Motivation Theory in the Workplace
The ability to obtain the optimal talent and contributions of its employees remains at the center of an effective employee training and development program implemented at every level of an organization. Assuming the role of a human resource professional or manager, describe an organization’s responsibility in motivating its staff (as opposed to employee’s being self-motivated) to continue growing and learning.
For this discussion:
Present two academic theories of motivation found in the research that you would propose for organizations to best motivate employees
Think about your current organization, or a previous one – even one you are familiar with – and identify two specific examples (i.e., one example for each) of how each theory was applied
Finally, analyze whether the application of each theory of motivation might have been applied more effectively, and if so, discuss how.
Be sure to cite examples from this week’s readings and others you find in the Library to support your claims.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post by Day 3 a response that answers the above questions. 3-5 Paragraphs. APA Format.
Resources (attached as files)
Bates, S. (2003). Forced rankling. HR Magazine, 48(6), 62–68.
Forced Rankling. HRMagazine, 48(6), 62 by Steve Bates. Copyright 2003 by the Society for Human Resource Management. Used by permission of Society for Human Resource Management via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Flynn, S. (2011). Can you directly motivate employees? Exploding the myth. Development and Learning in Organizations, 25(1), 11–15.
Can you directly motivate employees? Exploding the myth. Development and Learning in Organizations, 25, 1 by S. Flynn. Copyright 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing. Used by permission of Emerald Group Publishing via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 88–96. Retrieved from:
https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/pl/77451689/77451693/177f8a80368cef381dda8990e56b7780
Can you directly motivate employees?
Exploding the myth
Stephen Flynn
Introduction
As managers, we are in the ‘‘motivation game.’’ Central to this is the ‘‘deal’’ between the
employer and the employee; or to put it into more fashionable language, the psychological
contract. The management literature encourages us to harness this contract in order to tap
into employees’ discretionary effort. However, as I will show, the more we try and manage
employee motivation directly, the more it will elude us.
Stephen Flynn is Human
Resources Director, Office
Depot Ltd, Leighton
Buzzard, UK.
The psychological contract
Let’s start by being clear about what we mean by the psychological contract. It has been
defined as: ‘‘an individual’s beliefs about the terms of their relationship with the organisation
that employs them’’ (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). Originally the two types of psychological
contract were described as transactional or relational. These two original definitions can be
taken as descriptions of two polar extremes as outlined in Table I.
Very quickly in the literature these descriptions were changed into a management tool. This
tool was available for executives to apply to their organizations. Management was thus
presented with a choice over its preferred psychological contract. The contract is now
offered as a key means of translating strategy into HR and management programs and
practices. Table II sets out one framework that illustrates the choice put to management
(Brown, 2001).
So, the psychological contract is currently recommended as the tool to strike a new deal
between employer and employee.
Maturity levels
Before we can return to employee motivation we must first explain the concept of
‘‘organisational maturity levels’’ (Flynn, 2010). A maturity level is a stage of capability that is
‘‘an evolutionary plateau on an organizational improvement path’’ (Curtis et al., 2002). For
our practical purposes in dealing with motivation, we will briefly illustrate four such levels
(see Table III).
At Level 1, the organizational members aim to comply with the demands of internal and
external regulations which are imposed by all of the organization’s stakeholders.
