HC1052 Organisational Behaviour : Thesis Statement and Research

Thesis statement and research question

The study is based on the "Maslow’ hierarchy of needs model" where it is countered that the level of motivation is directly related to the need of the individual. The study reflects that the participants with improved educational standing, and socio-economic background are more likely to apply the motivational techniques and suggestions in practice positively (Guclu and Guney, 2017). In this context, the present study confers that “an understanding of the employee’ socio-economic, educational, and psychological profile will allow a manager to create an improved motivational model. This will increase the employee productivity and efficiency”.

Article strength

Most articles study employee engagement and motivation in the relationship with the human resource department or managerial responsibilities. In the first step, this study denies this assumption and reflects upon the situation in a comprehensive light. This is recognized as a primary strength of the research. It is also noted that the theoretical integration and contextual settings in the present research provides an added depth to the research topic, thus enabling an improved learning outcome for the readers. Furthermore, the association of the Maslow’ hierarchy of needs and other social theoretical models accentuates research with a socialistic perspective. Lastly, the presence of research participants and the research analysis through the primary data enhances the credibility and validity of the results (Kumkale et al., 2010). The study utilized “Economic Tools, Psycho-social Tools and Organizational and Managerial Tools” as motivating tools for the employees, thus suggesting the relevance of multi-factorial intervention for enhancing employee motivation (Guclu and Guney, 2017).

Article weakness

The primary weakness of the study is its subjective application to the participants and the weaving and fabric dying factories (Guclu and Guney, 2017). This raises the question regarding the universal application of the study results in generalized settings (Kumkale et al., 2010).

Critical reflection

Employee efficiency is a much-accepted reality of the business world. Irrespective of the employee demographics, every organization at some point or another face variables which dampens the employee productivity and engagement (Burton, 2012). As per Guclu and Guney (2017), efficiency in the workplace can be impacted negatively by the organizational environment, office politics and employee relations, low motivation, low compensation, and employee job inconsistency. This perspective is further reflected by Trever et al. (2015) as they recognize the presence of motivation killers in each organization. Citing findings based on the Vroom Expectancy Theory, Tomar and Sharma (2013) note that people see the relation between performance and outcomes. In which sense it can be concluded that the employees that are under-satisfied in an organization, are more likely to underperform.

    Efficiency of the employee within an organizational framework is impacted by,  

• Intra-Business Factors: Organizational Structure and System, Factory, Machine, Equipment etc., and
• Extra-Business Factors: Equipment and Energy, Business Practices, Management Approach, Technology etc.” (Guclu and Guney, 2017, p.3).

    In this sense, Dobre (2013) notes that there are varied aspects that impact the motivation of an employee in the organization, however, not all directly impact their efficiency. As per Guclu and Guney (2017), the efficiency of the employees is not measured by any standardized tool, rather it is recognized as an intangible entity. As a result, it is a subjective entity, which is recognized as the maximum potential or productivity of an employee within the organizational setting (Osabiya and Osabiya, 2015). While most studies reflect that high performance has a direct relation to the motivation of the employee;. Guclu and Guney (2017) noted that high performance is associated with the role perception of the individual and their competencies and should not be confused with the efficiency of the individual. Nevertheless, the efficiency of an employee continues to be the driving factor for the collective and individualistic productivity and performance. Hence, motivation is recognized as a vital business practice in most settings (Trever et al. 2015).

When an employee enables maximum productivity in their performance, they achieve a sense of job enrichment that further relates to the job satisfaction, improved involvement, organizational innovation and a sense of contentment (Solomon et al. 2012). In order to assess these variables Guclu and Guney (2017), studied the application of job satisfaction and enrichment, business enlargement, and work-study (hours of effective business practice) as instruments for the employee efficiency within the organization (Al-Jasmi, 2012).

In their study, Guclu and Guney (2017) assessed various drivers of motivation to note that the concepts such as satisfaction, employee growth, success, ego satisfaction, financial satisfaction, and a collective sense of growth motivated employees towards improving their performance. These findings are supported by extensive literature support, where the presence of variables such as incentives, empowerment, engagement, tangible financial rewards, and promotions, amongst other are associated as positive reinforcements for improved employee performance (Al-Jasmi, 2012; Burton, 2012; Cetin, 2013; Tomar and Sharma, 2013). In their study, Guclu and Guney (2017) have avidly noted that the organizations which do not punish unwanted behaviour, rather support the favourable practice are more likely to have improved efficiency and productivity.

