Managing people

Module Code 26302 Student Number 201104762

Introduction Motivation is a vast domain and has been studies from ancient times. From Aristotle and Plato to the latest motivation theories, it is a domain constantly expanding because of the need to understand human nature and mainly for the use in the business environment. Managers look continuously for better ways to get employees to move in the desired direction, mainly to efficiency and performance. The following essay is a look at two of the most influential theories in the domain of work motivation: Herzbergs two-factor theory and Edwins goal setting theory. Also an examination of how are they still applicable in todays business environment Motivation can be defined as the totality of factors, internal and external, that are responsible for an individuals intention, persistence and direction towards attaining a goal. (Robbins, Judge and Campbell 2010, 140-141) Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individuals being to initiate work related behaviour and determine its form, direction, intensity and duration (Pinder, 1998, p. 11) . Defining the theories Herzberg two-factor theory, also called motivation-hygiene theory, states that to initiate work related behaviour you can use two set of factors: hygiene factors and motivation through techniques focused on job content. Hygiene factors are: paying benefits, company policy, relationships with coworkers and the physical environment. The list of motivator factors is: recognition, achievement, promotion responsibility, growth and work itself. The hygiene factors are the ones causing dissatisfaction by being absent or inadequate but they have little or no effect to the long term satisfaction. On the other hand, the control of the motivator factors determines job satisfaction and motivation. He considered a different approach to the common one, considering that at the other end of satisfaction it is not dissatisfaction but rather no satisfaction. (Herzberg, 1987) According to Herzberg the surest way to make somebody do something is through a kick in the ass (KITA), this can be positive (improving hygiene factors) or negative, but this results only in temporary movement not motivation. (1987) Goal-setting theory was developed by the American psychologist Edwin Locke in the late 1960s. He proposed that intentions to work toward attaining a goal are a major source of work motivation. (Robbins, Judge and Campbell 2010, 149). Goals are internally ideas (desired ends) and externally refer to the object or idea sought. Two main attributes are content and intensity. Qualitatively, the content of a goal is what the person is

seeking for and quantitatively the difficulty and specificity of the goal. (Locke, 1996) Goal-setting is an open theory leaving room for improvement. Through 30 years of research Locke discovered that goals that are more specific and difficult lead to greater achievement but all this is influenced by commitment to the goal, ability, feedback, selfefficacy etc. He studied using 40 000 subjects from eight countries, the success rate of the experiment being up to 90%. (1996) Differences and similarities between the theories The main difference between the two theories will be the direction they are interested in. Motivation-hygiene is a content theory being concerned with what motivates employees and not with the specific process that leads to that. Herzberg focused more on identifying the factors that lead to motivation in a static environment, seeking to understand how the job content influences motivation and performance. The main focus was on the role of individual differences. On the other hand, Lockes theory is categorized as a process theory, being concerned with How. He as other process theorists viewed motivation from a dynamic perspective, trying to underline the cognitive process that goes on in the individual and directs him to a direction in the workplace. (Steers, Mowday, Shapiro, 2004) One of Lockes findings was that by providing feedback, goal setting is more effective. (1996). Latham et all (2002) also concluded that rewards lead to high satisfaction which in term leads to high self-efficiency and the setting of even higher goals in the future, thus considering reward a motivator (Latham and Pinder. 2005). In Herzbergs view rewards can be included in what he considers to be positive KITA. He compares the rewarding process to the training of a dog because by giving a dog a biscuit you can make him move in the direction you desire but only momentarily. This is applicable to people also but will not lead to the result desired by managers because the employee will be always expecting a reward.(1987) Herzberg considers that eternally produced movement is not motivation although motivation is defined as a movement process. Lockes goal-setting theory is almost a response to Hertzbergs theory, by addressing the denial of individual differences. Similar to previous criticism of the two-factor theory, Locke considers that although individuals needs can be similar their values are not and values have the greatest impact on the emotional response to the job. Therefore, individuals being different dont place the same importance to incentives or rewards for example, so Hertzbergs method of studies deprives them of this. Herzberg divides the basic human need into psychological and biological considering them as being of a dual nature, functioning apart from each other and not related. Locke proposes that the mind and body are very closely related and that trough the mind does one discover the physiological need and ways to satisfy them. (Tietjen and Myers 1998)