Compliance is, however, minimal. Most achievements at this level are through heroic
efforts. Hence the model of management is just that – heroic. However, there are few
effective control systems, other than the basic financial ones. Business processes are varied
and inconsistent. Managers and employees ‘‘get by’’ or ‘‘get away with it.’’ The organization
is characterized by a sense of ‘‘irresponsible autonomy.’’ As controls are minimal or absent,
DOI 10.1108/14777281111096771
VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011, pp. 11-15, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1477-7282
j
DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS
j
PAGE 11
Table I
Transactional contracts
Relational contracts
Specific economic conditions (e.g. wage rate) as primary
incentive
Emotional attachment as well as economic exchange
Limited personal involvement in the job (e.g. working relatively few
hours, low emotional attachment)
Whole-person relations (e.g. growth, development)
Close-ended time frame (e.g. seasonal employment, two to three
years on the job at most)
Open-ended time frame (e.g. indefinitely)
Commitments linked to well-specified conditions
Both written and unwritten terms (e.g. some terms emerge over
time)
Little flexibility (change requires renegotiation of contract)
Dynamic and subject to change during the life of the contract
Use of existing skills
Pervasive conditions (e.g. affects personal and family life)
Unambiguous terms readily understood by outsiders
Subjective and implicitly understood (i.e. conditions difficult for
third party to understand)
Table II
Psychological contract
Leased talent
New paternalism
Employee owners
Key message
‘‘We will give you a great CV’’
‘‘We will take care of you’’
‘‘We will build success together’’
Key reward tools
Competency-based
Job families
Individual incentives
Personal contracts
Job evaluation
Profit-sharing
Good benefits
Promotions
Broad bands
Team-based pay
Share schemes
Personal development
Focus of pay system
Replacement value in market
Job value in career structure
Business value in flat hierarchy
Focus of pay competitiveness
Retaining key talent
Entry-level recruitment
All staff, aggressive total pay
Pay structure
Market rates, job family
structures
Broad grades
Broad bands
Reward for high performers
High base salary
Promotion
High bonuses
Variable pay
Individual and project incentives Corporate, e.g. profit share
Value-based, business challenge
and team incentives
Table III Organizational maturity levels
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Compliance management
Process management
Capability management
Strategic management
employees have a significant degree of freedom to do as they see fit. However, this
autonomy is effectively misused or abused.
At Level 2, the organization concentrates upon controlling the basic work practices,
especially at the unit level (Curtis et al., 2002). Business processes are systematically
mapped and standardized. There is an air of process discipline throughout the organization.
This borders on the bureaucratic and each work activity has its own standard operating
procedure (SOP) to guide employees. You will recognize this organization by its range of
policy and procedure manuals. The organization starts to follow an ‘‘organising principle’’
which tends to be rigidly functional in structure.
At Level 3, the organization is focused on raising the capabilities of its systems, processes
and people through continuous improvement (CI). Management systematically uses
j
j
PAGE 12 DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011
‘‘toolkits’’ such as Six Sigma to guide CI. Project management becomes a discipline in itself.
Forecast and actual project benefits are analytically tracked. The organization is managed
using a range of measurements, for example key performance indicators (KPIs).
At Level 4, the organization is guided by a fully integrated business strategy. The vision and
the values are lived and an open systems approach is manifest. The organization has a clear
common purpose and delegation goes to the ‘‘lowest’’ possible level within the hierarchy as
a consequence. There is a culture of ‘‘responsible autonomy.’’
Employee motivation and maturity levels
We can now return to employee motivation. There are a number of motivational frameworks
that we could use; however, we have chosen the ‘‘motivations’’ described by Warr (2007).
We will match each ‘‘motivation’’ with its appropriate maturity level. All motivations are
possible at all maturity levels, but ‘‘higher’’ motivations are problematic at ‘‘lower’’ maturity
levels. For clarity, where an employee motivation is introduced it has been italicized in the
text. All motivations and maturity levels are summarized in Table IV.
Maturity level 1: compliance management
At this level of maturity, there is an almost total reliance upon extrinsic motivation.
Management follows a ‘‘stick and carrot’’ approach. Money is seen as the prime motivator
and the exclusive solution to ‘‘employee problems’’. Employees are expected to be driven
by such incentives: it is felt that they are only ‘‘in it’’ for the money. The psychological contract
is thus transactional and short-term. Other hygiene factors are generally neglected.
Ambiguity tends to be high so job insecurity exists. Overall, management keep throwing
money at employees in a desperate attempt to ‘‘motivate’’ them.
