Background
In any given organization or company, motivation of employers plays a big role in either improving or undermining the productivity of the workers. This is because workers always need something to lift their working spirit and general output. Lack of motivation from the management or leadership of the organization or company would usually translate into compromised work quality by the employees.
Motivation in workplace is both a complex and difficult phenomenon that often requires management to give extra consideration by relying on working motivation theories such as Taylor’s Scientific Management and The Human Management Approach. In addition, the management is obliged to figure out what employees perceive as attractive for defining an effective motivation-program for their organization because motivation greatly depends on the preferences of the individual employee (Hertel, 2003).
Definition of Motivation
Motivation can be termed to be the process of stimulation of an individual to take action that will meet a set desired goal. The significance of motivation at workplace has increased in the modern corporate world because of increasing competition in the workplace together with the high unemployment rate. As such it is imperative for the management to seek an effective way of motivating not only themselves, but also their employees so as to increase productivity of the workforce (Pride, 2010).
Scientific Management theory
Fredrick W. Taylor (1856 -1915), regarded as the “Father of Scientific Management”, provided the first approaches pertaining to employee motivation – the application of scientific approaches to the practice of management of work and workers. According to Taylor’s scientific management, it is only through maximal worker productivity that economic prosperity can be achieved resulting in the product of making employees more efficient. Taylor holds that only a management scientist can be able to attain efficiency of workers. In this respect workers begin to lose efficiency immediately there is not such a management scientist.
The scientific management generally believes in the “science of work” and the economically-motivated mutuality of interest of both the managers and employers. There is the aspect of job fractionation that aims to achieve maximum efficiency. The theory argues that, in every organization or company, there exist natural differences in productivity among workers due to such factors as differences in talent, motivations, or intelligence (Hertel, 2003). Effort is channeled to understanding reasons for the existence of the differences and analyzing and synthesizing the best practices which are eventually propagated to other worker through standardization of process steps.
The scientific motivation theory proposes that decisions based on precise procedures instituted after careful study of an individual work, including time and motion studies, should replace decisions achieved using the system of using tradition and rules of thumb. This, is believed, would lead to discovery or synthesis of the “one best way” to perform any given task, the net result being an increase in productivity along with reduction of effort.
However, it must be noted the developer of the scientific management theory Taylor, did not trust in employees. Thus his theory sought to have managers exert more control over their workers and their practices. It emphasizes an absolute adherence to work standards and scientifically selecting, placing and training workers to desired levels. The managers are expected to utilize specialized functional supervision over their workforce. The main source of motivation, according to Taylor’s Scientific Management, is invoking the financial incentive system (Hertel, 2003). This stems from the fact that Taylor believed that employees work only for money and thus they must be monitored or supervised with close proximity. It is on this grounds, that the scientific management proposes the piece-rate system in which the workforce is paid a given amount for each unit they produce as a form of motivation to increase their general productivity.
In summary, it is fair to say that Taylor’s Scientific Management theory relies on money as the chief motivator of the employees in a workplace. Furthermore, great concentration is placed on the work itself at the expense of the very feelings of the employees themselves. Though the motivation theory by Taylor argues for development and maintenance of friendly labor-management relations, its application often has the net effect of interpersonal friction between the managers and workers as well ass tensions between the whit-collar and blue-collar classes of workers. This is indeed contrary to the desired creation of motivation at the workplace (Pride, 2010). In summary, it is evident that the productivity of the employees is motivated solely by money but rather other factors relating to employee behavior and attitudes about the work. It is this point that brings us to the Human Relations Approach as a form of motivation for workers.
The Human Relations Model
The Human Relations Approach came into existence as a result of dissatisfaction with the Scientific Management theory that preceded it. It seeks to correct the assumption that employees all behaved in similar manners and thus organizations could be programmed to the single best of peerforming. Basically, this model proposes that “Worker petrifaction amounts to Enhanced worker performance. It is a management model that perceives the employee as socially motivated from the notion that a social need-satisfied worker is a productive worker. This theory, which was first developed by the Hawthorme Studies conducted from 1927 to 1932, places particular great primary focus of the needs and motivation of employees (Podmoroff, 2005). Generally, the human relations approach is of the school of thought that there is need to focus on the role of social processes in organizations such as the need for belongingness and feeling of usefulness are more significant than money in creating motivation for employees. The Human Relations Approache, therefore, is about the employees’ behavior, feelings, and their informal as opposed to their formal organizing.
The Human Relations Approach advises using of such variables as rest breaks, work hours, temperature and humidity to counter any impeder of worker productivity like fatigue and monotony. It is noted that the output of workers would improve they were under a supervisor that is more of a friendly observer than a disciplinarian (Pride, 2010). It also helps to make frequent changes in the working conditions and making sure to discuss and explain them to the workers beforehand. Elimination of monotony such working, resting and break hours also help motivate workers. The theory also holds that motivation and productivity can be improved if the supervisors did such actions as joining the workers at their workplace, keeping them informed about the job, asking or giving advice/information, and listening to their complaints.
It is therefore true that employees feel motivated when they are encouraged to work as a team where they can cooperate wholeheartedly and spontaneously. This is so because they feel themselves to be working freely without coercion from either above or limitation from below them. Subjecting employees to less pressure, or in other words being humane to them, gives satisfaction and inspires love for the work. Furthermore, it is important to allow employees the freedom to use their own technique (variations) so as to avoid boredom that comes from monotony of procedure (Podmoroff, 2005). In the same light, employees are better off with the freedom of movement as opposed to being bossed or pushed around, something with contributes greatly to their development of an increased sense of responsibility and self-discipline.
However, criticism of the Human Relations Approach as a employee-motivating method is such that it limits involvement to good communication from managers and subordinates. It also does not suggest necessity of any serious devolution of decision-making down to the general office. As such there is no clarity of who is in charge and the effects it has on the working lives of those under control (Crowther & Green, 2004). Finally, the theory is also seen to benefit managers more than employees because it is cheap in the sense that the latter do not have to be paid more for increased productivity.
References:
Crowther, David, & Green, Miriam. (2004). Organizational Theory. London, CIPD Publishing.
Griffin, W. Ricky. (2010). Management. Connecticut, Cengage Learning.
Hertel, Friederike. (2003). Motivation in the Workplace. Munich, GRIN Verlag.
Podmoroff, Dianna. (2005). 365 Ways to Motivate and Reward Your Employees Every Day–with Little Or No Money. Florida, Atlantic Publishing Company
Pride, M. William, Hughes, J. Robert, & Kapoor, R. Jack. (2010). Foundations of Business. Connecticut, Cengage Learning.