All factors that influence a persons motivation in Herzberg view are coming from within while the hygiene factors are all the things that can be influenced and controlled by somebody else. This leads to the idea that he considered motivation as being only an intrinsic process. Locke studied motivation as being both external and internal. Goal-setting although more effective when coming from within an individual can also accepts the tasks coming from the exterior. In regard to the similarities between the theories: both theories address the problem of recognition and importance. Trough his studies Locke discovered that individuals that are convinced that the goal they are perusing are important thus attracting greater satisfaction are likely to be more committed and persistent in achieving it. (1996) Herzberg considers that the working environment is continually improving the working condition thus solving the dissatisfaction produced by lack of hygiene factors. This results in the individuals being concerned with higher needs as feeling of being important. People want more than just to avoid pain, they want to make a higher sense. (1987) Another one of the similarities between the theories is the fact that they both consider ability as in important factor in the motivation process. Herzberg pointed out that not all jobs can be enriched and that workers cant be motivated to do more if they dont have the required abilities. You cant motivate somebody to do a god job if they cant do a good job. Training is also an important component in motivating because the more a person can do the more you can motivate. (1970) Similar to this, Locke considers that a persons abilities are very important when setting a goal. People are likely to be more committed to attaining the goal when they feel that it is in their capacity. Motivation is lost when workers consider that they can succeed but this can be changed with training, experience and expressions of confidence and roll-modelling. Lee et all (1994) found that financial reward may facilitate commitment and performance except when the reward is offered for attaining impossible goals; then the performance actually drops. (Locke, 1996) Furthermore, both theories consider job itself as the most important factor leading to satisfaction. The content of the job although influenced by the physical environment can not be controlled by it but merely by the emotions and attitudes related to the duty. While non job factors and personal aspects of ones life can influence the behaviour of a work thus satisfaction it is the job that brings fulfilment. (Tietjen and Myers 1998) Appropriateness to todays environment Hertzbergs model is not and can not be considered a comprehensive theory of work motivation. By describing only some aspects of the motivation content it is an inadequate construction of the motivation process. Regardless of this motivation-hygiene theory became widely popular. Even though considered one of the most influential theories Herzbergs theory has prove to be fully supported only when using the initial methodology. (Locke, 1975)

More than half of the studies conducted and published evidence contradicts the theory. Grigaliunas & Herzberg (1971) argue that researchers who fail to find support to the M-H theory have departed from the original method. (Gardner, 1977) In most of the jobs, in which motivation techniques are used, hygiene factors are no longer a problem and most of the factors are regulated by work laws so the only factors leading to satisfaction remain the ones Herzberg called motivators. Todays society is orientated to recognition, achievement, growth more than ever before thats why Herzbergs theory can be considered more accurate today than when it was created. But we can not say that this apply to every culture in the same degree. Latham and Pinder consider goal-setting theory as one of the most important approaches to work motivation to appear in the last 30 years. Goal-setting ca be efficiently applied in any domain in which an individual has some control over the outcomes. (Locke and Latham 1979) Goal-setting has internal and external support from over 88 different tasks, involving 40,000 male and female participants all over the world. Because of its simple form and utility it is widely used by todays managers and has been proven to increase performance to 19 percent. (Latham and Locke, 1979) There can be found dozens of studies in which goal setting theory has been applied successfully. A product of the late society are the MLM Companies (Multi Level Marketing) for which we can say that the basic of the goal setting theory are applied. For example Amway has proven to exploit the goal setting process successfully by now being active in more than 50 countries. Conclusion To sum up, the main difference between the two theories consist of the main problem they are addressing: Herzberg theory is concerned with what while Lockes is concerned with how. They also differ at the level of perception of individuality: Herzberg looks at the psychological and biological need as two distinct components of the human nature while Locke looks at them as the part of the same nature, matters concerning the rewarding process: Lockes considers the rewarding process as being of high importance while Herzberg excludes it from the motivation process, and the internality or externality of the motivation process, Herzberg looks at motivation as being only intrinsic while Locke sees it as both an intrinsic and extrinsic process. The theories have similar point regarding importance of significant tasks, ability and job itself as important factors of motivation. We can safely say that both theories have stood the test of time, and can be used in todays business environment.

Bibliography Gardner G. (1977). Is there a valid test of Herzberg two-factor theory? Journal of Occupational Psychology, Volume 50, Issue 3, pages 197204. Herzberg F. (1987). One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review Latham P. and Pinder C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56: 485-516. Locke A. E. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Cambridge University Press, Applied & Preventive Psychology 5:117-124 Pinder CC, (1998). Work motivation in organisational behaviour. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall Locke E. and Latham P. (2006). New directions in goal setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell); Oct2006, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p265-268, 4p, 1 Diagram Locke E. and Latham P, (1979). Goal setting a motivational technique that works. Organizational Dynamics, Volume: 8, Issue: 2, Publisher: Prentice Hall, Pages: 68-80 Locke E. (1975). Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 28: 175-196 Robbins S., Judge T., Campbell T. (2010). Organizational behaviour. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, 2010 - 624 pages Steers M., Mowday T. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, Volume: 29, Issue: 3, Publisher: Academy of Management, Pages: 379-387 Tietjen M. and Myers M. (1998). Motivation and job satisfaction. Management Decision Volume: 36 Issue: 4, 226-231.