Maturity level 2: process management
Money still exists at this level so is still a relevant motivation. However, as process
management improves a wider assortment of motivations emerges.
The process of personal appraisals is introduced at this level (Flynn, 2010). Management by
objectives (MbO) is evident and SMART goals are set. This provides employees with the
motivation of externally generated goals.
Jobs are tightly defined at this level. A degree of role and environmental clarity arises for
employees. To support the effective operation of the SOPs, basic job training is offered
which gives the opportunity for skill use.
Table IV Employee motivation and maturity levels
Organizational maturity level
HR maturity level
Employee motivation
1
Compliance management
Initial
Money
Contact with others
2
Process management
Foundation
Externally generated goals
Environmental and role clarity
Security
Opportunity for skill use
Supportive supervision
Equity (horizontal and vertical)
3
Capability management
HR agenda
Valued social position
Variety
Career opportunity and progression
4
Strategic (culture) management
Integrated people strategy
Opportunity for personal control
Equity (horizontal, vertical and personal)
j
j
VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011 DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS PAGE 13
‘‘ The ‘choice’ of psychological contracts is thus limited by the
actual maturity level. ’’
Hygiene factors are addressed at this maturity level, so through health, safety and welfare
(e.g. Safe Systems of Work), physical security is attained to a large extent.
In common with the operating procedures, other processes associated with human
resources such as discipline, grievance and consultation are standardized. These are
guided by the principles of natural justice, so early signs of equity emerge.
Finally, to support SOPs and all the other HR aspects associated with this level of maturity,
basic job training is provided for managers and especially first line managers This helps to
build a supportive supervisory environment for employees.
So, at maturity level 2, we start to see the foundations being built for a broader range of
motivations. This is enhanced at higher maturity levels.
Maturity level 3: capability management
Again, all the motivations that arose at levels 1 and 2 are available at level 3.
The organizational structure at this maturity level is not only functional but also delayered.
There is greater clarity of the unique purpose not only of each role but also of each level in the
managerial hierarchy. This enables the creation of functional career frameworks. Employees
thus have clearer career opportunities and also the chance of gaining valued social
positions within the organization.
Jobs were narrowly defined and restricted at maturity level 2. The emergence of CI at level 3
broadens jobs into roles and introduces job enlargement. This offers employees task variety.
The targets associated with CI, the short-interval measurements and the KPIs in the
Performance Management Systems further enhance goals for employees as a motivational
element. This short-interval measurement gives greater opportunity for feedback, which
further enhances role clarity (Warr, 2007).
Maturity level 4: strategic management
As we saw above, the motivations that we associate with lower levels are still present at level 4.
At this ‘‘higher’’ maturity level, a full intrinsic motivational framework is available. The culture
of ‘‘responsible autonomy’’ enables personal control (Warr, 2007, pp. 149-52). Roles
develop beyond maturity level 3 and now job enrichment applies, further enhancing variety.
The reward agenda evolves to enable vertical, horizontal and now personal equity (Flynn,
2010). At maturity level 4 the procedural equity, which first arose at level 2, is enhanced by
the emergence of distributive justice, where all employees believe that they receive their fair
share of overall rewards within the organization.
So, before a motivation can be readily available to employees, the related maturity level must
first be established. In other words, the environment must be right.
Discussion
So much for the theory; what about the practical implications? Some examples may help.
If you and your management team want to ‘‘empower’’ employees, then you need to be at
maturity level 4. Well, personal control as a motivation is not readily available until strategic
management is attained. Any attempt to create empowerment at lower maturity levels will
fail, as the environment will not be supportive. In fact, even if it were successful,
j
j
PAGE 14 DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011
empowerment below level 4 is likely to recreate the ‘‘irresponsible autonomy’’ that we
associate with level 1.
