Explain analytically, how motivation theories could help managers elicit ‘discretionary effort’ from employees

Explain analytically, how motivation theories could help managers elicit ‘discretionary effort’ from employees. Illustrate your answer with suitable examples of HR practices

 Most businesses try to operate their business more effectively within their limited budgets . As regards  reducing unit labour costs, which is the ultimate goal of human resource management , there are several options  can be generated from workers , such as extensive effort , intensive effort , constrained effort and discretionary effort.  Among them , the discretionary one, which is also called organisational citizenship behaviour, is probably the most desirable effort that most firm pursue as it has many advantages compared to the others ( Aldag. R ,1997 P. 1). It enables firms maximise use of their staff spending minimum wages and reduces cost of monitoring and the heart of the merits  is , of course,  the impact on lowering  unit labour costs  .  There have been some motivation theories developed by many researchers such as Malslow, Vroom , Hackman  and the theories can help managers motivate their workers to be more voluntary. In this  essay , the focus will be on process theories  as they can explain how and why people feel motivated or de-motivated. Let us discuss how discretionary effort can be generated from workers helped by the process theories. To do so, each theory will be defined, compared and contrasted . Afterwards the applications  in actual workplaces will be examined.

As earlier mentioned , process theories of motivation can help managers understand how and why workers may engage in discretionary effort( Mullins,1996 P. 499; Martin, 2005 p.443). Expectancy  and equity theories are the two main types of the process theory. These theories’ common focus is on explaining one step further  which  human needs  motivate people that through what steps   workers are motivated to work . In other words , managers need to pay attention to the relation between workers’ effort,  performance ,rewards and what outcome workers value . The differences between the two  is that the expectancy theory stress maximisation of positive outcomes while the equity theory emphasise equivalence between inputs and outputs(Lawler ,1968 P.598). Let us dig the two theories more in detail.

  The expectancy theory has been proposed by Vroom in 1964 and been extended by Porter and Lawler.  It assumes that workers are motivated when there is linkage between effort , performance and outcome .It help employers how each workers form decisions as regards other behavioural options  ( Mullins 1996 P.500) . That is to say, when all three elements : Expectancy, Instrumentally and valence  are satisfied together, people are motivated. The diagram below shows how motivation is processed.

                           (source from arrod.co.uk)

 The Expectancy is workers’ assuming that more effort will result in desired performance . Then the  better performance must lead to rewards, such as bonus wages or getting promoted to hire position,  and this is called Instrumentality. And the rewards need to be matched to the workers personal value and it is Valence. For instance, some one could put more value on money than finishing work earlier and in this case he would not be motivated even if he has gone to home earlier. If any one of the conditions is not satisfied, workers would not be motivated  according to Vroom. ( Vroom ,1964 p. 1- 18)  The formula below shows how the three elements interact together to elicit high motivation . If one of the three elements is zero, the total motivational force is going to be zero.

              Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valance (Scholl, 2002)

 There are some variables affecting the three elements .( Vroom,1964 p. 211-267) First the expectancy can be affected by self efficiency, goal difficulty and control. Self efficiency is a worker’s confidence that whether or not he or she has enough skills and capabilities to do the job.  Gaol is set too difficult , which is beyond a worker’s ability, can lead to low motivation . If workers believe that they have control over their companies they , expectancy is high therefore they are motivated. That is to say workers need to feel they are involved  highly their firm’s goal.  With regards to the instrumentality , two variables can affect it ant these are Trust and policies. Instrumentalit is high when workers believe their managers make sure good performance will lead to rewards. In addition, formal written documents  about rewards and payment can increase instrumentality as well. Finally, three elements can affect valence that preference, value and needs.  For instance, as earlier mentioned, different person value different rewards and they can be overpayments, promotions , time off and recognition. That is to say , it is crucial to investigate what workers value more.

