At the level of the individual worker, motivation and job satisfaction among other things, generate a sense of security and confidence. Moreover, it offers them the opportunity for flexibility where they are able to apply varied approaches in meeting work requirements (Adeyinka et al., 2007, pp. 3-15). This makes the work environment interesting thus providing the employees with the pleasure and urge to facing their day-to-day lives at the workplace. Flexibility in the workplace comes in when worker is having permission to veer from the ordinary monotonous routines of accomplishing specific tasks with the view of creating excitement out of tasks that, in some cases, apparently challenging (Zaremba, 1978, pp. 58-66). More individual benefits which; motivated workers are in the form of the feeling of self-worth and optimism, which extends to situations outside work (Nedeljkovic et al., 2012, pp.105-107). With this regard, job satisfaction and motivation help employees develop a mental outlook, which encourages them of how valuable they are in the organization and in their personal relationships. Moreover, job motivation and job satisfaction develop within workers and management, the capacity to maintain optimism and therefore, experience less tension even in challenging circumstances.
Management Theories that Support Motivation and Job Satisfaction
In the contemporary world, the labor market is becoming increasingly competitive. Moreover, the challenges those organizations face with respect to labor retention, are widespread, the nature, size, and technological stature of these business entities, notwithstanding (Ramlall, 2004, pp. 53-54). Different theories of management, that when, applied are believed to equip organizations with capacities of motivation and retaining workers exist. This is irrespective of the limited application of the models. The significance of applying these approaches, according to Mullins (2011, n.p), lies in the logic that, organizational behaviors relate closely to the theories of management.
According to Adetule (2011, pp. 1-4), the application of management theories in the organizational environment is necessary if not prerequisite due to their ability of turning around organizations and generating imperative advances. However, the application of these theories requires handling with care owing to other factors, which advance scepticism over the generalized nature of these theories. Management theories explore the aspects of job motivation and job satisfaction among other things as factors of employee and organizational development. In explaining this however these theories have left out some factors, external to the job environment and whose impact in facilitating motivation and job satisfaction none, should underestimate (Mullins 2011, n.p). Among the most common management theories that touch on job motivation and job satisfaction include, Fayol, Taylor and Weber's Classical Management Approaches, System Approaches, Mayos's Hawthorne Studies, which falls under Human Relations Theories and Neo-human Relations Models Adetule (2011, p.4),
Classical Management Theory
According to Adetule (2011, p. 7), the classical theory of management promotes the aspects of authority delegation, proper definition of the span of control, the central authority and a clear division between staff and line management. This approach constitutes four concepts, which include administration, a feature that focuses on the logic behind coexistence between individuals and organization. Other areas of focus in these theories are behavior and scientific management (Lussier, 2012, pp. 39-41). The administrative factor of classical management theories, center on factors of motivation through management activities while the scientific management aspects deal with the effectiveness of technical skills in promoting efficiency in the organization. These theories relate to the ideas of three scholars namely, Frederick Winslow Taylor, Henry Fayol and Max Weber.
One of the major focuses of these models entail the provision of employees with appropriate description of their expected roles as a way of enhancing motivation among them (Gray, 2008, pp. 3-28). According to this theory, producing the best results in any task requires that workers follow specific and correct procedures. This is in line with the implementation of the chain of command from management, leaving out the input of employees as a characteristic of this approach (Lussier, 2012, p. 40). Drawing from the illustrations of Grey (2008, pp.3-28), this approach makes employees considerably vulnerable to experiencing strained relationships with their managers.
Classical theory of management benefits organizations because it helps organizations work out approaches on how management ought to operate. These principles can form a strong basis for managing behavior by for example in instilling responsibility. Moreover, it centers on the division of labor, which promotes specialization, and the utilization of natural talents. On the other side, this management approach has flaws (Montana & Charnov, 2008, pp. 23-24). These include the rigid and tough systems and the neglect of human relations, creativity and possibility of innovativeness among employees (Grey, 2008, pp.27-28). Additional imperfection includes intense dependence on preceding experience, which is not practical in the modern work environment.