If the deal you wish to craft involves extensive career opportunities in the business, and you
assess that you are at level 1, can you leapfrog to level 3? This will not be sustainable (Curtis
et al., 2002). The foundations built at level 2 that support the developments in level 3 would
be absent. All those business and HR processes that act as the bedrock for higher levels
would be missing. The organization would soon collapse back into level 1.
And finally in this discussion, perhaps you wish to drive improvements through individual
performance-related pay (PRP). All other indicators suggest you are at level 2. Well, this type
of PRP scheme requires detailed measurement of individual performance. This is not readily
available until level 3 is attained. Such a PRP system is likely to create dysfunctional behavior
and de-motivate employees.
Summary
We started this article by introducing the psychological contract. We saw how this has
shifted from being merely a description of the unconscious ‘‘deal’’ to becoming a
management tool. This tool could then to be used consciously to craft a new deal between
employer and employee. This deal would then motivate the employee.
We then looked at a range of motivations. We showed how each related to the maturity level
of the organization. So, depending upon the actual maturity level, only some motivations are
available to the organization. The ‘‘choice’’ of psychological contracts is thus limited by the
actual maturity level. Moreover, motivations are actually a function of the maturity level and
not a tool directly available to management. The more management try directly to manage
the motivation of employees, the more this becomes extrinsic motivation which we associate
primarily with maturity level 1. The more we apply extrinsic motivation the more it damages
intrinsic motivation.
Keywords:
Motivation (psychology),
Psychological contracts,
Human resource
management
Motivation has been transformed from a scientific concept into a managerial tool of control.
Fundamentally, motivation only becomes a problem when the inherent meaning of work is
lost. Employees have then to be ‘‘motivated’’ by managers. Employees are hence depicted
as passive and immature. People, as employees, have therefore to be ‘‘managed’’ by being
‘‘motivated.’’
Motivation is personal and internal. It is not manageable directly – we cannot ‘‘do’’ motivation to
employees. The maturity level is the ‘‘environment’’ in which each motivation may (or may not)
thrive. As managers and employers we should work on this ‘‘environmental management,’’ put
meaning back into work and leave employees to their own motivational devices.
References
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Brown, D. (2001), Reward Strategies, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Curtis, B., Hefley, W.E. and Miller, S.A. (2002), The People Capability Maturity Model, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Flynn, S.M. (2010), Linking Human Resource Strategy and Practice: An Integrated Framework, Matador,
Leicester.
Warr, P. (2007), Work, Happiness and Unhappiness, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Corresponding author
Stephen Flynn can be contacted at: s.flynn397@btintenret.com
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
j
j
VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011 DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS PAGE 15
www.hbrreprints.org
BEST OF HBR
Forget praise. Forget
punishment. Forget cash. You
need to make their jobs more
interesting.
One More Time
How Do You Motivate Employees?
by Frederick Herzberg
•
Included with this full-text Harvard Business Review article:
1 Article Summary
The Idea in Brief—the core idea
The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work
2 One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?
13 Further Reading
A list of related materials, with annotations to guide further
exploration of the article’s ideas and applications
Reprint R0301F
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. ‘s WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr
2019.
BEST OF HBR
One More Time
How Do You Motivate Employees?
The Idea in Brief
The Idea in Practice
Imagine your workforce so motivated that
employees relish more hours of work, not
fewer, initiate increased responsibility themselves, and boast about their challenging
work, not their paychecks or bonuses.
How do you help employees charge themselves up? Enrich their jobs by applying
these principles:
An impossible dream? Not if you understand the counterintuitive force behind
motivation—and the ineffectiveness of
most performance incentives. Despite
media attention to the contrary, motivation
does not come from perks, plush offices, or
even promotions or pay. These extrinsic
incentives may stimulate people to put
their noses to the grindstone—but they’ll
likely perform only as long as it takes to
get that next raise or promotion.
COPYRIGHT © 2002 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The truth? You and your organization have
only limited power to motivate employees.
Yes, unfair salaries may damage morale. But
when you do offer fat paychecks and other
extrinsic incentives, people won’t necessarily
work harder or smarter.
