MBA, UGC NET, UPSC Study Notes on design and implementation of strategy - Constituents of Strategy implementation, Administrative Aspects of Strategy Implementation, Matching Organization Structure to Strategy, The Strategy-Related Pros and Cons of Alternative Organization Forms Aligning culture and strategy: Impact of Organizational Culture on Strategy Implementation, Aligning resources and capabilities with strategy

 Strategy Implementation

Just being able to conceits bold new strategies is not enough. The general manager must also be able to translate his or her strategic vision into concrete steps that "get things done”

Strategy formulation entails heavy doses of vision, analysis, and entrepreneurial judgment, successful strategy implementa­tion depends on the skills of working through others, organiz­ing, motivating, culture-building, and creating stronger fits be-teen strategy and how the organization operates Ingrained behavior does not change just because a new strategy has been announced. Practitioners emphatically state that it is a whole lot easier to develop a sound strategic plan than it is to make it happen.

Constituents of Strategy implementation

What makes the job of the strategy manager so complicated when it comes to implementation is the number of tasks involved and the variety of ways to approach each task. Strategy implementation has to be tailored to the organization's overall condition and selling, to the nature of the strategy and the amount of strategic change involved and to the manager's own skills, style, and methods.

Four broad areas stand out:

1. Performing the recurring administrative tasks associated with strategy implemen­tation.

2. Creating "fits" between strategy and the various internal "ways of doing things" in order to align the whole organization behind strategy accomplishment.

3   Figuring out an agenda and a set of action priorities that matches¹ up well with the organization's overall situation and the context of the- sluing in which imple­mentation must take place.

4.  What managerial approach and leadership style to adopt in inducing the needed organizational changes.

The strategy implementers’ challenge in performing these tasks is to bring the organization's conduct of internal operations into good alignment with strategy and to unite the total organization- behind strategy accomplishment. The implemented job is one of building such enthusiasm and commitment up and down the ranks that a virtual organization wide crusade emerges to carry out the chosen strategy.

Strategy-supportive matches are needed with organizational skills and capabilities, functional area activities, organization structure, reward systems, and incentives, policies and procedures, information systems and control mechanisms, budgets and programs, and shared values and cultural norms.

 Administrative Aspects of Strategy Implementation

The Manager's role in the implementation process is to lead and keynote the tone, pace, and style of strategy imple­mentation. There are many ways to proceed. A strategy implementer can opt for an active, visible role or a low-key, behind the scenes role. He or she can elect to make decisions authoritatively or on the basis of consensus, to delegate much or little, to be deeply involved in the details of implementation or to remain aloof from the day-to-day problems. It is up to the strategy implementer to decide whether to proceed swiftly (launching implementation initiatives on many fronts) or lo move deliberately, content with gradual progress over a long period.    

To some extent, therefore, each strategy implementation situation is unique enough or require the strategy manager to tailor his or her action agenda to fit the specific organizational environment at hand- This forces the manager to be conscious of all that strategy implementation involves and to diagnose carefully the action priorities and in what sequence things need to be done. The manager's role is thus all-important His or her agenda for action and conclusions about how hard and how fast to push for change are decisive in shaping the character of implementation and moving the process along.

Successful strategy execution depends greatly on good internal organization, resources, healthy work culture and com­petent personnel. Building a capable organization is thus always a top strategy imple­mentation priority. Some of the organizational issues that stand out as dominant:

·       Developing an internal organization structure that is responsive to the needs of the people of the organisation.

·       Keeping a tune with the culture of the organisation that is aligning strategy with corporate culture and competencies.

·       Developing the skills and distinctive competences in which the strategy grounded and seeing that the organization has the managerial talents, technical expertise, and competitive capabilities it needs.

·       Keeping a match among the resources and routine activities that can be easily incorporated with the strategy.

·       Selecting people for key positions.

Matching Organization Structure to Strategy

The following five-sequence procedure serves as a useful guide for fitting structure to strategy:

·       Pinpoint the key functions and tasks requisite for successful strategy execution

·       Reflect on how the strategy-critical functions and organizational units relate to those that are routine and to those that provide staff support-

·       Make strategy-critical business units and functions the main organizational build­ing blocks.

·       Determine the degrees of authority needed to manage each organizational unit, bearing in mind both the benefits and costs of decentralized decision making.

·       Provide for coordination among the various organizational units.

1.Pinpoint the key functions and tasks requisite for successful strategy execution

 In any organization, some activ­ities and skills are always more critical to strategic success than others are. The strategy-critical activities vary according to the particulars of a firm's strategy and competitive requirements. To help identify what an organization's strategy-critical activities are, two questions can usefully be posed:

"What functions have to be performed extra well and on time for the strategy to succeed? and

 "In what areas bad performance would seriously endanger strategic success?

The answers to these two questions should point squarely at what activities and skills are crucial and where to concentrate organization-building efforts.

2. Understanding the Relationships among Activities

Activities can be re­lated by the flow of material through the production process, the type of customer served, the distribution channels used, the technical skills and know-how needed to perform them, a strong need to centralized authority over them, the sequence in which tasks must be performed, and geographic location, to mention some of the most obvious ways. Such relationships are important because one (or more) of the interrela­tionships usually become the basis for grouping activities into organizational units. If the needs of strategy are to drive organization design, then the relationships to look for are those that link one piece of the strategy to another.

3. Grouping Activities into Organization Units

If activities crucial to strategic success are to get the attention and visibility they merit, then they have to be a prominent part of the organizational scheme.

When key functions and critical tasks take a backseat to less important activities, the politics of organizational budget making usually leads to them being given fewer resources and accorded less significance than they actually have. On the other hand, when they form the core of the whole organization structure, their role and power in the overall scheme of things is highlighted and institutionalized. Senior managers can seldom give a stronger signal as to what is strategically important than by making key function and critical skills the most prominent organizational building blocks and, further, assigning them a high position in the organizational pecking order.

4.Determining the Degree of Authority and independence to be given to Each Unit

Activities and organizational units with a key role in strategy execution should not made subordinate to routine and non-key activities. Revenue-producing and results-producing activities should not made subordinate to internal support or staff functions. With few exceptions, decisions should delegate to those managers closest to the scene of the action. Corporate-level authority over operating decisions at the business-unit level and below should hold to a minimum. The crucial administrative skill is selecting strong managers to head up each unit and delegating them enough authority to formulate and execute an appropriate strategy for their unit.

