Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Motivation of labor activity. Study aid
.pdf
41
CHAPTER 2. THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
OF PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
There are several approaches to studying theories of motivation for
professional activity. The first approach is based on studying the content
side of the theory of motivation, the second — on procedural theories.
2.1. CONTENT THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
Substantive theories of motivation are based on consideration of
human needs, which are the main motive for their implementation, and
therefore for their activities. Proponents of this approach include American
psychologists A. Maslow, D. McClelland and F. Herzberg. Next, we will
consider these theories in more detail.
Hierarchy of needs by A. Maslow. The essence of this theory is the
study of human needs. This theory is an earlier theory. Its supporters,
including A. Maslow, said that the subject of psychology is behavior, not
human consciousness. Behavior is based on human needs, which can be
divided into several groups:
• physiological needs that are necessary for human survival: food,
water, rest, etc.;
• needs for security and confidence in the future: protection from
physical and other dangers from the outside world and confidence that
physiological needs can be satisfied in the future;
• social needs imply the need for a social environment,
communication with people, a sense of support;
• the need for respect, recognition from others and the desire for
personal achievements;
• the need for self-expression, i.e. the need for personal growth and
the realization of one’s potential.
The first two groups of needs are classified as primary, and the next
three are classified as secondary. In accordance with the theory of A.
42
Maslow, all these needs can be presented in a strict hierarchical sequence
in the form of a pyramid, at the base of which are primary needs, and the
top is allocated to secondary needs.
The essence of this kind of hierarchical structure is that the needs of
lower levels are a priority for a person and this can also influence his
motivation. In human behavior, a more decisive place is given to the
satisfaction of needs at first low levels, and then, as they are satisfied, the
needs of higher levels become stimulating factors.
The highest need — the need for self-expression and growth of a
person as an individual — can never be fully satisfied, since the process of
motivating a person through needs is an endless process.
The responsibility of the manager is that he needs to observe his
subordinates, promptly determine what active needs drive each of them,
and make decisions on their implementation in order to improve the
efficiency of employees.
Acquired needs. D. McClelland's theory of three needs. Based on the
works of A. Murray, researchers D. McClelland and D. Atkinson
contributed to understanding the significant role of the needs for success,
affiliation and power for the activities of organizations. Each of these
named needs can be a powerful factor in motivating employees.
The need for success implies the desire to achieve difficult and
exciting goals. Individuals who have a high need for success will receive
satisfaction when they achieve a result, whether anyone notices it or not.
If we compare the acquired needs according to D. McClelland with
the needs of A. Maslow’s hierarchy, then the need for success will be
somewhere in the middle between the need for respect and the need for
self-expression.
The need for belonging is the desire for warm and friendly
relationships with other people. People with a strong need for belonging
like to work closely and cooperatively with their employees.
The need for belonging has in common with social needs according
to A. Maslow. People who are more dominated by the need for affiliation
may be satisfied with an organizational situation that provides social
43
opportunities. In this regard, they want to work in close contact with
employees or clients.
When managers and employees approve, respect, and reward good
performance, employees who have a high level of need for affiliation are
motivated to act in ways that enable them to gain recognition and respect.
The need for power is interconnected with a person’s internal desire
to exercise control over other people and influence their behavior.
Depending on how this need is used, it can have a positive or negative
impact on managerial success.
The desire for personal power implies the desire for dominance.
Individuals with these types of needs must be carefully sought out and
trained for important leadership roles that enable them to use power for the
benefit of the organization.
In accordance with D. McClelland's theory, people with a desire for
power must satisfy this need and have the opportunity to do this when
occupying certain positions in the organization.
It is possible to manage these needs by preparing employees for the
transition through the hierarchy to new positions through their
certification, sending them to advanced training courses, etc. These people
have a wide circle of contacts and want to expand it. Their leaders should
assist in this in every possible way.
Two-factor motivational-hygienic concept of F. Herzberg. This
theory was formulated by the American psychologist F. Herzberg based on
interview data that was taken in various workplaces, in various
professional groups and in various countries. The interviewees were asked
to describe situations when they would feel satisfied or, conversely,
dissatisfied with their work.
The respondents' answers were classified into groups. Having
analyzed the collected material, F. Herzberg concluded that job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction can be caused by various factors. One
factor shows the relationship between the factors and the level of
employee dissatisfaction, and the other shows the relationship between the
factors and the level of satisfaction. Moreover, these factors are different
44
in both cases. The scientist called the first group of factors context factors,
or hygiene factors, and the second — motivators.
Hygiene factors are determined by the environment in which work
takes place, and motivators are determined by the very nature and essence
of the work. In accordance with the theory of F. Herzberg, in the case
when there are no or insufficient hygiene factors, a person becomes
dissatisfied with his job. However, if they are sufficient, then in
themselves they do not cause job satisfaction and cannot motivate a person
to do anything. If contextual factors create a bad situation, then employees
feel dissatisfied, but even in the best case, these factors cannot lead to
great job satisfaction, but rather give a neutral attitude.
