2011

Managing People and Performance

Motivation and Job Satisfaction Critical Analysis

Saurav Pokhrel MBA 3rd Term, 11328 12/11/2011

Article Abstract: The paper review Motivation and job satisfaction by Mark A. Tietjen and Robert M. Myers is based on various theories of motivation and job satisfaction. The paper includes the theory of Frederick Herzberg followed by the criticism of Edwin Locke and the new dimension Locke added to present the relationship between motivation and job satisfaction. The paper also gives an insight on the theme of Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Herseys theory of leadership within management and how this art is changing with time. The writers conclude by giving a brief view on the degree of implication of these individual theories and the synergy effect they can create by collaborating and undertaking the best of all different theories. Article Issues and Analysis: The basic theme on which this paper stands is the intent to answer whether the managers most challenging and ever lasting concern about motivation and satisfaction of their employees is constantly met. Because this is the only factor that will help any organization to derive the most out of their employees yet keeping the content. Motivated human resource being the most important aspect of any organization, the issue addressed by this paper can be regarded important to analyse various dimensions of employee behaviour, motivation and job satisfaction. Theories presented in the paper are formulated as early as 1959. Anything needs renewing and improvisation with time and experience thus new theories are brought forward with criticism of the old ones. The paper itself is based on theories, thus the basic assumption of the writers in this paper does not seem to be more than just focusing on theories propounded before and the possibility of deriving the best from them. The question that, whether the everlasting problem of managers about keeping their employees motivated and satisfied with their job addressed by the theories propounded earlier? Has been analysed by the writers by presenting the theories itself along with their criticism and drawings followed by the writers own conclusion on it. Thus, the

overall methodology seems to be appealing but this could have been much better if the theories were analysed in detail than just presenting them. The Herzbergs theory of motivation: Herzberg suggested a two-step approach to understanding employee motivation and satisfaction: Hygiene Factors Hygiene factors are based on the need to for a business to avoid unpleasantness at work. If these factors are considered inadequate by employees, then they can cause dissatisfaction with work. Hygiene factors include: Company policy and administration Wages, salaries and other financial remuneration Quality of supervision Quality of inter-personal relations Working conditions Feelings of job security

Motivator Factors: Motivator factors are based on an individual's need for personal growth. When they exist, motivator factors actively create job satisfaction. If they are effective, then they can motivate an individual to achieve above-average performance and effort. Motivator factors include: Status Opportunity for advancement Gaining recognition Responsibility Challenging / stimulating work Sense of personal achievement & personal growth in a job

Edwin Lockes theory of job satisfaction: The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of

work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/arent met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesnt value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet. Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Herseys theory of leadership: According to this model, the leader has to match the leadership style according to the readiness of subordinates which moves in stage and has a cycle. Therefore, this theory is also known as the lifecycle theory of leadership. The theory, developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, is based on the readiness level of the people the leader is attempting to influence. Readiness is the extent to which followers have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task. Ability is the knowledge, experience, and skill that an individual possesses to do the job and is called job readiness. Willingness is the motivation and commitment required to accomplish a given task. The style of leadership depends on the level of readiness of the followers. Critical Analysis: Thus, this paper gives an insight on the overall theories of motivation which helps in understanding the concept very well but lacks in detail analyses on the writers part. The conclusion that Tietjen and Myers derive on the article is that all the theories presented in the article actually should be used as a complement to each other adding value to the implication of each theory. The focus on attitude and behaviour of the

employees as per Herzbergs theory of motivation is definitely useful but the writers claim that this does not go alone, The values or worldview, a worker carries into the job form the foundation on which the attitudes develop is also important. Thus both attitude and values of the employees should be considered while evaluating them and their motivation factors. Herzbergs emphasis of dual factor theory having different set of motivators and completely new set of de motivators and the neutral affect in the absence of those factors proposed by writers for understanding the attitude and behaviour of the employees that lays foundation for creating values. Thus, they conclude that for having a long term positive impact all the theories have to be analysed and materialized to alter the task of the employees in such a way that the fulfilment gained from doing the job is expected daily. Thus, even though the paper is very informative in terms of providing theoretical insight on the importance of motivation and job satisfaction of the employees for improved productivity, it could have been better if the real life examples were given to clarify the importance of the combined working of best of all theories to meet todays need of motivated and satisfied employees.