Employee Motivation in the Workplace: Research Perspectives

Introduction

Motivating employees is one of the most difficult and important responsibilities that management must contend with. Motivated employees produce greater productivity and lower absenteeism. Understanding the factors that motivate employees has been an essential topic of study for industrial-organizational psychologists for many years. Several factors have been identified that both contribute to and hinder employee motivation. This paper explores the topic of employee motivation and the factors that influence it, taking a research-based approach that focuses on the role of employee reviews in motivation. The central argument is that more frequent employee reviews will help to increase employee motivation across all types of employees.

Current Research on Employee Motivation

In the past, it was thought that the primary motivation for employees revolved around pay. However, this assumption has been shown to be false. Pay and benefits may be the sole motivation for some employees, but for most, their reasons for working go well beyond the monetary and material benefits they receive. The following research summarizes the most recent studies on what motivates employees.

The four most important motivators for employees are employee engagement in their jobs, organizational values and vision, managerial recognition, and a sense of authenticity from management (SHRM, 2010). Employee engagement reflects the extent to which employees feel a sense of commitment to their employer — a factor that influences how hard they are willing to work and how long they intend to stay. Organizational vision concerns how well employees' values and goals align with the corporate vision; employees must feel this alignment in order to be motivated by it. How well employees feel they are treated is one of the most important factors in creating satisfied, long-tenured employees. Face-to-face interactions with management that encourage the employee were found to be among the most important factors in employee motivation (SHRM, 2010).

Teams have become one of the most important aspects of the work environment. Emotional intelligence has been found to be one of the most important elements team members bring that affects team performance (Othman, Abdullah, & Ahmad, 2009). These researchers found limited existing research relating emotional intelligence directly to work motivation, but identified references suggesting that the ability to control one's emotions is related to achievement. Because achievement has been directly related to motivation, Othman and associates surmised that emotional intelligence can be linked through a direct causal relationship to motivation. Emotional intelligence thus has a direct effect on an employee's behaviors, attitudes, and work outcomes.

Theories of self-efficacy have evolved into group efficacy theories. The theory of self-efficacy supports the idea that in order to achieve a goal, a person must first be able to envision themselves accomplishing the task. They must believe that they will be able to accomplish what is required. If they do not believe they can accomplish the task, they will not take action in that direction and, consequently, they will not accomplish the task. This same concept has been extended to teams. Group efficacy supports the theory that a team must believe it will be able to accomplish a goal within the time allotted in order to make its vision a reality (Gibson & Earley, 2007). Several factors influence the development of group efficacy: member abilities as they relate to task difficulty, self-efficacy of individual group members, group feelings about past performance, group cohesion, the level of cooperation among the group, and how members view the importance of the task (Gibson & Earley, 2007).

Workplace friendships are among the most important influences on workplace effectiveness. Research supports the finding that workplace friendships can have both positive and negative effects. Workplace friendships have been found to positively affect stress levels, creativity, and motivation. However, they have also been found to result in loss of focus on the task, groupthink, conflicts of interest, and the appearance of favoritism by management (Dotan, 2009). Dotan identified six key reasons why individuals form friendships at work: work safety and trust, filling missing roles, sanity checks, shared work values and life similarities, proximity, and mutual benefit. Dotan suggests that people form friendships for such varied reasons that this helps explain the differing outcomes of those friendships. The results of Dotan's study supported her hypothesis — each of these factors was found to result in either a positive or negative effect on the workplace.

Dotan's work makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about the overall positive or negative effects of friendships on the workplace; the outcome appears to depend significantly on the reason the friendship developed. One illustrative example comes from a call-center environment in which a manager and a secretary held private meetings in the manager's office, laughing and gossiping about other employees. When several staff members were subsequently fired, office politics rather than job performance were widely suspected as the cause. This fractured the team: employees began competing for the secretary's favor, and backstabbing and deliberate sabotage became common. The work environment grew hostile and productivity dropped. Before it was over, department productivity had declined significantly — all stemming from the perception of favoritism by the office manager. This example illustrates the results of Dotan's study and the strong connection between the social climate of a work environment and employee motivation.

Summary of Workplace Motivation Theories

Many theories on workplace engagement and motivation have been developed. One of the earliest was based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which proposed that people are motivated to work in order to achieve higher-order needs (Martin, 2009). It is easy to see why some people might view work as a way to satisfy their basic needs. People in poverty are often willing to take jobs they would not otherwise accept in order to provide food and shelter. However, this does not seem to hold true at higher income levels. Consider the very wealthy: after accumulating multiple properties and significant assets, it is difficult to explain why they continue to work, yet many do so throughout their lives. This suggests that motivation for working extends well beyond the provision of material needs.

Value-based theories propose that people prefer conditions of equity and fairness in their workplaces. Employees will assess what they invest in their work and what they receive in return; if they feel the balance is unfavorable, they will become dissatisfied and begin seeking better opportunities elsewhere (Martin, 2009). They will also evaluate their self-efficacy — their perceived ability to perform another role or pursue a higher managerial position. Several theories emphasize the ability to adapt to one's work environment. Social learning and the ability to regulate one's own emotions are key to planning, task management, and persistence (Martin, 2009).

When considering the various theories of workplace motivation that have developed over the years, it is difficult to determine which is most relevant. Each has strengths and can explain a particular set of circumstances, but each applies only to certain types of employees. The key weakness shared by all workplace motivation theories is the human factor: everyone is different. Human motivation is one of the most complex topics in psychology. What drives one person may have no effect on another. A person's personality, life experiences, attributions, and perceptions form a unique equation that drives motivation — an equation that is different for every individual. When asked which of the many theories on motivation is correct, the answer is that all of them are, in the right circumstances and for the right individuals.

For an industrial psychologist, the key task is deciding which theory to apply in order to improve motivation in a given workplace. There is no clear answer or simple formula. In order to select an appropriate theory, the industrial psychologist must be able to assess the climate and culture of the organization. This can be done through several means. Surveys are one option, but they only reveal what employees are willing to disclose. Many factors can distort survey results — employees may fear retaliation from management or doubt the confidentiality of their responses.

Other assessment methods include observation, examination of employee records, and interviews. The most effective industrial psychologist knows workers personally and can feel the pulse of the organization. By leaving the office and becoming an integral part of the workplace, the psychologist gains insight into power dynamics, individual personalities, and other features of the workplace that affect motivation. This was one of the key insights that emerged from reviewing the various theories on workplace motivation.

Conclusion and Practical Implications

Peterson (2007) discussed McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y as polar opposites. Theory X workers require constant supervision and are reluctant to work on their own initiative. Theory Y workers are self-starters with an inner drive to perform. Every manager ideally wants a team composed entirely of Theory Y workers. In reality, most managers oversee teams that include both types. Managers must be able to recognize these worker types and adjust their managerial style accordingly. According to Peterson, a Theory X worker responds better to an authoritarian management style, while a Theory Y worker may respond negatively to that same environment.