. With that considered, there are scenarios in which the Theory X could be much more beneficial for an organisation. It is certainly not an ideal reflection on the employees however that does not mean it lacks merit.
‘Theory X places exclusive reliance upon external control of human behaviour, whereas Theory Y relied heavily on self-control and self-direction.’ (The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960).
Theory Y is often interpreted as the ‘soft approach’ which also holds its own difficulties. ‘It leads frequently to the abdication of management – to harmony, perhaps, but to the indifferent performance. People take advantage of the soft approach. They continually expect more, but they give less and less’ (The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960).
One fantastic example of a theory of motivation is purpose, in this case Theory Y would give an employee greater purpose as they have greater autonomy and independence to be creative.
This theory of motivation is one which takes a more ‘laissez faire’ approach and is common in universities where the students are not ‘hounded’ by teachers to ensure their work is done. Theory Y implements a system of autonomy and independence where there is an expectation that you perform well, however there will be no micro-management of every individual.
Goal setting theory:
In the 1960’s, Edwin Locke developed The Goal Setting Theory which was based the connection between goals and performance.
‘Goals attention, effort, and action toward goal-relevant actions at the expense of non relevant actions.’ (Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2006).
This theory was ‘developed inductively within industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology over a 25-year period, based on some 400 laboratory and field studies’. (New directions in Goal Setting Theory, 2006). The study which Locke and Latham undertook outlined that ‘high (hard) goals lead to a higher level of task performance than do easy goals or vague goals such as the exhortation to “do one’s best”’ (New directions in goal setting Theory, 2006).
It is evident that requesting or encouraging an employee to do ‘their best’ is not a specific enough goal to strive towards. One’s best effort may not be such a motivating force as it is extraordinary difficult to measure and varies dramatically from employee to employee. On the other hand, setting the goal to increase sales by 10% by the end of the quarter is much more tangible and practical goal to seek to achieve.
The goal setting theory outlines the motivation which employees have once an end goal is available as a finishing point to work towards. The thought process for many workers could be summed up as fundamental ‘what are we doing this for.’. An appropriate comparison would be to the Leaving Cert cycle in secondary schools. If a student cannot visualise an end goal, then what exactly is motivating them? A light at the end of the tunnel is the freedom of third level and the achievement that is associated with completing your state exams. To set a certain goal enables an employee or any individual to strive for performance to achieve a certain task.
In stark contrast to the common belief among young people, money is not the greatest source of all motivation. This theory or outlook may be true up to a certain point however a kind of diminishing marginal returns applies. For how long does this motive remain useful? While greed may be relentless people are not endlessly motivated by wealth. There is certainly another layer beneath the surface that suggests that people are not as motivated by cold hard cash as they may appear to be.
This result is true to a point but this outcome of satisfying spendpower soon tapers off to a point where people gradually experience a decreased motivation as a result of money.
Would you be any less inclined to press snooze and enjoy a truly wonderful extra 9 minutes in bed in the morning, say if your pay were to be increased by 25%? It’s definitely not a guarantee despite what your initial idealistic thoughts may have been. It is still the same job in the same place and an increase in pay does not secure a new found passion for what you do. There are factors far far beyond the idea of wealth that motivate us.
The theory of goal setting is a far more fulfilling exercise rather than the flawed view that employees are relentlessly motivated by wealth. For example, many employees may turn down the option of extra hours that would be paid at time and a half simply because this may intrude on their time devoted to family and may diminish their standard of living slightly.
The result of offering money as a source of motivation might hold up to a point but this outcome of satisfying spendpower soon tapers off to a point where people gradually experience a decreased motivation as a result of money.
Reflection and personal application:
My research and study of this concept of motivation have given me a greater outlook on how employees can be motivated and the reasons for such motivation. I have chosen the two theories which I found the most logical and relatable from my experience in the workforce.
I found a certain link between my own mindset to my studies in DCU and well as my recently passed experience of the CAO system. From exploring these theories I have gained a greater understanding how setting goals can enhance your motivation dramatically. While initially in DCU I had begun the course Economics, Politics and Law, I found it almost impossible to imagine a goal which I wanted to achieve as the course had not been my first choice. I understood that without any goal in sight I would struggle to motivate myself to study and attain impressive results.
Although at the time I had no knowledge of the goal setting theory, it is quite clear to me at his moment that the Goal Setting Theory is put into practice in this scenario. By stark contrast, having transferred to Business Studies International, I find motivation comes instinctively as I now have a goal which I wish to achieve in the short, medium and long term. The world of business fascinates and captivates me – therefore my long term goal is to achieve the results required to be accepted into a Postgraduate course in either LSE or INSEAD university in France. This is certainly a challenge to live up to, and without a doubt this ambition feeds a new sense of inner motivation.
The Theory X and Theory Y concepts in my opinion highlight the stark contrast between second level education and university. In a secondary school that expects extraordinary results, Theory X is certainly the most supported concept of motivation. The ‘carrot and stick’ idea comes to mind except in my case it was predominantly a stick scenario. While Theory X may have achieved results and motivation in such a controlled environment, my experience in DCU has been rather different.
I can completely relate to Theory X and Theory Y and from my brief experience in university, I would be of the opinion that Theory Y is a much more ‘real world’ concept. I would compare the vastly different worlds of a leaving cert and university student to this theory as there is an enormous difference between the ‘helicopter parenting’ of school life and the incredible independence associated with first year of university. In that respect, I find that Theory X and Theory Y are the most relatable and comparable concepts of motivation to my experience in the education system so far.
In conclusion, I feel that the Theory X and Theory Y most effectively describes my view on motivation in university and also the workplace. I have outlined that there is a great similarity between my study experience and McGregor’s theory. I have reflected on the research and I have come to the realisation that the X and Y theories are intertwined with the transition from second to third level education. I have found it extremely logical to relate my personal experience to the agreements and theories made by scholars such as Locke and McGregor.
References and Research
English Oxford Dictionary
‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ (1960)
‘New directions in goal-setting theory’, Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham.
Organizational behaviour I. Essential theories of motivation and leadership.
Industrial and organizational psychology: linking theory with practice.
https://mindfulinnovation.com/2009/09/01/reflection-on-the-human-side-of-enterprise/
Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 15, No. 5 (Oct., 2006), pp. 265-268
Benchmarking The Human Side of Enterprise, Roy, Matthew H; Dugal, Sanjiv S