The motivators that cause job satisfaction are interrelated with the
content of the job and the individual’s needs for self-expression. The
absence or inadequacy of motivators cannot lead to job dissatisfaction. But
their presence fully causes satisfaction and motivates employees to
improve their performance.
Hygienic factors, in accordance with the theory of F. Herzberg,
include the following factors:
• control method;
• Company policy;
• relations with the immediate supervisor;
• working conditions;
• wage;
• relations with employees;
• relations with subordinates;
• status;
• safety.
According to F. Herzberg, motivating factors can be:
• achievements;
• recognition of success;
• work as such (interest in work and task);
• responsibility;
• career advancement;
• professional growth.
45
The implementation of F. Herzberg's concept in practice shows a
two-stage process that makes it possible to manage employee satisfaction
and motivation. First of all, managers must address hygiene needs and
ensure that the basic needs of employees are met so that they increase their
interest in work and performance efficiency. Managers can then move on
to the second stage — satisfying much more powerful motivating needs.
When motivators are ignored, achieving long-term satisfaction and high
motivation will be quite difficult.
If motivating needs are satisfied, then employees try to work well.
The difference in the theories described above is that, according to
A. Maslow, after motivation, the worker will definitely work better;
according to F. Herzberg, the worker will begin to work better only after
he decides that motivation is inadequate.
Consequently, meaningful theories of motivation are based on the
study of needs and identification of factors that influence people's
behavior.
2.2. PROCEDURAL THEORIES
Process theories may include the theory of expectations, or the model
of motivation according to V. Vroom, the theory of justice, and the theory
or model of Porter-Lawler.
V. Vroom's theory of expectations. According to this theory,
individuals have a tendency to work in one way or another based on the
expectation that these actions will be followed by a reward and that this
reward will be attractive to the individual.
The theory is based on the use of three variables or relationships:
1. The relationship between labor inputs and results (the assessment
is made by the subjective expectation that the expenditure of a certain
amount of effort will lead to the required result).
2. The relationship between the result and reward (can be assessed by
the degree of confidence of the individual that the result achieved within
specified limits will lead to the receipt of the desired reward).
46
3. Attractiveness (valence) of the reward, i.e. utility that is in relation
to the individual with the potential result or reward for the work
performed. This variable can be considered as an individual's goal or need.
Expectancy theory is based on the proposition that the presence of an
active need is not the only necessary condition for motivating a person to
perform a certain job. A person also needs to have hope that the type of
behavior he has chosen can actually lead to the satisfaction of his needs or
the acquisition of what he wants. Great importance in this theory is given
to the concept of expectation. Expectation can be considered as a given
person's assessment of the likelihood of a certain event.
Expectation can be measured by an individual using the so-called
subjective probability, which has a value of 1 if the individual has absolute
confidence that the event will occur, and 0 if he is confident that the event
will not occur. Consequently, this probability takes values in the range
from 1 to 0 as the individual’s confidence that the event will take place
decreases.
Within this approach, the level of motivation can be assessed
quantitatively. If as P1 we take a subjective assessment of the probability
that an employee will achieve a given result with some labor input, as
P2 — a subjective assessment of the probability of payment of a
conditional remuneration upon achieving a given result, and as P3 — a
subjective probability of the remuneration matching the perceived need of
the employee, then the level motivation can be assessed using the
following formula:
M = P1 × P2 × P3.
This formula clearly shows that motivation differs from zero only in
the case when the employee considers all subjective probabilities included
in the formula as significantly greater than zero. In other words, he needs
to regard the job as doable, the employer as fulfilling his obligations, and
the reward as desirable.
47
S. Adams' theory of justice. This theory shows that each person
subjectively determines the ratio of the reward received to the effort
expended in performing the job, and then correlates this ratio with a
similar ratio that develops for other people performing similar work. If this
kind of comparison leads the employee to the conclusion that these relative
values are approximately equal, then the situation will be subjectively
perceived as fair. If the comparison shows an imbalance, then the person
will think that there is injustice.
In this case, the employee experiences psychological stress: he may
come to the conclusion that he is underpaid or overpaid. As a result, the
employee has a desire to relieve tension and eliminate the imbalance to
restore justice.
In this case, much attention is paid to the employee’s choice of object
for comparison. There are three categories of workers depending on their
behavioral stereotypes, which determine the choice of a reference group:
oriented “to others”, oriented “to the system”, oriented “to themselves”.
Workers belonging to the first category compare themselves with
other individuals who perform similar work at the same enterprise, at other
enterprises, and also compare with their friends, neighbors, etc., i.e. their
reference group is extremely broad.
Workers in the second group review their company's pay policies and
procedures, both theoretically and in practice. Employees of this group
tend to view the organization as a reference group.
