Motivation in BusinessEssay Preview: Motivation in BusinessReport this essayMany businesses today strive to uncover motivating factors that will help them achieve success with in their industry. There are many things to consider when motivating employees, a good analogy is the one that says you can lead a horse to water but you can not force the horse to drink. If we look at this analogy we can compare it to the fact that you can give a person a job but you can not make him perform a certain way. This is why many companies and managers in general turn to motivation to boost enthusiasm with in the workforce. Motivation represents “those psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed.” (Kreitner & Kinick, pg. 236) There are many theories regarding motivation and within this essay I will analyze Maslows Need Hierarchy theory, Vrooms Expectancy theory as well as motivation through the Goal setting theory. It is important to understand these theories and their implications for me to accurately manage motivation within my own work context which I will further address in this essay.
According to Maslows hierarchy of needs, there are five classes, First physiological needs which include food, drink, sex and sensory satisfaction. Second are the safety needs which motivate people to avoid danger, third are what he calls love needs, the need to feel like you belong or feel loved. Fourth are esteem needs that look at status prestige and appreciation and lastly at the top of the hierarchy are self-actualization needs, the need to become everything that one is capable of becoming. (Watson, 106) Each lower level need must be satisfied before an individual experiences higher level needs. Maslow hypothesized that as physiological, safety, social, and esteem needs were satisfied, they ceased to motivate, while the self-actualization needs actually motivate an individual more as they are satisfied. (Kreitner & Kinick, pg. 237)
Maslows theory has a few flaws that are often criticized because they fail to take into account differences in personality among individuals. We must consider that some needs might be more important to one than another. For example if we look at men and women we recognize women in general tend to have more of a need for nurturing and wanting to fulfill Maslows love and safety needs more often than self actualization needs. Research on motivation has been criticized for focusing almost exclusively on U.S. populations.” (Ambrose, 1999) Another flaw in this motivational theory would be a cultural misunderstanding. For example workers in Asian countries may be strongly motivated by a loyalty to an organization, whereas in Western societies, which are more individualistic, self-fulfillment is of greater importance. It has been argued that all humans have essentially the same needs regardless of culture, but that a persons cultural background may nonetheless have an impact upon how they define satisfaction of a particular need (Di Cesare & Sadri, 37).
Applying Maslows Hierarchy of need theory to my current job situation as a sales professional for sanofi-aventis pharmaceutical, shows many similar aspects but also displays a few contrasting views. My company as well as many other pharmaceutical companies definitely provides lower level needs to their employees that address ones physiological and safety needs. For example I am provided with a substantial base salary, full health benefits as well as a company car, gas and insurance for that car. As for Maslows love need we as individuals are placed in pods also know as teams selling the same or similar products to physicians in one geographical territory, and this in a way is filling the need of belonging. However, Maslows esteem and physiological needs are harder to define with in my corporation. Filling an individuals esteem need is very dependent on the individual him or herself or the manager of that individual, and for self actualization how does one know he or she has ever been the best they can be? I have been with sanofi-aventis for over two years and have had four different managers and each with their own ideas on managing their employees. My first manager gave very little positive feedback and always focused on where or what you needed to work on, another manager only gave positive feedback, and hardly any criticism. So where in this situation did my esteem and self actualization needs get fulfilled. On one hand I of course loved the positive feedback and felt very confident when speaking with my physicians but was I ever improving to be the best I could be. Now after looking back and knowing what I know about Maslows Hierarchy of Needs I will ask future and current managers to provide both positive and constructive feedback on every ride along to satisfy my necessary needs and become more motivated with in my job.
Vrooms Expectancy Theory was put forth to examine motivation from the perspective of why people choose to follow a particular course of action. The key concepts with in Vrooms model are Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality. (Kreitner & Kinick, 247) Valence is the importance that the individual places upon the expected outcome of a situation. For example, most employees with in my industry including myself have a positive valance for receiving additional money or recognition from our managers. Expectancy, another concept is the belief that output from the individual and the success of the situation are linked, “thus, it is the depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic (money, free time, benefits) or intrinsic (satisfaction) rewards.” Not all outcomes possess a positive valence for example getting a promotion, coupled with a transfer to an undesirable location, may well result in a negative valence. Effective managers thus seek to discover what employees value.” (Value based management.net)
Lastly Vrooms Instrumentality concept is the belief that the success of the situation is linked to the expected outcome of the situation, example I have exceeded my sales target, so Id expect praise or an award. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 248)
This theory would seem most appropriate to a traditional-attitude work situation where how motivated the employee is depends on whether they want the reward for doing a good job and whether they believe more effort will lead to that reward. However, it could equally apply to any situation where someone does something because they expect a certain outcome. For example, I inform physicians about treatment methods of certain disease states, because I think its important to make physicians aware of medications sanofi-aventis brings to market(valence); I think that the more effort I put into teaching physicians about my products the more those physicians will prescribe my product(expectancy);
The theory of motivated motivation has its roots in the work of the German economist Heinz Kogel (1939-1983).[1] He believed that motivation is derived not in its ability to help motivate its members but in the ability of their activities to persuade others to do what is expected to make them happy, especially if others follow that direction. He held that motivated individuals make decisions not necessarily by themselves—and hence did not have to act based on a specific goal or even the idea of that goal itself.
However, he proposed a change to Kogel’s theory that should be possible if motivation can be developed as a tool that is effective in other areas, as discussed in part R.1.
“Our current ideas have been developed by people who understand that what we have proposed is a naturalistic or scientific theory of human behaviour that is developed from different scientific facts. No one in that sense can claim to understand the nature of such a theory, but it is possible, and certainly practical, to know how to improve it, if we have one. But this is impossible without a scientific method,” wrote Kogel in 1934 in the “Universität Herne” of the German National Academy in Berlin, which he taught at Ludwig-Maximilians University.[2]
In other words, Kogel’s theory is essentially the same as the theories of Heinz Kogel, his predecessor Heinz Västermann and others who developed a scientific method and implemented a policy for how to manage incentives to promote more efficient behavior to achieve higher outcomes from altruistic actions. Both Kogel and Heinz Kogel did not always follow the work of their predecessors. Kogel was very conservative about his methods. His best efforts to reduce the social cost of doing evil (for example, by denying benefits to certain people) had an immediate consequences that could be seen in his ethical behavior.[3]
Kogel was not only strict to what he could do to improve himself and that of his subordinates, but also to his actions. While he did not change his methods, he often took a position that would be seen as irrational, so that when his behavior was not right, he punished his subordinates for failing to do the right thing.[4] Kogel was also not always tolerant of others’ behavior, as he might refuse to say the right things if others rejected his opinion or actions.
After Kogel’s death in 1934, his heirs began to offer several different explanations relating to how they changed Kogel’s theories. The first was that they could not keep up the pace of an increasing number of research projects involving different tasks, because the new tasks were too expensive, and as a result, they tended to involve increasing