5.Providing for Coordination among the Units

Providing for coordination of the activities of organizational units is accomplished mainly through positioning them in the hierarchy of authority. Managers higher up in the pecking order generally have authority over more organizational units and thus the power to coordinate, inte­grate, and otherwise arrange for the cooperation of the units under their supervision. The chief executive officer, to chief operating officer, and business-level managers are_, of course central points of coordination because they have broad authority. Besides positioning organizational units along the vertical scale of managerial author­ity, coordination of strategic efforts can also achieved through informal meetings, project teams, special task forces, standing committees, formal strategy reviews, and annual strategic planning and budgeting cycles. Additionally, the formulation of the strategic plan itself serves a coordinating role; the whole process of negotiating and deciding on the objectives and strategies of each organizational unit and making sure that related activities mesh suitably help coordinate operations, across organizational units.

Structure Evolves as Strategy Evolves: The Stages Model

Four distinct stages of strategy-related organization structure have singled out:

Stage I  organizations, are small, single-business enterprises managed by one person. The owner-entrepreneur has close daily contact with employees and each phase of operations. Most employees report directly to the owner, who mates all the pertinent decisions regarding mission, objectives, strategy, and daily operations.

Stage II organizations differ from Stage I enterprises in one essential aspect: an increased scale and scope of operations force a transition from one-person management to group management.

Stage III consists of organization whose operations, though concen­trated in a single field or product line, are scattered over a wide geographical area and large enough to justify having geographically decentralized operating units. These units all report to corporate headquarters and conform to corporate policies, but they are given the flexibility to tailor their unit's strategic plan to meet the specific needs of each respective geographic area. Ordinarily, each of the geographic operating units Of a Stage III Organization is structured along functional lines.

The key difference between Stage II and Stage III, however, is that while the functional units of a Stage II organization stand or fall together (in that they are built around one business and one end market), the geographic operating units of a Stage III firm can stand alone (or nearly so) in the sense that the operations in each geographic unit are not dependent on those in other areas. Typical firms in this category are breweries, cement companies, and steel mills having production capacity and sales organizations m several geographically separate market areas.

Stage IV includes large, diversified firms decentralized by line of business. Typically, each separate business unit is headed by a general manager who has profit-and-loss responsibility and whose authority extends across all of the unit's functional areas except, perhaps, accounting and capital investment (both of which are traditionally subject to corporate approval). Both business strategy decisions and operating decisions are concentrated at the line-of-business level rather than at the corporate level

The Strategy-Related Pros and Cons of Alternative Organization Forms

There are essentially five strategy-related approaches to organization:

(1) Functional specialization,

 (2) Geographic organization,

(3) Decentralized business divisions,

(4) Strategic business units, and

(5) Matrix structures featuring dual lines of authority and strategic priority.

1.The Functional Organization Structure

Generally speaking- organizing by functional specialties promotes full utilization of the most up-to-date technical skills and helps a business capitalize on the efficiency gains result­ing from use of [hose technical skills; it also helps a business capitalize on the efficiency gains resulting from the use of specialized manpower, faculties, and equipment. These are strategically important considerations for single-business organizations, dominant-product enterprises, and vertically integrated firms, and account for why they usually have some kind of centralized, functionally specialized structure.

2. Geographic Forms of Organization

Used by large-scale enterprises whose strategies need to be tailored to fit the particular needs and features of different geographical areas. In the private sector, a territorial structure is typically utilized by chain store retailers, power companies, cement firms, and dairy products enterprises. In the public sector, such organizations as the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Admin­istration, the Indian Postal Service, the state troopers, have adopted territorial structures in order to be directly accessible to geographi­cally dispersed clients.

3. Decentralized Business Units

Grouping activities along business and prod­uct lines has been a clear-cut trend among diversified enterprises for the past half-century, beginning with the pioneering efforts of Du Pont and General Motors in the 1920s. Separate business/product divisions emerged because diversification made a functionally specialized manager's job incredibly complex. Strategy implementation is facilitated by grouping key activities belonging to the same business under one organizational roof, thereby creating line-of-business units (which then can be subdivided into whatever functional subunits suit the key activities/ critical tasks makeup of the business}. The outcome is not only a structure, which fits strategy, but also a structure that makes the jobs of managers more doable. The creation of separate business units is then accomplished by decentralizing authority over the unit to the business-level manager. The approach, very simply, is to put entrepreneurial general managers in charge of the business unit, giving them enough authority to formulate and implement the business Strategy chat they deem appropriate, motivating them with incentives, and then holding than accountable for the results they produce. However, when a strong strategic fit exists across related business units, it can be tough to get autonomy-conscious business-unit managers to cooperate in coordinating and snaring related activities. They are prone to argue long and hard about "turf" and about held accountable for activities not totally under their control.

4. Strategic Business Units

A strategic business unit (SBU) is a grouping of business units based on some important strategic elements common to each; the possible elements of relatedness include an overlapping set of competitors, a closely related strategic mission, a common need to compete globally, an ability to accomplish integrated strategic planning, com­mon key success factors, and technologically related growth opportunities.

5. Matrix Forms of Organization

A matrix organization is a structure with two for more) channels of command, two lines of budget authority, and two sources of performance and reward. The key feature of the matrix is that product (or business) and functional lines of authority are overlaid (to form a matrix or grid), and managerial authority over the activities in each unit/cell of the matrix is shared between the product manager and functional manager.

Selecting People for Key Positions

Assembling a capable management team is an obvious part of the strategy implementa­tion task. The recurring administrative issues here center on what kind of core management team is needed to carry out the strategy and finding the people to fill each slot. Sometimes the existing management team is suitable and sometimes the core executive group needs to strengthened and/or expanded, either by promoting qualified people from within or by bringing in skilled managerial talent from the outside to help infuse fresh ideas and fresh approaches into the organization's manage­ment. In turnaround situations, in rapid-growth situations, and in those cases, where the right kinds of managerial experience and skills are not present in-house, recruiting outsiders to fill key management slots is a standard part of the organization-building process.

Aligning culture and strategy:  Impact of Organizational Culture on Strategy Implementation

Organizational culture includes the shared beliefs, norms and values within an organization. It sets the foundation for strategy. For a strategy within an organization to develop and be implemented successfully, it must fully align with the organizational culture. Thus, initiatives and goals must be established within an organization to support and establish an organizational culture that embraces the organization’s strategy over time.

Flexibility and Adaptability

Organizations that remain flexible are more likely to embrace change and create an environment that remains open to production and communication. This provides a model that welcomes cultural diversity and helps clarify strategy implementation. Culture within an organization can serve many purposes, including unifying members within an organization and help create a set of common norms or rules within an organization that employees follow.

Characteristics of Stability

A stable culture, one that will systematically support strategy implementation, is one that fosters a culture of partnership, unity, teamwork and cooperation among employees. This type of corporate culture will enhance commitment among employees and focus on productivity within the organization rather than resistance to rules and regulations or external factors that prohibit success.

