Further to the previous blog exploring what motivation actually is, this topic can be further expanded upon by examining the many theories written on motivation. These theories can be separated into two groups: Concept Theories and Process Theories.
Concept theories are primarily based on attempting to explain the specific things that motivate individuals within the work place. Such theories identify ‘people’s needs and their relative strengths, and the goals they pursue in order to satisfy these needs,’ (Mullins, 2010 p.260). Process theories, conversely, are focused on identifying the variables that make-up motivation in terms of a ‘rational cognitive process,’ illustrating the relationship between said variables, (changingminds.org). Therefore, these theories primarily look at how an individual’s behaviour is ‘initiated, directed and sustained,’ (Mullins p.260), in terms of motivation.
The primary difference between Concept and Process theories is that the former are focused on emphasising the nature of personal needs and, particularly, it what is that motivates people, whereas Process theories concern the actual process of motivation.
To further understand the theory behind motivation, I have chosen to research staff motivation undertaken by the company Lloyds TSB. Lloyds state within their company aims that their focus is on providing motivation to individuals based on personal needs: “We’re all different, and our needs change over time. So, a school leaver has different needs to new parents, who have different needs to people without children,” (lloydstsbjobs.com). Lloyds therefore operates a reward scheme called 'Flavours,' in order to cater to all various motivational needs.This shows their understanding of the principles of Concept theories, and the differentiation of the nature of personal needs between individuals.
Lloyds employ many different methods of motivating their employees, the foremost being added cash incentives and bonuses on top of employee salaries, to motivate them in performing effectively within their job roles. One method of providing employees with bonuses is defined as a ‘flexible benefits cash sum (4% of salary) which is added to your pay and which you can 'invest' in the benefits you want - or to take as cash.’ Employees are further allowed to exchange job perks, such as vacation days, for cash sums. The incentive of money is further enforced by the company’s promise to contribute to employee pension funds ‘over and above’ their own, motivating employees with security after retirement.
In turn, Lloyds further provide ‘discounted offers’ on their own products and also holidays, car hire and health clubs. This along with options for private dental and health care for employees and their families, allows the company to provide staff with financial security along with satisfaction of basic needs such as health, further enforced through the provision of ‘life assurance, critical illness… and personal accident insurance’ cover, in order to motivate staff to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities.
Lloyds also motivate their employees through the use of flexible working, to help ‘strike the right balance between work-life and home.’ Allowing staff to work at hours more suitable for them encourages them to fulfil their job roles with more efficiency and focus, as they are more motivated to complete the tasks at hand at times more suitable for them.
Analysing these provisions from a critical point of view, many of Lloyd’s choice of motivational techniques seem to be in line with Expectancy theories of motivation, particularly that of Porter and Lawler. Mullins (2010) illustrates that Expectancy theories focus on the relationship between ‘effort expected and perceived level of performance,’ and the expectation that reward is related to performance. Porter and Lawler portrayed this idea through the following motivation model:
Porter and Lawler insinuate that individuals make choices/decisions about their behaviour and act rationally in that process, and that their level of effort and drive is unique to them. Thus, the model above, in short, depicts that the level of effort is directly relational to work performance, which in turn is proportional to the level of reward received, and such ideas can be readily attributed to Lloyd’s motivation methods.
The main motivational technique Lloyds employs that is in line with this process theory is the use of cash incentives and bonuses for good work. This motivates the employees in terms of the fact that they are likely to increase effort within their daily roles in order to receive such incentives. This means that they are likely to increase the quality of their performance, which in turn reaches the end result of them receiving rewards for their efforts in the form of cash sums. This motivation chain of effort relating to performance, and in turn relating to reward, is an exact illustration of the ideas conveyed Porter and Lawler’s motivation model.
Alternatively, it could be argued that the rest of Lloyds TSB’s motivational methods do not satisfactorily relate to this process theory. This is due to the fact that the remainder of the motivational benefits the company provides are not dependant on performance, but on a person merely being an employee of Lloyd’s, such as the free dental care and discounts. This means that staff may not perform at their best because, as is expressed within Porter and Lawler’s Expectancy model, there is no reward for increased effort- the motivational perks are provided so long as the employees have their jobs. Thus, this could have the effect of employees only doing the bare minimum required to keep their jobs and enjoy company benefits, and shows Lloyds TSB is not utilising the Expectancy theory as productively as it could be.
Conclusively, my research has shown me that the level of motivation within an organisation has a direct impact on staff performance, and various methods, in the form of process theories can be utilised to increase staff performance, such as in the case of Lloyds TSB. However, failure to utilise such methods effectively can result in lack of motivation and staff not performing as productively as they could be, which is detrimental to a company’s operations, and has shown me the value of improving and enhancing motivation to improve the performance of staff within an organisation.
References,
Mullins, Laurie J. (2010) Management and Organisational Behaviour. 9th ed. Essex: Pearson
ChangingMinds.org [n.d] Motivation [online]. Available from: http://changingminds.org/explanations/motivation/motivation.htm [Accessed 29 October 2010]
Lloydstsbjobs.com [n.d] Rewarding you [online]. Available from: http://www.lloydstsbjobs.com/rewarding-you.asp [Accessed 29 October 2010]
Lloydstsbjobs.com [n.d] Flavours [online]. Available from: http://www.lloydstsbjobs.com/flavours.asp [Accessed 29 October 2010]