Why? Most of us are motivated by intrinsic
rewards: interesting, challenging work, and
the opportunity to achieve and grow into
greater responsibility.
Of course, you have to provide some
extrinsic incentives. After all, few of us can
afford to work for no salary. But the real key
to motivating your employees is enabling
them to activate their own internal generators. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck trying to
recharge their batteries yourself—again
and again.
• Increase individuals’ accountability for their
work by removing some controls.
• Give people responsibility for a complete
process or unit of work.
• Make information available directly to
employees rather than sending it
through their managers first.
• Enable people to take on new, more difficult tasks they haven’t handled before.
nications’ quality and accuracy, and their
speed of response to stockholders.
Job enrichment isn’t easy. Managers may
initially fear that they’ll no longer be
needed once their direct reports take on
more responsibility. Employees will likely require time to master new tasks and challenges.
But managers will eventually rediscover their
real functions, for example, developing staff
rather than simply checking their work. And
employees’ enthusiasm and commitment will
ultimately rise—along with your company’s
overall performance.
• Assign individuals specialized tasks that
allow them to become experts.
The payoff? Employees gain an enhanced
sense of responsibility and achievement,
along with new opportunities to learn and
grow—continually.
Example:
A large firm began enriching stockholder
correspondents’ jobs by appointing subjectmatter experts within each unit—then
encouraging other unit members to
consult with them before seeking supervisory
help. It also held correspondents personally responsible for their communications’
quality and quantity. Supervisors who
had proofread and signed all letters
now checked only 10% of them. And
rather than harping on production
quotas, supervisors no longer discussed
daily quantities.
These deceptively modest changes paid
big dividends: Within six months, the
correspondents’ motivation soared—as
measured by their answers to questions
such as “How many opportunities do you
feel you have in your job for making
worthwhile contributions?” Equally
valuable, their performance noticeably
improved, as measured by their commu-
page 1
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. ‘s WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr
2019.
Forget praise. Forget punishment. Forget cash. You need to make their
jobs more interesting.
B E S T O F H BR
One More Time
How Do You Motivate Employees?
by Frederick Herzberg
COPYRIGHT © 2002 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
When Frederick Herzberg researched the sources
of employee motivation during the 1950s and
1960s, he discovered a dichotomy that stills intrigues (and baffles) managers: The things that
make people satisfied and motivated on the job
are different in kind from the things that make
them dissatisfied.
Ask workers what makes them unhappy at
work, and you’ll hear about an annoying boss, a
low salary, an uncomfortable work space, or stupid rules. Managed badly, environmental factors
make people miserable, and they can certainly be
demotivating. But even if managed brilliantly,
they don’t motivate anybody to work much
harder or smarter. People are motivated, instead, by interesting work, challenge, and increasing responsibility. These intrinsic factors
answer people’s deep-seated need for growth
and achievement.
Herzberg’s work influenced a generation of
scholars and managers—but his conclusions
don’t seem to have fully penetrated the American
workplace, if the extraordinary attention still
paid to compensation and incentive packages is
any indication.
harvard business review • january 2003
How many articles, books, speeches, and
workshops have pleaded plaintively, “How do
I get an employee to do what I want?”
The psychology of motivation is tremendously complex, and what has been unraveled
with any degree of assurance is small indeed. But the dismal ratio of knowledge to
speculation has not dampened the enthusiasm
for new forms of snake oil that are constantly
coming on the market, many of them with
academic testimonials. Doubtless this article will have no depressing impact on the
market for snake oil, but since the ideas
expressed in it have been tested in many
corporations and other organizations, it will
help—I hope—to redress the imbalance in
the aforementioned ratio.
“Motivating” with KITA
In lectures to industry on the problem, I have
found that the audiences are usually anxious
for quick and practical answers, so I will begin
with a straightforward, practical formula for
moving people.
page 2
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. ‘s WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr
2019.