Goal Unification

Flexible, strong and unified cultures will approach strategy implementation and affect implementation in a positive manner by aligning goals. Goals can come into alignment when the organizational culture works to focus on productivity and getting the organization’s primary mission accomplished. This may include getting products delivered to customers on time, shipping out more products than the organization’s chief competitor or similar goals. This will create a domino effect in the organization that ensures that all work performed by each individual in the company and work group focuses on performance and on the strategic importance of the company. This allows culture to align with strategy implementation at the most basic level. For this level of unification to work, goal setting must align with and be supported by systems, policies, procedures and processes within the organization, thereby helping to achieve strategy implementation and continuing the cultural integrity of the organization.

Process Implementation

Part of cultural alignment and strategy implementation involves process implementation. Processes include utilizing technology to facilitate goal attainment and the results a company is looking for when working with customers to meet their needs. While most of the time the hard problems and needs of an organization get met, the culture becomes neglected in the process. That is where processes come into place and strategy implementation gradually comes into existence to uphold and maintain organizational culture and strategies.

Cultural Alignment

When culture aligns with strategy implementation, an organization is able to more efficiently operate in the global marketplace. Culture allows organizational leaders to work both individually and as teams to develop strategic initiatives within the organization. These may include building new partnerships and re-establishing old ones to continue delivering the best possible products and services to a global market.

Aligning resources and capabilities with strategy

In appraising resources and capabilities to guide strategy formulation there are four key steps. Firstly, the key resources and capabilities have to be identified. Next they have to be appraised both for their strategic importance, and then for their comparative strength in relation to competitors. Finally, strategic implications — how these capabilities can drive value — have to be developed.

1.Identifying Key Resources and Capabilities

The first step is to identify the firm’s key resources and capabilities, and this should be done both from the client end (what the clients need) and the firm’s supply end (what the firm offers). It helps to thoroughly identify, analyze and appraise key resources and capabilities. This work should include an overall look at the practice, some investigation of client needs, industry and sector analysis, financial analysis, market intelligence, partner interviews and practice-group discussions.

2. Assessing the Strategic Importance of The Firm’s Resources and Capabilities

The principle here is to assess how vital (or unimportant) it is for the firm or a department to have certain capabilities in order to successfully pursue their strategic objectives. The true test of strategic importance is to assess the extent to which the resources and capabilities of the firm actually give the firm a sustainable competitive advantage against its rivals.

3.  Relative Strength

Resources and capabilities need to be assessed for relative strength compared with those firms identified as competitors. A thorough competitor analysis — considering the likely strategies of competitors, their overall objectives, their resources and capabilities, their positioning in their markets, their specialist strengths, the sorts of clients and sectors they serve, their pricing, service levels and profitability — all helps to establish ways in which the firm can successfully compete. In its review of comparative strength of resources and capabilities, the firm should also look out for stagnating capabilities and declining competitiveness. Where relevant, benchmarking and other analytical methods should be used to move from subjective to objective analysis.

4.Bringing It All Together

How does the firm exploit its key strengths more effectively and what should the firm do about its vulnerabilities either to correct them or reduce the firm’s exposure to them? The next step, therefore, is to develop some strategic implications so as to exploit strengths more effectively and so as to address weaknesses by correction development, outsourcing or acquisition of further resources.

Motivation Theories - Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Expectancy theory Equity Theory Goal-setting theory- Motivational Factors Influencing The Productivity Role Of Motivation In Higher Productivity Motivational Strategies To Encourage Productivity

 Introduction to Motivation

Motivation Defined

Motivational Theories & Research

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Expectancy theory

Equity Theory

Goal-setting theory

Motivational Factors Influencing The Productivity

Role Of Motivation In Higher Productivity

Motivational Strategies To Encourage Productivity

Introduction to Motivation

At one time, employees were considered just another input into the production of goods and services. What perhaps changed this way of thinking about employees was research, referred to as the Hawthorne Studies, conducted by Elton Mayo from 1924 to 1932 (Dickson, 1973). This study found employees are not motivated solely by money and employee behavior is linked to their attitudes (Dickson, 1973). The Hawthorne Studies began the human relations approach to management, whereby the needs and motivation of employees become the primary focus of managers (Bedeian, 1993).

Motivation involves a constellation of beliefs, perceptions, values, interests, and actions that are all closely related. As a result, various approaches to motivation can focus on cognitive behaviors (such as monitoring and strategy use), non-cognitive aspects (such as perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes), or both. For example, Gottfried (1990) defines academic motivation as “enjoyment of school learning characterized by a mastery orientation; curiosity; persistence; task-endogeny; and the learning of challenging, difficult, and novel tasks” (p. 525). On the other hand, Turner (1995) considers motivation to be synonymous with cognitive engagement, which he defines as “voluntary uses of high-level self-regulated learning strategies, such as paying attention, connection, planning, and monitoring” (p. 413).

Motivation Defined

Many contemporary authors have also defined the concept of motivation. Motivation has been defined as: the psychological process that gives behavior purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995); a predisposition to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific, unmet needs (Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995); an internal drive to satisfy an unsatisfied need (Higgins, 1994); and the will to achieve (Bedeian, 1993). For this paper, motivation is operationally defined as the inner force that drives individuals to accomplish personal and organizational goals.

Motivation refers to “the reasons underlying behavior” (Guay et al., 2010, p. 712). Paraphrasing Gredler, Broussard and Garrison (2004) broadly define motivation as “the attribute that moves us to do or not to do something” (p. 106). Intrinsic motivation is motivation that is animated by personal enjoyment, interest, or pleasure. As Deci et al. (1999) observe, “intrinsic motivation energizes and sustains activities through the spontaneous satisfactions inherent in effective volitional action. It is manifest in behaviors such as play, exploration, and challenge seeking that people often do for external rewards” (p. 658). Researchers often contrast intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation, which is motivation governed by reinforcement contingencies. Traditionally, educators consider intrinsic motivation to be more desirable and to result in better learning outcomes than extrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999).

Motivational Theories & Research

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

It is one of the most well known motivational theories. Abraham Maslow’s theory identifies five levels of hierarchical needs that every individual attempts to accomplish or conquer throughout one’s life. The needs start with the physiological (hunger, thirst, shelter) and then move upward in a pyramid shape through safety, social, and esteem needs, to the ultimate need for self-actualization. This final need for self-actualization is defined as one’s desire and striving towards maximum personal potential. The pyramid shape to the theory is intended to show that some needs are more important that others and must be satisfied before the other needs can serve as motivators (Schermerhorn, 2003). Maslow argued that lower level needs had to be satisfied before the next higher level need would motivate employees. “According to Maslow, once a lower-level need has been largely satisfied, its impact on behavior diminishes” (Hunsaker, 2005). One of the difficulties with using this theory to analyze organizations is that although it may appear very easy to implement, it is difficult to relate this distinct five-level hierarchy within an organization. Many times when this theory has been used, the results show that the needs that contribute to motivation more heavily vary according to the level of the individual, the size of the organization, and even the geographic location of the company.