  There can be some positive implications of this theory help managing workers.  This can remind managers some of  important points to consider. First, managers need to determine what outcomes employees value that is their preferences . Some may value more on reputation than money while the other prefer economic rewards or time off . Second, it is needed to  make sure the criteria of good performance so appropriate performances can be rewarded and workers to be aware of what they are aiming clearly. Third, they need to ensure  workers can achieve desired goals . Self efficiency , as earlier mentioned, is very important fact for motivation. Finally, it is important to make sure that  rewards are going to be large enough to motivate workers . All these factors can help managers elicit discretionary effort from employees ( McGraw-Hill,2004).

  However, the theory assumes that the expectancies are equally applied to every workers and employees are not limited to involve in decision making  . In fact, as earlier mentioned, expectancies are very subjective and the level of expectancy can be very low in some positions of a work ,such as part time workers (Lawler ,1968,P. 598). Therefore, It may not be  appropriate to be applied to the people who are doing typical work , for instance,  those who are in low position  . Rather, it can be very useful to explain productivity of people in a company in which workers have relatively high control over their organisations .

  Let us turn to the equity theory  ,which has been suggested by Adams in 1963. It can be seen as is about balance between inputs and outputs . Effort and rewards can be seen as part of the inputs and outputs respectively. Different from Expectancy theory which focuses on each individual only, Adams argued that it is important to establish not only the equity between inputs and outputs ,but also similar ratio of inputs and outputs compared to so called ‘ reference others’ to motivate workers.  The ‘reference others’  is any points or people workers compare their situations with them and this can be seen as the heart of the theory(Chapman.A, 2009) and the diagram below shows the importance of ratios between inputs and outputs, not only whether the rewards are appropriate compared to the inputs.

( ibid 2007)

This can explain why pay and conditions are not sole facts that motivate employees. Equity can be seen as subjective that an worker can feel fairness in his work if he think he is given  rewards similar to his peers even if the ratio between inputs and outputs are not balanced. In addition, a person who perceive  he is underpaid will decrease his effort and on the contrary, the feeling overpaid will result in putting more inputs(Lawler,1968 p.597).

   The equity theory can be useful for managers and other high-positioned people  in a firm to understand that  if one person is rewarded for his better performance , he will try to put more efforts into his work  but  the effect will go on for a while as it can lead to de-motivation of the others in a long- term perspective . Because they will compare their input-output ratios of each other. In  that sense, the theory can remind managers the importance of managing workers with surrounding environment, peers ,system  and other affecting factors together . In addition, managers can be aware of that they need to control over and under payment properly ( Chapman . A ,2009) .

  However,  the theory has been criticised  due to some of its limitations . First, the criteria of over and under payment is very subjective that It depends on individual perceptions.  Similarly, workers judge whether or not they are treated equally differently. In addition, it is clear that underpayment lead to less efforts from workers  but how workers react to over payments has not been studied enough yet. Finally, there has been very small number of studies as to way of  reducing  inequity between employees( Huczynski&Buchanan, 2001 p.246-247).

  Two  main process theories have been defined, compared and contrasted so far. Each theory can  provide managers  frameworks of   motivating workers and  how to design works. In addition, using the exposed limitations, managers can supplement the frameworks and this can result in discretionary effort from workers( Mullins ,1996 p.499).

  Based on the theories’ advantages and limitations,  have been discussed, let us turn to how they can be useful for manager to make employees to be motivated to work harder using an example that is managing workers in a fast food restaurant  McDonald.

  First of all, the manager need to  understand that the differences between each workers as their preferences are different each other. Problems , in terms of distribution and procedure justice,  can arise from treating them as the same units( Martin,2005 p.447). This stresses the importance of being aware of what they want as rewards. In fact, the number of staff in a branch of McDonald is relatively small, although it may vary in each one. It may be possible  to involve workers in decision making and  this may enable managers arrange  workers efficiently, based on the information includes what each of them want, what skills they have, to what extent they are involved in work and degree of freedom, while fulfilling their tasks, should be distributed to them . That is to say, interaction between workers and managers can be more effective than a  manager’s sole decision.

