HR Performance Issues and Motivation

Introduction

In most organization, employees often complain that their current position does not motivate them as a result of various reasons. It is evident that motivation plays a vital role towards the success of the organization hence should be handled with utmost consideration (Baack, 2012). Motivation problem would significantly affect the employee’s performance, and this would further affect the company’s profitability and productivity (Kim, 2006). The primary underlying reason is the failing performance motivation. Research has pointed out that there is a significant relationship between employee performance and motivation. According to Kim (2006), various methods can be adopted to motivate employees; therefore, it is the duty of the human resource to determine the most suitable method that suits the organization. Overall, increased productivity, reduced employee turnover, and quality performance are all linked to employee motivation. The essay will analyze the concept of motivation using Herzberg theory and intervention to change the motivation and correct the performance problem

Performance issue that resulted from a motivational problem

Currently, I am working as an engineer with a global company. I began working with the firm as a contract or in a team of about ten engineers on one strategic project. Based on my qualification, I was assigned the duty to handle special projects and odd situations that would demand a special handling. Under this position, I was required to work for extended hours to ensure that I deliver the project on time as requested. The pay was good, and I was able to adjust and work for long hours; therefore, I did not have any issue when accomplishing my duties. I worked with the company to the same position for three years. By the time the project was almost completed, I was hired as a full-time employee with the same company. One of the employees came into the project about one year after me but quickly moved position several times, learns new processes and climbed to the supervisor position. 

We got hired to the new position at the same time and under a similar title, but his need for power as described by McClelland was strong suppressing most of our efforts by taking over the project. As a result of this, our work relationship became zero sums affecting our performance. Working under him as our supervisor was traumatizing because he kept on ordering us around, shouting at us whenever things seem not to be right according to him and ultimately took over the project as a personal entity and went further to deny the employees vacation time. As a result of this, I started to feel demoralized; the level of turnover and absenteeism increased overall affecting productivity. The team members all felt overworked and discouraged by all the events that were happening under his supervision.

Content theory of motivation-Herzberg

The selected theory was Herzberg; therefore, based on this theory, the employees were not satisfied as a result of the lack of hygiene factors which in this case are vacation time and promotion. Therefore employees could not be motivated to meet the objective and goals of the project because they were not allowed to exercises their skills, go to vacation as initially planned and denied chances to get promoted. Based on this theory, intrinsic (motivation factors) and extrinsic (hygiene factors) motivators tend to have an inverse relationship where the intrinsic motivators will create motivation when present while on the other hand, the extrinsic motivators would reduce the motivation if present (Adair, 2006). According to Kim (2006), the intrinsic motivators comprise of less tangible and highly emotional needs such as lack of recognition and promotion while extrinsic motivators are more tangible and basic needs including employee’s job security and the fringe benefits. It would be critical for the employees to have the motivation that would have pushed us further to accomplish the goals of the project as initially communicated to us (Baack, 2012).

Taking into consideration the above situation that resulted to underperformance, it can be argued that Herzberg seems to be a representative of the organization. Herzberg is a pioneer in the motivation theory and asserted that work motivation is precisely determined by two core sets of factors which are low-order need satisfaction (hygienic factors) and high-order need satisfaction (motivating factors). By being a part of the large organization, it was challenging to stand out since the company employed top and competent staffs globally which meant that no one individual has the bandwidth to go over to the top. Based on my level of understanding, all the maintenance have already been satisfied because I have obtained a good job position, work under regular working hours, attractive salary and benefits, job security and family insurance cover. However, I firmly believe that my professional attitude can simply be described as good but not exceptional. One year after we were hired, my colleague successfully obtained a promotion to a senior engineer despite the fact that he came about one year after me suppressing most of our efforts. Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory explains how the issue of being suppressed, denied vacation time and not to be recognized for promotion created a performance problem (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Based on this theory, motivators comprised of those factors that tend to affect satisfaction including recognition significantly. 

On the other hand, hygiene factors comprise of those factors that can lead to workers being highly unsatisfied in the workplace as was with my case due to lack of access to promotion and my efforts being suppressed. According to Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005), hygiene factors have the potential to cause significant dissatisfaction when they are not present but do not motivate an employee when they are present. Therefore, even when the organization provided a healthy working setting but fails to offer the team members the satisfaction factors such as recognition, and promotion, there was no way we could get satisfied with the duty assigned to us as a team (Baack, 2012). Since the motivational incentive was removed, we felt less motivated to work to ensure that we meet the goal of the project and most of us began falling under the production goals that we used to accomplish in the past (Adair, 2006).

Intervention to change the motivation and correct the performance problem

According to Herzberg, in his research, he unveiled a dichotomy that greatly intrigues managers and helps in solving the motivational problem (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Various things that make an individual satisfied and motivated on the job are significantly different from those that make them dissatisfied. In this case, the things that made employees dissatisfied included suppressing their efforts and lack of promotion and vacation time. Additionally, the supervisor denied us the only opportunity that could have made us satisfied which was to deny us the vacation as agreed. It is evident that the vacation could have made the employees satisfied, however, giving staffs something they believe they would not motivate them (Baack, 2012). Therefore, based on the argument by Herzberg, for the management to fix the problem, it would be important to focus the attention on motivating the employees using real motivators among them including recognition of the efforts made and chances for advancement through promotion (Adair, 2006). Other forms that could have been employed by the company’s manager to motivate the employees after being dissatisfied with the denial of vacation would be to add significant responsibility and recognition (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Recognition, in this case, might include small prizes or even a gift card additionally, it could also be recognizing staff’s worth through a promotion. It is, however, important to mention that recognition might also entail acknowledging employees in front of his or her colleagues which would help drive workers to work hard to achieve the set goal especially if they value being recognized by the team. In an event an employee is given an opportunity to learn a new responsibility to learn a new process or skills and then required to teach other employees, it would help to keep their mind off the dissatisfaction and at the same time drive them to appear smarter and beneficial before their colleagues (Baack, 2012).

Conclusion

In conclusion, motivation is the cornerstone of the company’s success; therefore, it is the duty of the management and the human resource to find strategic factors that would help to motivate employees to increase their profitability. Failure to take this into consideration would result in increased cases of employee turnover, absenteeism, and increased errors. It might important for the management to share with the employees to understand their needs and concerns as far as their job satisfaction and motivation are concerned. From the above analysis, several factors can be adopted to motivate an employee as described by Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory. Using suitable factors of motivation would enable the company to have their employees highly motivated and retain them. Herzberg’s Two Factory Theory has shown that the management can motivate the employees without necessarily using the financial factors, but the company should focus on other strategic factors that would help boost the morale of the employees.

References

Adair, J. E. (2006). Leadership and motivation: the fifty-fifty rule and the eight key principles of motivating others . Kogan Page Publishers.

Baack, D. (2012). Organizational Behavior. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power?. Journal of management development , 24 (10), 929-943.

Kim, D. (2006). Employee Motivation:" Just Ask Your Employees".