McClelland’s Need Theory

It explores the idea that there are three major “needs” that one will acquire over their lifetime as a result of the experiences in their careers or in their own personal lives (Schermerhorn, 2003).  McClelland believed that in order to understand human behavior and how an individual can be motivated, you must first understand their needs and inclinations. The Need for Achievement encompasses the desire to do better, to solve problems, and to master complex tasks. The Need for Affiliation is the desire for friendly and warm relations with others. These are often those passive individuals that try to avoid conflict at all times, even when it might be necessary to fulfill a task. Finally, the Need for Power is the desire to control others and influence their behavior. This is the need that carried a fairly negative connotation; however it has been proven that successful, well-respected managers often lean towards those power need tendencies. Managers who possess the Need for Power tendencies in combination with the Need for Achievement can also be very effective managers. A manager with both characteristics would not only try to oversee the situation or environment, but also is continually looking for ways to improve the current situation and is not afraid to take on difficult projects or leadership roles. This theory may be very useful in an organization as a predictor of future managers or project leaders; however it limits the results to only three categories. In reality, all three of the needs established in this theory define an individual’s personality, which need tends to show itself in certain situations could be used as the predictor. Managers should use this theory to identify the needs within themselves, their coworkers and subordinates to create work environments that are responsive to those need characteristics (Schermerhorn, 2003).

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

This theory divides motivation and job satisfaction into two groups of factors known as the motivation factors and hygiene factors. According to Frederick Herzberg, “the motivating factors are the six ‘job content’ factors that include achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and possibility of growth. Hygiene factors are the ‘job context’ factors, which include company policy, supervision, relationship with supervision, work conditions, relationship with peers, salary, personal life, relationship with subordinates, status, and job security” (Ruthankoon, 2003). Basically the theory differentiates the factors between intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators. The intrinsic motivators, known as the job content factors, define things that the people actually do in their work; their responsibility and achievements. These factors are the ones that can contribute a great deal to the level of job satisfaction an employee feels at work. The job context factors, on the other hand, are the extrinsic factors that someone as an employee does not have much control over; they relate more to the environment in which people work than to the nature of the work itself (Schermerhorn, 2003). Herzberg identifies these factors as the sources for job dissatisfaction. “Hertzberg reasoned that because the factors causing satisfaction are different from those causing dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of one another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction. While at first glance this distinction between the two opposites may sound like a play on words, Herzberg argued that there are two distinct human needs portrayed” (“Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory,” 2002). Therefore, the basic premise of the Two-Factor Theory is that if an employer or manager is trying to increase job satisfaction and ultimately job performance for an employee or coworker, they need to address those factors that affect one’s job satisfaction. The most direct approach is to work on the intrinsic, job content factors. Giving the employee encouragement and recognition helps them to feel more valued  within the company, as well as giving a sense of achievement and responsibility. Herzberg says, that “the only way to motivate the employee is to give him [her] challenging work in which he [she] can assume responsibility” (Leach, 2000). If the employee does not feel some responsibility associated with a certain task or department, he/she will not feel like their work is worthwhile. Also “people must believe that they are capable of attaining a goal before they will commit serious energy [or motivation] to it” (Hunsaker, 2005). Therefore, it is important to include your employees in the decision making and at times the job assignment or delegation. This will help the employee to feel more responsibility and in turn a higher level of motivation. On the other hand, employers need to consider the level of job dissatisfaction among their employees as well. To directly approach the issue of dissatisfaction in the work place and to try and revitalize the environment a bit, employers need to focus on the hygiene or job context factors. For example if an employer brings in an ergonomic expert to alter the workstations in some way or change up some of the work teams, they might decide to turn the individual’s desk to face a certain direction or change something as little as the height of the employees’ chair, or position or style of the keyboard and computer monitor. In the two-factor theory, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are totally separate dimensions. Therefore, when trying to improve a factor that effects job dissatisfaction, an extrinsic factor, such as the working conditions, this will not alter the employees perception of whether they are satisfied with their work; it will only prevent them from being dissatisfied (Schermerhorn, 2003). 

The following is a brief explanation of the factors and how they might apply to the work environment. All of the factors, both motivation and hygiene, can have positive and negative attributes; however, both will have an effect on the employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction none the less. The following is a glance at each of the motivation factors according to Herzberg.

Achievement

An example of positive achievement might be if an employee completes a task or project before the deadline and receives high reviews on the result, the satisfaction the employee feels would increase. However, if that same individual is unable to finish the project in time, or feels rushed and is unable to do the job well, the satisfaction level may decrease.

Recognition

When the employee receives the acknowledgement they deserve for a job well done, the satisfaction will increase. If the employees work is overlooked or criticized it will have the opposite effect.

Work itself

This involves the employees’ perception of whether the work is too difficult or challenging, too easy, boring or interesting.

Responsibility

This involves the degree of freedom an employee has to make their own decisions and implement their own ideas. The more liberty to take on that responsibility 9 the more inclined the employee may be to work harder on the project, and be more satisfied with the result.

Advancement

This refers to the expected or unexpected possibility of promotion. An example of negative advancement would be if an employee did not receive an expected promotion or demotion.

Possibility of Growth

This motivation factor includes the chance one might have for advancement within the company. This could also include the opportunity to learn a new skill or trade. When the possibility/opportunity for growth is lacking or if the employee has reached the peak or glass ceiling, as it is sometimes referred to, this could have a negative effect on the satisfaction the employee feels with their job and position.

The following are the hygiene factors, which work in the same way with positive or negative attributes; however these factors can only have an effect on the dissatisfaction one feels.

Company Policy or Administration

An employee’s perception of whether the policies in place are good or bad or fair or not, changes the level of dissatisfaction that employee will feel.

Personal or Working Relationships

This is those relationships one engages in with their supervisors, peers, and subordinates. How someone feels about the interaction and discussions that take place within the work environment can also effect dissatisfaction.

Working conditions

This includes the physical surroundings that one works within, such as the facilities or location.

Salary

This factor is fairly simple, the increase or decrease of wage or salary effects the dissatisfaction within a company a great deal.

Personal Life

Although people try to separate the two, work and personal life, it is inevitable that one will affect the other. Feeling a Job Security. This is a pretty significant factor. The sense of job security within a position or organization as a whole relates to the dissatisfaction as well. (Ruthankoon, 2003)

Expectancy theory

According to expectancy theory, employees choose to invest effort in courses of action by weighing their relative utilities—i.e., their probabilities of achieving desired outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Effort is a function of three beliefs:

Expectancy (effort will lead to performance),

Instrumentality (performance will lead to outcomes), and

Valence (these outcomes are important or valued).