One More Time •• •B EST OF HBR
Frederick Herzberg, Distinguished
Professor of Management at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, was
head of the department of psychology
at Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland when he wrote this article.
His writings include the book Work and
the Nature of Man (World, 1966).
harvard business review • january 2003
What is the simplest, surest, and most direct way of getting someone to do something? Ask? But if the person responds that
he or she does not want to do it, then that
calls for psychological consultation to determine the reason for such obstinacy. Tell the
person? The response shows that he or she
does not understand you, and now an expert
in communication methods has to be
brought in to show you how to get through.
Give the person a monetary incentive? I do
not need to remind the reader of the complexity
and difficulty involved in setting up and
administering an incentive system. Show the
person? This means a costly training program.
We need a simple way.
Every audience contains the “direct action”
manager who shouts, “Kick the person!” And
this type of manager is right. The surest and
least circumlocuted way of getting someone to
do something is to administer a kick in the
pants—to give what might be called the KITA.
There are various forms of KITA, and here
are some of them:
Negative Physical KITA. This is a literal
application of the term and was frequently
used in the past. It has, however, three major
drawbacks: 1) It is inelegant; 2) it contradicts
the precious image of benevolence that most
organizations cherish; and 3) since it is a
physical attack, it directly stimulates the autonomic nervous system, and this often results
in negative feedback—the employee may just
kick you in return. These factors give rise to
certain taboos against negative physical KITA.
In uncovering infinite sources of psychological vulnerabilities and the appropriate
methods to play tunes on them, psychologists have come to the rescue of those who
are no longer permitted to use negative
physical KITA. “He took my rug away”; “I
wonder what she meant by that”; “The boss is
always going around me”—these symptomatic
expressions of ego sores that have been
rubbed raw are the result of application of:
Negative Psychological KITA. This has several advantages over negative physical KITA.
First, the cruelty is not visible; the bleeding is
internal and comes much later. Second, since
it affects the higher cortical centers of the
brain with its inhibitory powers, it reduces
the possibility of physical backlash. Third,
since the number of psychological pains that
a person can feel is almost infinite, the direc-
tion and site possibilities of the KITA are
increased many times. Fourth, the person
administering the kick can manage to be
above it all and let the system accomplish the
dirty work. Fifth, those who practice it receive
some ego satisfaction (one-upmanship),
whereas they would find drawing blood
abhorrent. Finally, if the employee does complain, he or she can always be accused of
being paranoid; there is no tangible evidence
of an actual attack.
Now, what does negative KITA accomplish?
If I kick you in the rear (physically or psychologically), who is motivated? I am motivated;
you move! Negative KITA does not lead to
motivation, but to movement. So:
Positive KITA. Let us consider motivation.
If I say to you, “Do this for me or the company, and in return I will give you a reward,
an incentive, more status, a promotion, all
the quid pro quos that exist in the industrial
organization,” am I motivating you? The
overwhelming opinion I receive from management people is, “Yes, this is motivation.”
I have a year-old schnauzer. When it was a
small puppy and I wanted it to move, I kicked
it in the rear and it moved. Now that I have
finished its obedience training, I hold up a
dog biscuit when I want the schnauzer to
move. In this instance, who is motivated—I or
the dog? The dog wants the biscuit, but it is I
who want it to move. Again, I am the one
who is motivated, and the dog is the one who
moves. In this instance all I did was apply
KITA frontally; I exerted a pull instead of a
push. When industry wishes to use such positive KITAs, it has available an incredible number and variety of dog biscuits (jelly beans for
humans) to wave in front of employees to get
them to jump.
Myths About Motivation
Why is KITA not motivation? If I kick my dog
(from the front or the back), he will move.
And when I want him to move again, what
must I do? I must kick him again. Similarly, I
can charge a person’s battery, and then recharge it, and recharge it again. But it is only
when one has a generator of one’s own that we
can talk about motivation. One then needs no
outside stimulation. One wants to do it.