Workers belonging to the third group usually turn to analyzing
exclusively their own reward/contribution ratio. They compare this value
only with their past experience and past work. In this case, the reference
group is the narrowest — the employee himself.
Therefore, in accordance with the theory of justice, we can conclude
that the motivation of employees depends on relative reward no less than
on absolute reward. If an employee begins to feel a sense of injustice, he
immediately tries to correct the situation. This can lead to an increase or
decrease in productivity, the quality of performance results, an increase in
the number of absenteeism or voluntary dismissals.
48
Porter — Lawler theory of motivation. This theory is built on a
combination of elements of expectancy theory and equity theory. It is
based on the relationship between remuneration and achieved results.
L. Porter and E. Lawler identified three variables that influence the
amount of remuneration: effort expended, a person’s personal qualities and
abilities, and awareness of his role in the labor process. Elements of
expectancy theory in this case are manifested in the fact that the employee
evaluates the reward depending on the effort expended and he has the
belief that this reward will be adequate to the effort expended. Elements of
equity theory are reflected in the fact that people have a personal judgment
regarding the rightness or wrongness of rewards in comparison with other
employees, and therefore a degree of satisfaction. In this regard, we can
draw an important conclusion that it is the results of work that serve as the
reason for employee satisfaction, and not vice versa. According to this
theory, performance must necessarily increase.
D. McGregor's theory of motivation. D. McGregor analyzed the
activities of an employee in the workplace, and he found that the manager
can exercise control over the following parameters that determine the
actions of the performer:
• tasks that a subordinate receives;
• quality of task implementation;
• time of receiving the task;
• expected time to complete the task;
• the means available to complete the task;
• the team in which the subordinate works;
• instructions given to the subordinate;
• convincing the subordinate that the task is feasible;
• convincing the subordinate that he will receive a reward for a well
done job;
• amount of remuneration for the work done;
• the level of involvement of the subordinate in the range of work-
related problems.
49
These factors depend on the manager and at the same time, to one
degree or another, influence the employee, determine the quality and
intensity of his work. D. McGregor concluded that, based on these factors,
two different approaches to management can be applied, which he called
“Theory X” and “Theory Y”.
Theory X shows a purely authoritarian management style,
characterized by significant centralization of power, strict control over the
factors listed above.
Theory Y corresponds to a democratic management style and
implies delegation of authority, improving relationships in the team, taking
into account the motivation of performers and their psychological needs,
and enriching the content of work.
Both theories have an equal right to exist, but mostly in real life a
combination of different management styles is used.
These theories greatly influenced the development of management
theory in general. Today, references to them are presented in many
practical manuals on managing the personnel of an organization and
motivating subordinates.
D. McGregor's theories were developed in relation to an individual
person. Further improvement of approaches to management was due to the
development of the organization as an open system; the work of a person
in a team was also considered. This circumstance led to the creation of the
concept of a holistic approach to management, i.e. that it is necessary to
take into account the whole range of production and social problems. W.
Ouch developed Theory Z. He noted the disproportionate attention to
technology to the detriment of the human factor. In this regard, Theory Z
is based on the principles of trust, lifelong employment (as attention to the
person) and the group method of decision-making, which ensures a strong
connection between people and a more stable position for them.
Nevertheless, we can say that management developed more
according to Theory Y — a democratic management style. Consequently,
with some assumptions, theory Z can be considered a developed and
50
improved theory Y, which is adapted primarily to the conditions and
traditions of Japan.
The contradictions inherent in currently existing motivational models
do not lead to their complete denial; on the contrary, critical comments are
mainly focused on the need for their improvement. The effectiveness or
viability of a model can only be verified by testing it in practical life,
taking into account the environment where it will be implemented. Of
course, the absence of motivational models in our organizations will
reduce the effectiveness of existing management systems and the socioeconomic activities of work collectives.
It becomes clear that motivational patterns can have both positive
and negative socio-economic consequences, especially if informal groups
take place in the organization.
2.3. DOMESTIC THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
Among our scientists, the greatest successes in developing the theory
of motivation were achieved by L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontyev,
B.F. Lomov. They analyzed the problems of psychology using the
example of pedagogical activity; they did not consider production
problems. It is precisely for this reason that their work was not further
developed. According to many experts, all the main provisions of the
theory of L.S. Vygotsky's ideas are also suitable for organizational
psychology.
In accordance with the theory of L.S. Vygotsky, in the human psyche
there are two parallel levels of development — the highest and the lowest,
establishing high and low human needs. This implies that it is not possible
to satisfy the needs of one level using the means of another. For example,
when at some period of time a person needs to satisfy the lower needs first,
then material incentives will work. In this case, the highest human needs
can be realized only with the help of non-material means. L.S. Vygotsky
concluded that higher and lower needs, which develop in parallel and
independently, collectively control human behavior and his activities. This
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]