These beliefs are thought to interactively influence effort, such that if any one of the beliefs is missing, the course of action will not be selected (Porter & Lawler, 1968). Without expectancy beliefs, employees feel that effort is futile; without instrumentality and valence beliefs, employees question whether

performance is worth the effort. Critically, expectancy theory is designed to account for the within-person decisions that employees make about whether, where, and how to invest their time and energy, rather than for differences in effort between employees. Expectancy theory has been tested in many studies, but is more often used as an organizing framework for generating and testing context-specific hypotheses. For example, researchers have applied expectancy theory to guide the development of models to explain variations in DUI arrests among police officers (Mastrofski, Ritti, & Snipes, 1994), efforts by middle managers to champion issues for senior executives to pursue (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998), home runs hit by major league baseball players (Harder, 1991), and strategic decisions in competitive markets (Chen & Miller, 1994). In a meta-analysis of 77 studies, Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) found that expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs were better predictors of psychological indicators of motivation (intentions and preferences) than of behavioral indicators (performance, effort, and choices), which may be an artifact of common method and source biases. Supporting one fundamental tenet of the theory, they found that expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs were more accurate predictors of within-person than between-person differences in criteria. However, they found that the multiplicative model explained little variance over and above the additive model. This may be an artifact of the low reliability of multiplicative measures. Moreover, the meta-analysis provided little information about causality, as most studies have been correlational rather than experimental. Nevertheless, the overall results suggest that expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs do take a valuable step toward explaining variance in. Research on expectancy theory has generated several controversies and unanswered questions. In light of evidence that expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs leave considerable variance in motivation unexplained (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996), it is critical to understand other forces that influence motivation. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) takes a productive step in this direction. According to this theory, planned actions are directly caused by intentions as micro-mediators of the belief-behavior relationship. Intentions are in turn a function of perceived behavioral control over the behavior, attitudes toward the behavior, and subjective norms about the behavior. Comparing the planned behavior and expectancy theories reveals both similarities and useful distinctions. Perceived behavioral control, which is akin to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) , corresponds to expectancy beliefs, as both describe employees’ judgments about whether they are capable of performing if they expend effort. Attitudes, which capture the extent to which an employee evaluates the behavior favorably, appear to overlap with both instrumentality and valence beliefs, which—in tandem—connote that the behavior will lead to favorable outcomes. Moving beyond expectancy theory, the theory of planned behavior adds subjective norms, or social expectations and pressure to engage in the behavior. The underlying premise is that employees derive utility not only from personal outcomes, but also from social rewards that convey approval, respect, and community and social punishments that convey disapproval, disrespect, and alienation. In a meta-analysis of 185 studies, Armitage and Conner (2001) found that perceived behavioral control, attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions combined to explain 27% of the variance in behaviors (31% when self-reported and 21% when objectively measured or observer-rated) and 39% of the variance in intentions. Both subjective norms and intentions explained unique variance in behaviors after accounting for perceived behavioral control and attitudes, which highlights the potential value of including these two psychological constructs to expand the predictive validity of expectancy theory. A second limitation of expectancy theory is that it is often viewed as overly calculative (Ashford et al., 1998; Mitchell & Daniels, 2003; Staw, 1984). Although the theory is reasonably effective in predicting motivation and behavior, it creates a caricature of how employees actually make decisions and experience motivation. With the possible exceptions of mathematicians, engineers, financial analysts, and economists, rarely have we seen an employee sit down and calculate the probabilities of effort leading to performance and performance leading to outcomes and the utility of these outcomes. It would be even more uncommon for an employee to perform these calculations for multiple possible courses of action. With this limitation in mind, scholars have begun to incorporate “hot” affective components into expectancy theory (Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). For example, Erez and Isen (2002) demonstrated that positive affect can increase expectancy, instrumentality, and valence beliefs, but only under task conditions that are supportive of these beliefs (e.g., working on a task in which performance is based on effort rather than chance). This research takes a step toward capturing the real-time, affect-laden processes through which expectancy, instrumentality, and valence judgments are made (see also Seo et al., 2004). Expectancy theory has also been criticized for failing to specify the nature and sources of variations in employees’ beliefs and judgments. Employees can attach valence not only to outcomes of performance, but also to effort and performance as ends in and of themselves. For example, Eisenberger’s (1992) theory of learned industriousness explains how, when employees are rewarded for effort over time, hard work can take on secondary reward properties, such that employees naturally enjoy the very experiencing of expending effort. In addition, employees tend to view performance as a reward in and of itself when they are growth-oriented (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), conscientious (Grant, 2008b), and achievement-motivated (McClelland, 1961), suggesting that they will place valence on performance even when there are no external outcomes attached to it. Finally, expectancy theory falls short of explaining how employees update and change their beliefs over time (Mitchell & Biglan, 1971). For example, valence beliefs can change as employees realize that their actual satisfaction with an outcome is different (e.g., lower or higher) than the satisfaction that they anticipated (e.g., Wilson & Gilbert, 2005). As an endogenous process theory (Katzell & Thompson, 1990), the focus has been on identifying the key psychological forces that guide decisions about effort and understanding their consequences, rather than specifying their causes or fluctuations. Despite these limitations, expectancy theory is appealing in its theoretical parsimony and its applications to diagnosing and resolving motivational problems in organizations, and thus remains a popular and widely-used theory.

