Motivation and Organizational Performance Governments

Question: Discuss about theMotivation and Organizational Performancefor Governments. Answer: Introduction Business organizations, governments, and international agencies take different approaches to ensuring that their employees perform the tasks allocated to the employees. Some the efforts may be coercive while others may be in the affirmative of the employees way of doing their job. What is important in each case is making sure that the organizations objectives are achieved. One of the measures effectively utilized by organizations is employee motivation. It can be positive (affirmative) motivation or coercive motivation. The approach taken depends on the employees general conduct. Different scholars have and defined motivation in a variety of ways. It can be said to be the driving force behind an individuals action, a desire to do something in a certain way or an urge to act. It is what makes people incline their behaviour towards doing certain things in a particular way or even repeat those actions that they have done in the past in a certain way. The three articles being analysed by the paper are Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014); Guest (2011); and Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011). Motivation in Organizational Performance Motivation is described as that which energizes, reinvigorates, regulates and control the behaviour of employees in a particular organization hence playing a pivotal role in the execution of the business organization. According to Guest (2011), the inclusion of employees in the everyday running of organization act turning point in the relationship between the organization and its workforce, and the general performance of the firm. He argues that such inclusion encourages employees to work hard and therefore acting as a motivating factor. Writing on the effects of the emergence of HRM, Guest stated that previous researchers had revealed the practices employed by HRM were yielding high fruits for the companies that were utilizing them effectively. The main reason for the development of HRM as explained by Guest was to ensure maximum worker performance and improve the well-being of the employee as well as the organization. According to Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014), many human reso urce departments of various business entities use motivation as a way of improving employee performance which according to Guest (2011) is one of the primary functions of the HRM department in an organization. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011) states that just like in a classroom setting, for students, well-motivated employee will willingly carry out the duties allocated to him or her. It is good to ensure that there is job satisfaction. Theoretical Perspective, Similarities and Differences According to Miner (2015), it is important for the leadership of any organization to adapt a good theoretical perspective so as to provide proper guidelines for their organization. They explaining the centralized decision-making system, state that the assumption in that most people will want to give direction on what to do in a given situation hence will not be willing to assume responsibility. Such employees will be driven by incentives like money or reward and punishment in other circumstances. According to Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011), McGregor referred to this approach as Theory X and that it required maximum supervision for it to be effective. Theory X can also be referred to as the extrinsic theory of motivation because it is mainly based on the external factors that affect employees behaviour about their work. Guest 2011 stated that most HRM departments would use the money, bonuses, and other benefits like promotion, to motivate the employees. However, Reinholt, Pederse n, and Foss (2011) contends that the extrinsic, or Theory X McGregor referred to it, became inconclusive motivating employees on its own. Other factors had to be put into consideration. The authors claimed that the theory could not be applied to employees who psychological and safety desires were satisfied and now the center of their focus was on self-actualization and esteem. According Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) extrinsic incentive are only efficient in motivating an employee to the level that such an individual believes that such an incentive will lead them to be able to afford life valuables like housing, food, car, and ensuring the well-being of their families. Such individual can be said to work for the purpose of attaining material gains. Such factors will only motivate such individuals. In this case, employee behaviour is said to be extrinsically motivated. Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011) however explain that the difference between Theory X and Theory Y is that Y focuses on creating an environment that is conducive and pleasant to employees so hence motivating them more. The organizations that employees Theory Y focus on encouraging employees to align their individual goals with those of the organization hence the ability to record high-performance results. The assumption of this theory is that people or employees are rational and do not need maximum supervision for them to carry out their assigned duties. The best thing for an organization to do is to provide the appropriate motivation that will give employees a reason to work towards achieving their goals which will, in turn, lead them to achieve organizational goals. Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) explained that behaviour at work could also be intrinsically motivated. The central concern here is not things of value but factors like enjoyment of the work and a sense of purpose of personal actualization. Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) state that surveys done on 550 good wages came on to will interesting work came fifth. Seibert, Wang, and Courtright, (2011) believes that when people realize that a given task relates to their desires and they enjoy doing it, such people are more likely to engage in that active more than any other that has high material incentives. In academic, students who have been found to be intrinsically motivated tend to engage in learning and teaching profession compared to those who are extrinsically motivated. The position is the same for employees in organizations. They perform their tasks with intensity and passion because the desire to work is internal. The argument on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation raises other issues. Regarding quality, employees who are intrinsically motivated will tend to produce high-quality work. On the other hand, those who are extrinsically motivated will tend to produce a lot of quantity (Cerasoli, Nicklin, Ford 2014). Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011) argue that the reason for high quality resulting from intrinsic motivation is that quality is derived from commitment and complexity requiring the full attention of an employee and total investments of their skills. Intrinsically motivated people experience less control hence high levels of autonomy. This assumption is derived from this fact that quality work associated with a high value of personal involvement lower levels of outside involvement as established by the self-determination theory (Cerasoli, Niclin, Ford 2014). Guest 2011 explains that changing priorities have a significant bearing on the performance of work. He states that values and mot ivation impact heavily on how an individual will perform their task. A right balance has to be drawn to determine what invigorates individuals into working in a particular way. Adopting a universal approach will require the implementation of an effective method. The circumstances of each situation have to be considered for configuration approach to be taken in choosing a particular type of motivation (Guest 2011). Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011) explain that most employees fail to achieve their objectives at work because the management gives them minimum control over their work. Guest 2011 has argued that HRM practices that give employees sense of recognition with the firm act as an encouragement to perform better at work. Creating a direct link between the employees and their work ensure that the are responsible for what they do at work, as such allows them to contemplate on what behaviour is good for the at work. Such responsibility discourages laziness at work and therefore acting as an intrinsic motivation. The function of the manager here is to create that environment that will make the employee feel that they are responsible for their actions. To some extent, this may be seen as a coercive motivation that adopts a positive approach. Essentially, the motivation is internal and hence there is a great likelihood that the work performance will be of high quality. Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011) state that such employees are likely to have well-set goals and the moment they achieve such goals, they get more motivated to go on with their work. Material incentives do not drive them. Such individuals are said to have achievement motivation (Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss 2011). Furthermore, these individuals will not work well in environments that they can control their work, weigh the risks, set attainable goals, get recognized through promotions and rewards, and receive feedbacks on their performance (Kehoe Wright 2013). Certainly, it could be said that they are motivated by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Methods of Motivation Different organizations use different methods of motivation for their employees. ?nar, Bekta?, and Aslan (2011) established that the was sufficient data that motivation was the most effective way of improving employee pereformance. According to Guest (2011), the available data on the effective HRM practices indicated that financial benefits and recognition of employee efforts are the most commonly used method for enhancing performance. Organizations that perform well have been observed to accord their employees high responsibility and control over their work (Cerasoli, Nicklin, Ford 2014; and Jiang, K., Lepak, Hu, Baer 2012).According to Lindenberg and Foss (2011) this allows employees to develop their goals that aid them in achieving organizational goals. Manzoor (2012) stated that external factors like promotion end of year bonuses, merit awards, and benefit packages play a paramount role in influencing employee behaviour. Material gains may be right in ensuring that psychologica l element of the employee and well as their physical status are elevated. Methods like creating social contact, providing employee independence, sense of acceptance, organization, and power may be essential to performance. Employee order may be in the form of ensuring that they have enough space or room necessary for them to carry out and finish their work with quickly and peaceful. For instance, there are those employees who will work well in an open staff room while there are that one who require little or no distance hence they need an office of their own. You find that when these conditions are made available for the employee, their level of work output is high. Guest (2011) stated that power and control work as both a stimulant sign of acceptance hence propelling a person to work harder and effectively. Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) contend that when persons efforts are recognized by giving the more power, in most cases, they will work even much better since that have a fe eling that delivering on their objectives will give the better positions among their peers. Reconciliation of Opposing Positions Guest has argued that their motivation and the performance of HRM practice will be determined by prevailing circumstances. He argues that there cannot be a universal approach to assessing performance. Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011); and Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) on the other hand have argued that where intrinsic motivation fails, managers should apply extrinsic methods in increasing employee performance. However, the three articles agreed that one method cannot be used in solving the performance issues in organizations. Rogstadius et al (2011) is of the view that a combination of the two stands a better chance of producing desirable results. Even though HM practices as emphasized by Guest (2011) employee universal believe that financial incentives increase performance, he agrees with Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011) that intrinsic factors may be more effective. Pinder (2014) claims that a universal approach is not achievable in the contemporary society, instead, he s eems to be in agreement with Shields et al (2015) who recommends that intrinsic and extrinsic elements should be used interchangeably. Integrated Interpretation of the Three Articles Application The articles imply that there is no single way of motivating employees and that different issues will affect the way employees do their business or work. It can be clearly inferred that financial incentives apply at various sets of employees differently. There are those employees that are driven by the passion for their work while there are those driven by instrumentality. These factors have to be used interchangeably, and where intrinsic motivation fails, extrinsic motivation should be used. Batt and Colvin (2011) agree that intrinsic-extrinsic model can be used where an organization has a huge number of employees making it hard to come up with a uniform approach to motivation. As seen in Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss (2011) and Guest (2011) different people have different inclinations which and huge organization house employees with different traits. Therefore, its nice to have a model that is flexible. Dysvik and Kuvaas (2013) insist that where these to types of motivation have bee n put to use, a steady increase in employee effort at work was witnessed. Conclusion As stated in this paper, the central concern was to provide an analysis of three articles tackling the question of organizational behaviour. Specifically, the paper was looking at how motivation affects the performance of employees. It has been seen that there are two main types of motivation known as extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Most importantly, it has been established that each type of motivation cannot be applied universally, but each situation should be addressed differently. There are situation in which both can be used as seen in the case of achievement motivation. Reference Batt, R. and Colvin, A.J., 2011. An employment systems approach to turnover: Human resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of management Journal, 54(4), pp.695-717 Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M. and Ford, M.T., 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 140(4), p.980 ?nar, O., Bekta?, . and Aslan, I., 2011. A motivation study on the effectiveness of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Economics Management, 16(5), pp.690-695. Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B., 2013. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as predictors of work effort: The moderating role of achievement goals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), pp.412-430 Guest, D.E., 2011. Human resource management and performance: still searching for some answers. Human resource management journal, 21(1), pp.3-13 Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J. and Baer, J.C., 2012. How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of management Journal, 55(6), pp.1264-1294 Kehoe, R.R. and Wright, P.M., 2013. The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees attitudes and behaviors. Journal of management, 39(2), pp.366-391 Lindenberg, S. and Foss, N.J., 2011. Managing joint production motivation: The role of goal framing and governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), pp.500-525 Manzoor, Q.A., 2012. Impact of employees motivation on organizational effectiveness. Business management and strategy, 3(1), p.1 Miner, J.B., 2015. Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Routledge Pinder, C.C., 2014. Work motivation in organizational behavior. Psychology Press Reinholt, M.I.A., Pedersen, T. and Foss, N.J., 2011. Why a central network position isn't enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), pp.1277-1297 Rogstadius, J., Kostakos, V., Kittur, A., Smus, B., Laredo, J. and Vukovic, M., 2011. An assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on task performance in crowdsourcing markets. ICWSM, 11, pp.17-21 Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H., 2011. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., Dolle-Samuel, C., North-Samardzic, A., McLean, P., Johns, R., Robinson, J., O'Leary, P. and Plimmer, G., 2015. Managing Employee Performance Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge University Press Skaalvik, E.M. and Skaalvik, S., 2011. Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and teacher education, 27(6), pp.1029-1038