  Second, job rotation, flexie-time and job sharing can be applied . (Lopresti. J,2008 P 43-51) In fact, most of the tasks done in the McDonald , such as  receiving order, cleaning and making a burger , do not require professional skills. As these are repetitive and simple ones, workers easily get bored . In that sense, managers need to collect feedbacks from employees and job rotation can be applied , even partly, to prevent boredom . Flexie-time , of course, can be said as an essential fact as most of the workers are hired temporarily . If this is not a precondition before start the works , no one would apply for it as  a large part of them consists of students. Job sharing  can be also seen as an effective method. It can be more efficient and save times to share one task as tasks in the McDonald are divided and at least more than two people work in a part.

  Third, results and rewards need to be balanced and this can be put into the context of distribution justice( Mullins, 1996 p. 508-509). For instance, since McDonald started to be opened till late , there must be differences in wages given to the night and day-time workers . If it is not done so, workers may not be motivated and this will result in poor productivity.  In addition, extra wages must be rewarded to whom, for instance, the best worker of the month and  the one has done extra works than what he is supposed to do.

  Fourth, the reason  for the differences in rewards must be stated to the workers clearly and this is called procedural justice( Maiese. M, 2004). Although it is reasonable  to pay differently to the night-time and day-time worker, for instance, some of workers can have feeling of inequity . Unless the procedure is established clearly, employees can feel they are not paid fairly and this can result in low satisfaction and absenteeism, which will finally de-motivate workers .

  Finally , the importance of faith between managers and workers also need to be emphasised as the money is not the sole determinant of motivation( Hanan ,2008). For instance, a word of compliment about what workers doing well can boost workers’ motivation than just  monetary rewards,  some times. In the context of expectancy theory, the level of faith as to reward and effort is very low. To prevent this, building a good relation between workers and managers thorough conversation  is important to understand how workers consider their work, especially inputs and outputs, and to make them believe their firm.

[??] ??? ??, ?? ??|??? ??? ??

  To sum up, I have defined two process theories and have examined  the implications to elicit discretionary from workers. After that, how the two theories can be applied in a real workplace has been mentioned using an example that is managing employees in McDonald. The theories can explain the process how workers motivated regarding inputs and outputs. The expectancy theory stresses the  linkage between effort , performance  and output while the equity theory emphasised the importance of  input- output ratios. The two theories can help managers understand how workers are engaged in discretionary effort. In this essay, only one example of a fast food , which has relatively small number of workers ,has been used and such methods as job rotation and job sharing has been mentioned for managing them effectively.  However, managers in a bigger firm, in which most workers are employed permanently, can also use the theories to understand what employees want and how they are motivated so they can develop their own ways of managing workers.

< Bibliograph>

Books

Andrzej Huczynski & David Buchanan (2001) Organisational behaviour, England, Pearson Education.

John Martin (2005) Organisational Behaviour and Management ,London, Thomson Learning.

Laurie J Mullins(1996) Management and organisational behaviour, London, Pitman.

Victor H. Vroom (1964) Work and motivation, New York , John Wiley&Sons Inc.

Internet &others

Droar.D (2006) Expectancy theory of motivation [online] available at http://www.arrod.co.uk/archive/concept_vroom.php [ assessed 18/11/09].

Richard W. Scholl (2002) Expectancy theory [online] available at http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/webnotes/Motivation_Expectancy.htm[ assessed 19/11/09].

Edward . E Lawler (1967) Equity theory as a predictor of productivity and work quality , USA , Yeil University.

Alen Chapman (2007~2009) Adam’s Equity Theory , [online] available at http://www.businessballs.com/adamsequitytheory.htm [assessed 23/11/09].

McGraw-Hill (2004) Motivation through equity, expectancy and goal setting ,  The McGraw-Hill companies , Inc.

Jim LoPresti (2008) Motivation – theory and practice ,  University of Colorado, John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Michelle Maiese(2004) Procedural justice  [online] available at http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/procedural_justice/ [assessed 25/11/09]

Robert Hanan (2008) Faith [online] available at http://www.robhanan.com/heresy/faith.html

[ assessed 25/ 11/09]

Ray Aldag (1997)  Employee Value Added: Measuring Discretionary Effort and Its Value

to the Organization ,  Madison school of business, Center for Organization Effectiveness, Inc