Equity Theory

 Equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965) takes a step toward placing motivation more squarely in a social context. The central assumption of equity theory is that employees are motivated when their inputs (e.g., effort, knowledge, skill, loyalty) are matched by outcomes (e.g., pay, bonuses, benefits, recognition), which creates a sense of equity or fairness. When outcomes do not match inputs, the resulting perceptions of inequity lead to distress, which motivates employees to take action to reduce it. When employees feel under-rewarded, they may restore perceived equity by reducing their inputs (slacking off), attempting to reduce others’ inputs (convincing coworkers to do less work, or sabotaging their efforts to be productive), seeking to increase their outcomes (asking for a raise or vacation time), or aiming to decrease coworkers’ outcomes (asking them to take a pay cut or lobbying the boss to standardize salaries). When employees feel over-rewarded, they may restore perceived equity by increasing their inputs (working harder) or reducing their outcomes (requesting a pay cut or redistributing their salaries to coworkers). How do employees make judgments of equity? To evaluate input-outcome ratios, employees can make a range of comparisons (Adams, 1963, 1965). One set of comparisons is between outcomes and inputs such as effort (the time and energy that I invested), ability (my knowledge, skills, and talents), seniority (my tenure and loyalty). Another set of comparisons is of the input-outcome ratios to other input-outcome ratios, including my own past input-outcome ratios (what I have received elsewhere or before, relative to my contributions) and others’ input outcome ratios (are mine appropriate in light of the ratios of similar others?). This last comparison, the social comparison, is often viewed as the central theoretical insight offered by equity theory (Weick, 1966): even when employees receive outcomes that match their inputs, their motivation can suffer when they perceive others as maintaining more favorable input outcome ratios. For example, studies have shown that higher pay dispersion—the disparity in compensation between the highest-paid and lowest-paid employees in an organization—predicts greater manager and employee turnover (Bloom & Michel, 2002), lower job satisfaction, productivity, and collaboration (Pfeiffer & Langton, 1993), and in major league baseball teams, fewer runs scored, more runs given up by pitchers, and more losses (Bloom, 1999). Equity assumes that both under-rewarding employees and over-rewarding employees can be detrimental to motivation. Although research has consistently shown negative motivational and behavioral effects of under-reward inequity, evidence reveals mixed results about the consequences of over-reward inequity: some employees appear to decrease their motivation, others increase it, and still others show no significant changes (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). One approach to resolving these conflicting findings has involved understanding individual differences in equity sensitivity. Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles (1987) proposed that employees can be classified into one of three categories of equity preferences: benevolent (preferring a lower outcome/input ratio than comparison others), equity sensitive (preferring an equal outcome/input ratio to comparison others), and entitled (preferring a higher outcome/input ratio than comparison others). Accordingly, under-reward inequity leads to higher motivation among benevolent employees than equity sensitive and entitled employees (Miles, Hatfield, &  Huseman, 1989). While benevolent employees are willing to work hard even when they receive lower outcomes than others, equity sensitive and entitled employees find this distressing. A key controversy in work motivation research concerns competing predictions between equity and expectancy theories in situations characterized by the combination of perceived under-reward inequity (Harder, 1991). According to equity theory, when instrumentality is high, employees who feel under-rewarded will be distressed by perceived inequity, and may reduce their effort in order to create a more appropriate balance between their inputs and outcomes. On the other hand, expectancy theory predicts that when instrumentality is high, employees who feel under-rewarded will be motivated to achieve higher performance, as they are confident that this will result in the rewards they feel they deserve. Harder (1991) provided a theoretical and empirical resolution of this controversy in a study of major league baseball free agents. He found that under low instrumentality, negative performance effects of inequity were visible, but under high instrumentality, individuals maintained their performance: “individuals faced with inequitable under reward will choose the avenue of decreased performance to the extent that it does not affect future rewards. If decreasing performance will adversely affect future rewards, then alternative avenues for restoring equity will be undertaken” (Harder, 1991, p. 463-464). Another issue facing equity theory concerns how organizations and employees handle inconsistencies in equity that emerge between different types of comparisons. For example, when pay dispersion is high, star performers making self-comparisons perceive high equity, but average and low performers making social comparisons may perceive low equity. In general, research suggests that in some circumstances, the costs of perceived inequity among the latter group can outweigh the benefits of perceived equity among the former group (Bloom, 1999). However, this research has yet to identify conditions under which organizations can create Work Motivation 10 favorable perceptions of equity for different groups of employees. One practical solution, pay secrecy, appears to be a mixed bag, as employees often view it as a signal of inequity and resist by going out of their way to publicize their salaries (Colella, Paetzold, Zardkoohi, & Wesson, 2007).

Goal-setting theory

One criticism of both expectancy and equity theories is that they focus primarily on psychological processes involved in work motivation, providing little explicit theory and guidance for explaining the role of contextual forces (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). Goal-setting theory overcomes these limitations by focusing on the motivational effects of goals, or targets for action. Extensive research has shown that difficult, specific goals motivate high performance by focusing attention, increasing effort and persistence, and encouraging the development of novel task strategies (Locke & Latham, 1990). For instance, classic studies showed that setting specific, difficult goals—relative to “do your best,” easy, or no goals—for 36 truck drivers transporting logs led them to increase from 60% to 90% of legal allowable weight, saving the company approximately $250,000 in less than a year (for a review, see Locke & Latham, 2002). In another study, Latham and Saari (1982) gave 39 truck drivers the goal of enhancing the number of daily trips that they took to the mill, which yielded 15% average daily increases in trips, and saved the company approximately $2.7 million in less than four months. Difficult, specific goals are most likely to produce these effects when employees are committed to them, when they receive feedback, and when tasks are simple rather than complex. Without commitment, employees question whether it is worthwhile to work toward difficult goals. Without feedback, employees cannot gauge their progress and adjust effort, persistence, and task strategies accordingly. When tasks are simple, effort is a key determinant of performance, but when tasks are complex, ability and task strategies become more influential, reducing the performance effects of goal-setting as a motivational technique (Locke & Latham, 2002). At first glance, the principle of difficult goals motivating higher performance than easy goals appears to conflict with expectancy theory. From an expectancy theory standpoint, easy goals yield greater effort-to-performance expectancy beliefs, and thus greater motivation and performance, than difficult goals. Researchers have resolved this tension by showing that when goal difficulty is held constant, higher expectancy beliefs are associated with higher performance, but when goal difficulty varies, more difficult goals are linked with higher performance, as the attention, effort, persistence, and task strategy benefits of difficult goals appear to outweigh the costs of lower expectancy beliefs (Locke, Motowidlo, & Bobko, 1986). Furthermore, expectancy beliefs moderate the effects of goal difficulty on performance, such that setting difficult goals only motivates employees to take action if they believe such action has the potential to achieve the goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). As goal-setting theory gained prominence, scholars began to raise concerns about managers using goals as manipulative tools, and expressed growing interest in understanding the motivational effects of goals that were self-set by employees. This yielded a major controversy emerged about whether participation in goal-setting increases motivation and performance. Holding goal difficulty constant, studies by Latham and colleagues showed null effects of participation, whereas studies by Erez and colleagues identified significant benefits. The authors collaborated, with Locke as a mediator (not a moderator), to jointly design experiments to resolve the dispute. They discovered that the effects of participation in goal-setting depend on goal commitment. When the purpose of the goals is clear, participation offers little benefit, but when the purpose is unclear, allowing employees to participate serves the function of increasing goal commitment, and thereby motivates higher performance (Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). Subsequent studies suggested that participation may achieve these benefits not only through motivational mechanisms, but also through cognitive mechanisms of enabling employees to share information about task strategies and building self-efficacy (Locke & Latham, 2002). Moreover, employees who have high self-efficacy with respect to assigned goals tend to set higher goals, experience greater goal commitment, choose better task strategies, and maintain goal pursuit in the face of negative feedback (Locke & Latham, 2002). Of course, if employees’ goals are not aligned with organizational goals, goal-setting can reduce rather than increase performance (Locke & Latham, 2002). This raises important ethical issues, as employees can take shortcuts to achieve goals that violate important moral and legal standards. For example, Schweitzer, Ordoñez, and Douma (2004) conducted a laboratory experiment showing that when participants had unmet goals, they were more likely to cheat by overstating their productivity than when they were simply asked to do their best. These effects were observed for goals with and without monetary incentives, and were particularly pronounced when participants narrowly missed goal accomplishment (Schweitzer et al., 2004). A heated debate has ensued about whether goal-setting theory adequately addresses and accounts for these and other risks of goal-setting, such as tunnel vision, stress, reduced learning and intrinsic motivation, and excessive risk-taking and competition (Ordoñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009a, 2009b; Latham & Locke, 2009; Locke & Latham, 2009). We are sympathetic to the arguments of both sides. On one hand, goal-setting theorists have acknowledged many of these risks, and demonstrating that goals can increase unethical behavior is consistent with a premise of goal-setting theory that when employees are committed to goals, they will be motivated to discover and create task strategies for achieving them (Locke & Latham, 2002). On the other hand, although much is known about the motivation and performance effects of goalsetting, substantially less theory and research has addressed the conditions under which goals are more versus less likely to encourage unethical behavior and other unintended consequences (e.g., Barsky, 2008). This represents an important direction for future research: scholars should systematically build and test theories about the factors that amplify and mitigate the negative effects of goal-setting.