With this in mind, we can review some
positive KITA personnel practices that were
developed as attempts to instill “motivation”:
page 3
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. ‘s WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr
2019.
One More Time •• •B EST OF HBR
Have spiraling wages
motivated people? Yes, to
seek the next wage
increase.
harvard business review • january 2003
1. Reducing Time Spent at Work. This represents a marvelous way of motivating people to work—getting them off the job! We
have reduced (formally and informally) the
time spent on the job over the last 50 or 60
years until we are finally on the way to the
“6-day weekend.” An interesting variant of
this approach is the development of off-hour
recreation programs. The philosophy here
seems to be that those who play together, work together. The fact is that motivated people seek more hours of work, not
fewer.
2. Spiraling Wages. Have these motivated
people? Yes, to seek the next wage increase.
Some medievalists still can be heard to say
that a good depression will get employees
moving. They feel that if rising wages don’t or
won’t do the job, reducing them will.
3. Fringe Benefits. Industry has outdone
the most welfare-minded of welfare states in
dispensing cradle-to-the-grave succor. One
company I know of had an informal “fringe
benefit of the month club” going for a while.
The cost of fringe benefits in this country has
reached approximately 25% of the wage
dollar, and we still cry for motivation.
People spend less time working for more
money and more security than ever before,
and the trend cannot be reversed. These benefits are no longer rewards; they are rights. A
6-day week is inhuman, a 10-hour day is
exploitation, extended medical coverage is a
basic decency, and stock options are the
salvation of American initiative. Unless the
ante is continuously raised, the psychological
reaction of employees is that the company is
turning back the clock.
When industry began to realize that both
the economic nerve and the lazy nerve of
their employees had insatiable appetites, it
started to listen to the behavioral scientists
who, more out of a humanist tradition than
from scientific study, criticized management
for not knowing how to deal with people.
The next KITA easily followed.
4. Human Relations Training. More than
30 years of teaching and, in many instances,
of practicing psychological approaches to
handling people have resulted in costly
human relations programs and, in the end,
the same question: How do you motivate
workers? Here, too, escalations have taken
place. Thirty years ago it was necessary to
request, “Please don’t spit on the floor.”
Today the same admonition requires three
“pleases” before the employee feels that a
superior has demonstrated the psychologically proper attitude.
The failure of human relations training to
produce motivation led to the conclusion
that supervisors or managers themselves
were not psychologically true to themselves
in their practice of interpersonal decency. So
an advanced form of human relations KITA,
sensitivity training, was unfolded.
5. Sensitivity Training. Do you really, really
understand yourself? Do you really, really,
really trust other people? Do you really, really,
really, really cooperate? The failure of sensitivity
training is now being explained, by those who
have become opportunistic exploiters of the
technique, as a failure to really (five times)
conduct proper sensitivity training courses.
With the realization that there are only temporary gains from comfort and economic and
interpersonal KITA, personnel managers concluded that the fault lay not in what they were
doing, but in the employee’s failure to appreciate what they were doing. This opened up
the field of communications, a new area of
“scientifically” sanctioned KITA.
6. Communications. The professor of communications was invited to join the faculty of
management training programs and help in
making employees understand what management was doing for them. House organs,
briefing sessions, supervisory instruction on
the importance of communication, and all
sorts of propaganda have proliferated until
today there is even an International Council
of Industrial Editors. But no motivation
resulted, and the obvious thought occurred
that perhaps management was not hearing
what the employees were saying. That led to
the next KITA.
7. Two-Way Communication. Management
ordered morale surveys, suggestion plans,
and group participation programs. Then both
management and employees were communicating and listening to each other more
than ever, but without much improvement
in motivation.
The behavioral scientists began to take
another look at their conceptions and their
data, and they took human relations one step
further. A glimmer of truth was beginning to
show through in the writings of the so-called
page 4
This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. ‘s WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr
2019.
One More Time •• •B EST OF HBR
The opposi