The approach to management attempts to amalgamate the classical theory, which reflects on motivation and organizations without the actual involvement of people. It focuses on the complexity and interdependence of associations. The system theory emanates from the general systems approach, which reflects on the definition of a system as instituting interdependent or regularly interacting groups of part, or activities, which establish the emergent whole (Johnson, Rosenzweig & Kast, 1973, pp. 13). Systems approach to management view organizations holistically and center on the cumulative work within business settings together with the interrelationship that exists in human behaviors and structure That produce extensive variables within organizations (Skyttner, 2001, p. 3). It assists in the understanding of the exchanges between people, organization, communities, groups, the environment, and social structures (Flamholtz, 1996, p. 139). In doing this, the approaches boost the understanding of the operations of human behavior in a situation. (Skyttner, 2001, pp. 3, 58).
The systems management approach is beneficial to use in the sense that it facilitates the performance among both human resources and organizations besides enhancing workflow and facilitating market analysis. These theories also promote the relationship between organizations and other stakeholders, create room for enhanced management of risks and facilitate workflow, just to mention but a few. As with the demerits, system approach to management does not focus on the possible changes in the business environment, which is perpetually dynamic. The rigid nature of this approach therefore limits its applicability in today's organizations ( Jackson, 2000, pp.283-284).
Human Relations and Neo-Human Relations Theories
These approaches coincide with the advancement of Elton Mayo, using the concept of Hawthorn studies. According to (Daft & Marcic, 2013, pp. 36-37), these approaches focus on filling some gaps that the classical theory never focused on. The human relations approach deduces that, considering the human characteristics of the employees is a significant element in management practices and motivation (Bolton & Houlihan, 2007, pp. 310-314). A theorist who formulated and advanced this theory aimed at combining sociology and psychology with management. To these experts, organizations are social structure composing of interpersonal and inter-group associations (Daft & Marcic, 2013, p. 36). This theory illustrates the significance of satisfying the social and psychological need of employees as a tool of motivation.
According to the principles that this approach supports employee, unlike machines, are human, have emotions and feelings, and as such require humane treatment. They also require need to access job satisfaction and security. This is irrespective of the fact that their interests go beyond finances as appreciation and recognition matters to them (Henderson, 1996, pp. 16-17). Daft and Marcic (2013, pp. 36-37), demonstrate that, this theory supports the ideas that the involvement of workers in decision making is critical and need appropriate communications from their seniors. Moreover, the informal relations within organization matter just in the same way the formal do. The theorists who supported this approach strive to advise managements on the significance of freedom for employees as opposed to strict supervision and excessive control in an environment where misapprehensions and disagreement are also as limited as possible (Nickson, 2007, pp. 215-216).
With respect to the neo-human relations approaches of management, the use of substantially widespread approaches exists. The mechanisms, which draw from the works of theorists like McGregor, Likert, Marlow and Argyris view motivation and job satisfaction in the mirror of the provision incentives, the achievement of satisfaction and inherency (Crowther, & Green, 2004, p. 53). Marslow proposes a hierarchy of needs suggesting that the capacity of individuals to satisfy one need depended on their situation with the preceding one. Marslows hierarchy of needs benefits organization by paving way for managers consider their subjects aspirations and needs (Sheldrake, 2003, p. xi). However, there exists limited evidence to support this fact.
McGregor used the X and Y theories to express different characteristics of individuals in organizations and how management requires to separately motivating them. However, this approach is, considered limited in scope as it only takes care of two extreme classes of traits. With reference to Likert, the pattern of management and motivation rested with the behaviors of those in management positions. The theorists classified managers as exploitative, benevolent, consultative, or participative (Mckinlay, 2000, pp. 12-13). He characterized…