MOTIVATIONAL FACTORSINFLUENCING THE PRODUCTIVITY

 1. Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation

 Recently reported a study where intrinsic motivation strengthened the relationship between prosocial motivation and employee outcomes such as persistence, productivity and performance. Grant claims that employees experience prosocial motivation as more autonomous when intrinsic motivation is high because intrinsically motivated employees feel that performing well is beneficial to their own self-selected goals, as they enjoy their work and value the outcome of helping others. Drawing on concepts from research on prosocial personality, prosocial motivation should be pleasure based rather than pressure-based, because employees feel volition, autonomy and free choice in their efforts to benefit others by way of in-role and extra-role work performance when prosocial motivation is accompanied by intrinsic motivation. When intrinsic motivation is low, however, employees will experience prosocial motivation as more controlled because they do not enjoy their work or benefiting others through their work. Then, prosocial motivation will be better characterised as pressure-based and involving ought representations, and possibly result in stress and role overload and other psychological costs that may impede or diminish any positive effects on work performance.

Extrinsic motivation is also important in performance of workers. Extrinsic motivation like pay, wages, bonus and other incentives play a significant role in productivity of workers.

2.Cognition

Cognitive theories of motivation, on the other hand, suggest that our experiences generate internal cognitions (such as desires and beliefs). These cognitions, in turn, determine current performance (e.g., Clark, 1998; Ford, 1992; Maslow, 1954; Vroom, 1964). However, the question arises: Where do cognitions come from? They are the results of past interactions with our environment. For these cognitions to be useful, they must relate to the person’s environment. We call people whose cognitions are not related to their environment, maladjusted, neurotic, or schizophrenic. We learn from our past experiences that we can successfully perform in some environments and not so successful in others. Behavior analysis postulates that the ultimate sources of our behavior, including verbal statements such as beliefs, wishes, or desires, can ultimately be traced to the consequences of our behavior in (past and) current environments. Cognitions are nothing more than our ability to describe particular reinforcement contingencies of our own behavior based on our own past experiences (Mawhinney & Mawhinney, 1982).

3.Environment

 Recent models of work motivation are addressing the role of the environment as one determinant of behavior. For example, Keller (1999) performance factors model includes antecedents and consequences as influences on performance. Locke and Latham’s (1990) goal setting theory centers on goals as antecedents and feedback as consequences of performance. This focus on empirical events makes goal setting theory one of the more practical cognitive theories of motivation that exists today. In summary, conceptualizing motivation as an internal construct places the causes of behavior inside the person. The environment provides the backdrop against which motivational mechanisms and processes determine appropriate courses of action. These internal events are difficult to observe and measure which can lead to a number of independent models of the causes of behavior. Furthermore, when behavior or performance does not meet societal or work standards, we tend to assume that something is wrong with the person, rather than looking for deficits in the person’s environment. Behavior analysis attempts to explain behavior and performance by understanding the context in which it occurs.

Role of Motivation in Higher Productivity

It is a truism that employees are an organization’s most valuable assets. This highlights the importance of understanding the theory and application of motivation to manage human resources (Amar, 2004). One then wonders what the basic prerequisites of workers’ productivity are. Although this question cannot be answered with a definite statement, but among other factors, motivation is important for enhancing level of job commitment of workers, which invariably leads to a higher productivity of the workers. It is then necessary for motivation of the workers in organization to be enhanced in order to increase productivity. Productivity literarily means the rate of power to produce, but productivity from the management or economic point of view is the ratio of what is produced to what is required to produce it. Usually, this ratio is in the form of an average; expressing the total output of some category of goods divided by the total input of, say labour or raw material. In principle, any input can be used as the denominator of the productivity ratio. One can speak of the productivity of land, labour, capital or sub-categories of any of these factors of production. Simply put, productivity is the act of producing or bringing into being commodities of great value or adding to the wealth of the world. It can be used to measure the index of growth, efficiency, economic standard etc. On the other hand, motivation is a word that is rather cumbersome to define in a meaningful manner. Adams and Jacobson (1964) suggest that motivation deals with all the conditions that are responsible for variation in the intensity, quality and direction of behaviour. From an organization point of view, motivation deals with everything that a manager knows or can use to influence the direction and rate of individual’s behaviour towards commitment. An overwhelming amount of energy is expended in trying to get people to do what we want them to do. We all have a task to motivate ourselves to do what we think we should do. It is widely believed that when a worker is highly motivated, this goes a long way in improving organizational productivity, effectiveness and efficiency. Against this background it is necessary to look for a way through which the morale of workers can be improved which will at the end, enhance job commitment with an improvement on the standard of living of people, and increase in wealth of individuals and development of the society. This study is therefore designed to find out the link between the extent to which various motivation strategies encourages the workers to improve their job commitment and increase their productive capacity. The relationship between motivation and productivity is more substantial than simply a psychological connection.

(A) Gender Differences

It is found in research that women were mainly motivated by other factors in the workplace not by job role itself and had fewer primary needs met at work. Women were also more dissatisfied in their job than men.

(B) Age Differences

The research indicated that the older generation was more productive than their younger colleagues. However, research in other fields has suggested that research productivity declines with age (Over, 1982; Over, 1988), and that there is a negative association between age and scientific productivity and creativity (Cole, 1979).