The author has supported this perspective through an extensive theoretical background. In my personal opinion, this can be true, as the negative reinforcement can often be misunderstood for punishment, and threaten the autonomy of the employees. This perspective is shared by Redmond (2010), as they note that negative reinforcement can pave the need for concealment. It can be further foreseen as inappropriate or unjust, and impact the workforce environment negatively (Redmond, 2010). Predominately, Guclu and Guney (2017) noted that open communication, flexible perceptions, creative and tolerant business framework, growth opportunities and economic consideration all account for improved motivation, and possibly efficiency of the employees.

As per Solomon et al. (2012), the social construct of each being is different, and hence, their needs or drivers for motivation will also be different. While this aspect is recognized by Guclu and Guney (2017) as well; it is noted that the authors individually assessed varied tools for different motivation frameworks for the organization. In the light of which, the study found differentiation in the motivational tools for employees based on the managerial implications. Since efficiency is also recognized as the task of driving maximum productivity from the resources available, the present findings make sense to me (Tomar and Sharma, 2015). The study reflected that the educational background of the employees impacted their perception regarding the Economic Tools, Psycho-social Tools, and Organizational and Managerial Tools of motivation (Guclu and Guney, 2017). Personally, I found this finding to be correct, yet incomplete. The social cognitive behavioural theory proposed by Bandura reflects that the cognitive behaviour of the person is impacted by their environment (Redmond, 2010). In which sense the reaction towards the motivation technique used by a manager should also be subjective.

Conclusion

Through the means of the present review, a critical analysis of the study proposed by Guclu and Guney (2017) was done. While most perspective shared by the researcher were supported through a critical review; the finding reflective of dominance of educational background as a variable for the acceptance of motivational tool alone by the employees was questioned. It is reflected that the focus of the managers within the organization should be on understanding their workers, and based on their settings they should deploy a tailored motivational program, to enhance the organizational and employee performance collectively. Even as this analysis is not refuting the perspective shared by Guclu and Guney (2017), it is countering, that education alone cannot be the driver for the acceptance and application of motivation in the workplace. Through this paper, focus on varied drivers and challenges of organizational environment has been placed. The paper supports the findings of the article in accordance with the use of reinforcement as a motivational tool.

Reference

Al Jasmi, S. 2012. A Study on Employees Work Motivation and its Effect on their Performance and Business Productivity. Available at:

https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/bitstream/1234/275/1/90040.pdf 

Burton, K. 2012. A study of motivation: how to get your employees moving. Available at: https://spea.indiana.edu/doc/undergraduate/ugrd_thesis2012_mgmt_burton.pdf 

Cetin, I. 2013. Motivation and its impact on labour productivity at Hotel business: “a conceptual study”. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education. 2 (1): 70-79. ISSN: 2146 – 9466.

Dobre, I. 2013. Employee motivation and organizational performance. Review of Applied Socio- Economic Research. Available at:

ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/rse/wpaper/R5_5_DobreOvidiuIliuta_p53_60.pdf 

Guclu, H. and Guney, S. 2017. The effect of the motivation techniques used by managers to increase the productivity of their workers and an application. Business Management Dynamics. 6 (7): 1-18. ISSN: 2047-7031 Kumkale,T., AlbarracÍn, D and Seignourel, P. 2010. The Effects of Source Credibility in the Presence or Absence of Prior Attitudes: Implications for the Design of Persuasive Communication Campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1; 40(6): 1325–1356. doi:  10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00620.x

Osabiya and Joseph, B. 2015. The effect of employees’ motivation on organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research. 7(4): 62-75, DOI: 10.5897/JPAPR2014.0300

Redmond, B.F. 2010.  Reinforcement Theory:  What are the Rewards for My Work?  Work Attitudes and Motivation.  The Pennsylvania State University; World Campus.

 Solomon, T. 2012. Employee Motivation and Organizational Performance in Multinational Companies: A Study of Cadbury Nigeria Plc. International Journal of Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), 2 (3): 303-312. ISSN: 2249-9563

Terver, C., Terfa, M and Asibi, I. 2015. The Effects of Motivation on Staff Productivity/Performance at the Francis Sulemanuu Idachaba Library, University Of Agriculture, Makurdi-Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2320–7388, 5 (2): 01-07. DOI: 10.9790/7388-05230107

Tomar, A and Sharma, S. 2013. Motivation as a tool for effective staff productivity in the public & private organization. Journal of Indian Research. .1 (3): 122-129. ISSN No. : 2321-4155