Introduction
Organisational Behaviour (OB) serves as a critical framework for understanding how individuals and groups interact within organisational settings, offering insights into enhancing productivity, job satisfaction, and overall workplace effectiveness. By examining aspects such as motivation, leadership, and group dynamics, OB enables organisations to address challenges like declining employee performance and potential turnover, which are pivotal to maintaining competitive advantage. In the context of ‘People Excel – Z’, a UK-based small firm producing payroll software, motivation has emerged as a significant issue, with software designers exhibiting reduced productivity over the past year. This decline threatens the company’s innovation capacity and signals potential future staff turnover. This essay aims to critically analyse the role of motivation within ‘People Excel – Z’ by drawing on key OB theories, particularly those related to employee motivation. It will evaluate how these theories can explain the current challenges faced by the firm and propose actionable strategies for the owner to improve staff motivation. Through a structured examination of motivation theories and their application to the case study, this essay seeks to provide a deeper understanding of how motivational strategies can enhance performance and sustain organisational success.
Motivation Theories and Their Relevance to Organisational Performance
Motivation is a cornerstone of OB, defined as the internal and external factors that stimulate desire and energy in individuals to achieve specific goals (Robbins and Judge, 2019). Several seminal theories provide a foundation for understanding employee motivation, each offering unique perspectives on what drives performance. This section critically evaluates key motivation theories—Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory—before applying them to the context of ‘People Excel – Z’.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943) posits that human motivation is driven by a five-tier model of needs, ranging from basic physiological needs (e.g., food, shelter) to higher-order needs like self-actualisation (e.g., achieving potential). According to Maslow, individuals are motivated to fulfil lower-level needs before progressing to higher ones. At ‘People Excel – Z’, the generous salary and private healthcare plan address physiological and safety needs effectively. However, the autocratic leadership style and limited employee input in decision-making may hinder the fulfilment of esteem and self-actualisation needs, particularly among designers whose productivity has declined. Designers are highly skilled and likely seek recognition and opportunities for growth, which are not adequately addressed by the current structure of annual performance appraisals and limited training focused solely on health, safety, and data protection. Critically, Maslow’s theory, while useful, assumes a rigid progression of needs, which may not always apply in modern, dynamic workplaces where individuals might prioritise higher needs despite unmet lower ones (Wahba and Bridwell, 1976).
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959) distinguishes between hygiene factors, which prevent dissatisfaction (e.g., salary, working conditions), and motivators, which drive satisfaction and performance (e.g., recognition, responsibility). At ‘People Excel – Z’, hygiene factors appear well-covered with above-average salaries and modern office environments. However, motivators seem lacking, especially for designers. The autocratic leadership and solitary work environment limit opportunities for achievement and recognition, while the annual performance appraisal, focused on quantitative metrics, may not adequately acknowledge individual effort or creativity. Herzberg’s theory suggests that without such motivators, employees, particularly skilled professionals like the designers, are unlikely to feel inspired to perform at their best. A critique of this theory lies in its assumption that hygiene factors do not contribute to motivation, which may oversimplify the complex interplay of workplace factors (House and Wigdor, 1967). Nevertheless, it highlights a key gap at ‘People Excel – Z’—the need for intrinsic motivators to boost designer engagement.
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (1964) argues that motivation depends on three factors: expectancy (belief that effort leads to performance), instrumentality (belief that performance leads to rewards), and valence (value placed on the rewards). At ‘People Excel – Z’, designers may perceive a disconnect between effort and reward. While the best designer can be promoted to a consultant role, this reward might not hold high valence for all, especially if they value creative freedom over a sales-oriented position. Furthermore, the quantitative performance criteria may not align with their expectations of what constitutes valuable performance, thus weakening instrumentality. Vroom’s theory is particularly relevant as it underscores the importance of aligning rewards with employee values and ensuring transparency in how effort translates to outcomes. However, its reliance on rational decision-making overlooks emotional or situational factors that might influence motivation (Lawler, 1973).
Application to ‘People Excel – Z’ and Recommendations for Improvement
Drawing on the above theories, it becomes evident that the motivation issues at ‘People Excel – Z’ stem from a lack of intrinsic motivators and misalignment between employee needs and organisational practices. The autocratic leadership style, while efficient for quick decision-making, stifles employee input and creativity, particularly impacting designers who require intellectual stimulation. Additionally, the reward system prioritises consultants over designers, potentially fostering inequity and further demotivating the latter group. To address these challenges, the following recommendations, grounded in motivation theories, are proposed for the firm owner.
Firstly, inspired by Maslow’s emphasis on higher-order needs, the owner should create opportunities for esteem and self-actualisation. This could involve recognising designers’ contributions through public acknowledgement or awards during weekly meetings, fostering a sense of achievement. Additionally, offering tailored professional development programs beyond annual seminars—such as workshops on advanced software design—could help designers pursue personal growth and align with their intrinsic goals.
Secondly, applying Herzberg’s theory, the owner should focus on enhancing motivators rather than solely relying on hygiene factors like salary. Introducing team-based projects instead of solitary work could encourage collaboration and a sense of responsibility among designers. Moreover, revising the performance appraisal to include qualitative feedback on innovation and problem-solving, rather than just quantitative metrics, would better recognise their unique contributions. Such changes could shift the focus from merely preventing dissatisfaction to actively inspiring performance.
Finally, guided by Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, the reward system should be restructured to ensure fairness and relevance. The promotion to a consultant role may not appeal to all designers; instead, alternative rewards, such as bonuses tied to innovative projects or flexible work arrangements, could be introduced to increase valence. Transparent communication about how performance is evaluated and linked to rewards would strengthen expectancy and instrumentality, ensuring designers believe their efforts are fairly recognised.
While these recommendations address specific motivational gaps, their implementation must consider potential constraints, such as the owner’s preference for autocratic control or resource limitations in a small firm. A gradual shift towards participative leadership, perhaps by involving employees in non-critical strategic discussions, could balance efficiency with empowerment. Furthermore, the cost of enhanced training or rewards should be weighed against long-term benefits like reduced turnover and improved innovation, which are critical for sustaining competitiveness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, motivation plays a pivotal role in shaping employee performance and organisational success, as evidenced by the challenges faced by ‘People Excel – Z’. Through a critical analysis of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, this essay has identified key issues, including the lack of intrinsic motivators, limited recognition, and misaligned reward systems, as contributors to designers’ declining productivity. Recommendations such as fostering recognition, enhancing professional development, and restructuring rewards offer practical pathways for the owner to address these issues. Importantly, these strategies underscore a deeper insight: motivation is not a one-size-fits-all concept but requires tailoring to individual and professional needs, especially for highly skilled employees. For ‘People Excel – Z’, adopting a more inclusive and flexible approach to motivation could not only reverse productivity declines but also position the firm as an innovative leader in its sector. Ultimately, understanding and applying OB principles is essential for small firms to navigate competitive pressures while retaining talent and driving long-term growth.
References
- House, R.J. and Wigdor, L.A. (1967) Herzberg’s Dual-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Motivation: A Review of the Evidence and a Criticism. Personnel Psychology, 20(4), pp. 369-389.
- Lawler, E.E. (1973) Motivation in Work Organizations. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
- Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A. (2019) Organizational Behavior. 18th ed. Pearson Education Limited.
- Wahba, M.A. and Bridwell, L.G. (1976) Maslow Reconsidered: A Review of Research on the Need Hierarchy Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), pp. 212-240.
[Word Count: 1520, including references]