(C) Caring Responsibilities

It is investigated in that those with no dependants spent more hours on work, and consequently had higher counts than their colleagues with caring responsibilities. Those with dependants were far less interested in work for its own sake, had less satisfaction from working as output was less important and felt less need of work in order to succeed.

(D) Hours Spent on Work:

The results of researches clearly indicate that those that spent more hours on work were mostly those that were motivated by their job role, and had greater job satisfaction than those spending less time on work (either because they were not motivated by their job role or because their job role did not permit it).

(E) Sources of Motivation

It is indicated in research that the majority of workers are primarily motivated by their job role rather than workplace or extra workplace factors. Interestingly, those that were motivated by factors external to workplace had lower job satisfaction. Perhaps not surprisingly, those that were primarily motivated by the job role had a higher output than those with other sources of motivation. The research also showed that having one’s primary needs met at work was key to job satisfaction and the higher the job satisfaction level, the higher the output.

MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGIESTO ENCOURAGE PRODUCTIVITY

Pay-for-performance incentives are often utilized in the private sector to encourage competition among and within team, but such a model may not be directly applicable to the public sector, as resources are often tighter, and money may not be the primary source of motivation for those with an ethos of public service. Research suggests that individuals are motivated to perform well when the work is meaningful and individuals believe they have responsibility for the outcomes of their assigned tasks.  Following  suggestions may help to improve productivity among workers.

1.Promote Challenges and Accomplishments

Specific and challenging goals can lead to higher levels of performance, productivity, and creativity which in turn are linked with an overall stronger commitment to the organization (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006). We propose developing challenging goals and timelines together with employees. By setting goals, employees obtain a clear strategy for their own professional development, which creates greater satisfaction and motivation (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Goals should be challenging but also attainable. Complex and abstract goals may lead to decreased work performance and negatively impact employee morale. Accomplishing goals that challenge employee creativity and problem-solving skills can improve performance, enhance employee self confidence, and improve job satisfaction which can outweigh a one-time monetary award (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006). Goal setting should be followed by regular and thorough feedback given by supervisors on employee’s goal achievements.

2.Create Organizational Learning Opportunities

Goal setting should be challenging and achievable, goals can also promote learning opportunities. Organizations can integrate learning opportunities through setting goals that allow employees to engage in problem solving and knowledge acquisition. We have found that merit pay and pay-for performance systems yield little positive results on employee performance or learning opportunities, yet a system of progressively giving employees more complex tasks can stimulate employee learning and consistently improve employee performance. Organizational learning opportunities can also challenge an employee to think more expansively about their own personal goals (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006).

3.Utilize Group Incentives as Well as Individual Incentives

 Organizational learning and employee personal growth are impacted by the incentives offered in the work environment. It is recommended, implementing a variety of awards such as team awards, individual recognition based on extraordinary performance, and rewards for all employees for their achieved goals. In order to strengthen teamwork, praise employees for performance that benefits the team. Awarding only a few people with rewards might be counterproductive. According to Bob Behn, some hard working employees might feel treated unfairly and lose their work spirit or develop resentments to other employees and the team (Behn, 2000).

4.Rethink Job Design

Incentives are just one method used to promote motivation in the work environment, another method is job design. It is advised, implementing a job design in an organization in which employees rotate job positions (if possible), gain more responsibility over their work and resources, and engage in trainings and organizational learning opportunities. Research has shown that job design is a central element in motivation. Employees work better if they are involved in the organizations decision-making process, and if they have control over their own professional development (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Jobs designed with a sense of challenge and task significance can facilitate a sense of meaningfulness, leading to better work performance and personal growth in the work setting (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006).

5.Use Positive Reinforcement

There is little research showing a significant relationship between merit-pay and performance, yet motivating factors such as job design and positive reinforcement has improved employee performance (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006). It is strongly suggested, using positive reinforcement as a key tool for motivation. The latest research about motivation in the public sector has shown that traditional approaches, such as incentive pay systems, do not lead to more motivation or better performance on the job.

6.Promote a Healthy Work Environment:

 Organizational practices that motivate employees and improve performance may be ineffective if little attention is paid to the working environment. It is recommend, eliminating dissatisfactory work conditions. Create an environment which your employees feel is fair and safe. Install motivators such as acknowledgment, responsibility, and learning opportunity to improve the employees’ performance. There are two elements, crucial for motivated workers: the absence of dissatisfaction about the work environment and salary, which creates a neutral attitude towards work, followed by motivators to generate extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Contingent upon above suggestions, success requires a comprehensive strategy implemented thoughtfully. By working together, it can build a highly motivated and empowered team of talented, top performing professionals.

References:

Dickson, W. J. (1973). Hawthorne experiments. In C. Heyel (ed.), The encyclopedia of management, 2nd ed. (pp. 298-302). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons, 30. 58-65.

Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, July 1943. 370-396.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press.

Ball, Dr. J. (2003). Understanding Herzberg’s Motivation Theory. Retrieved 20 February 2005. http://www.accaglobal.com/publications/studentaccountant/1010721

Schermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G., & Osborn, R.N. (2003). Organizational Behavior: Instructor’s Resource Guide. (8th ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hunsaker, P.L. (2005). Management: A Skills Approach. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.

Adler, P. S., & Chen, C. X. (2009). Beyond intrinsic motivation: On the nature of individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity. Social Science Research Network. Accessed on April 2, 2010 at http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1471341

Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32-57.

Campbell, D.J., & Pritchard, R. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-up and extension of the interdisciplinary costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 339-351.

Chen, G., Kanfer, R., DeShon, R. P., Mathieu, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). The motivating potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen & Kanfer’s (2006) cross-level model of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 45-55.

Mawhinney, T. C. and Mawhinney, R. R. (1982). Operant Terms and Concepts Applied to Industry. In O’Brien, R. M., Dickinson, A. M. and Rosow, M. P. (Eds.), Industrial behaviour modification: A management handbook (115- 134). New York: Pergamon Press.

Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivational Systems. In Stolovitch, H. D. and Keeps, E. J. (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology: Improving individual and organizational performance worldwide (2nd ed.; 373-394)

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 267-299. New York: Academic Press

Adams, U.S. and Jacobson, P.R. (1964). Effect of wage inequalities on work quality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 3(4), 12- 25

 Amar, A. (2004). Motivating knowledge workers to innovate: A model integrating motivation dynamics and antecedents. European Journal of InnovationManagement, 7(2), 89-101

 Ambrose, Maureen, L. and Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation. Research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-292

Over, R. (1982). Does research productivity decline with age? Higher Education, 11(5), 511-520

Over, R. (1988). Does scholarly impact decline with age? Scientometrics, 13(5-6), 215-233

Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958-977

Cole, J. (1971). Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the science citation in

Patterson, M., Warr, P. and West, M. (2004). The organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 193- 216(24)