The Future of Work Motivation Theory - Article Example

Name Course Lecturer Date Steers, R and R Mowday. "The future of work motivation theory." Academy of Management Review, 29 (3) (2004): 379-387. Introduction Organizatioal behavior and management of human resources have experienced tremendous changes into the contemporary business world. The changes have been characterized by related changes in general business and management especially as influenced by the 21st Century occurences. Key occurences include information technology advancements and globalization. As such, human resource management is faced and characterized by increasing diversity and change with high divergent needs and demands (Robbins and Judge, pp 20). Globaliazation has also brought in new focuses such as internationalization of businesses and organizations (Adler, pp 9), in addition to increased knowledge and the attention on teams. As such, the challenge is on managers to diversify with the changes so as to ensure sustained motivation of the work force. This paper focuses on the changes in human resource management with respect to motivation theory. It is a critique of an article by Steers and Mowday who explore into the question of future needs in motivation theory development. Article critique From the onset, this paper well agrees to the timeliness of Steers and Moody in focusing on the future of motivation theory works. This is with reference to the numerous changes in the globalized business management. Past and early theories and approaches cannot be applied in the contemporary management of human resources from their face value. The contemporary workforce management has either faced them our or have seen them evolve and get bettered. The article focuses on evolution of motivation theory. Having set the pace in the introductory remarks, the authors define their research or theses question. They intend to focus on the future of motivation theory. This is by asking: “What is the future of work motivation theories?” In the pursuit of understanding whether there is a future for motivation theories work, the authors seek to delineate the critical questions whose answers will affect the future focus. These questions revolve around the change of research agenda, modification of the current models and the need for new models. This research focus appreciates that models can either be modified or adapted according to times and that there may be need for new models all together in understanding employee behavior and job performance in contemporary organizations. This is the hypothesis derived from the objectives that the paper seeks to test. In this pursuit, the article has a unique strategy: a focus on the past and today enables research focus on the future. The authors indicate that to understand the future it is vital that motivation theorist understand where the field has been and is. This is a key highlight of the strengths of the article. This is in addition to the focus on motivation theories. In the contemporary market, competitive advantage is a focus on the macro-environment, especially human resource and informational technology (Arshadi, pp 67). Maintaining highly motivated team workers is the concern for every manager thus the need for new models of motivation and performance appropriate (Steers and Mowday, pp 384) with globalized human resource management. Literature has indicated that any intention to create a theory with high validity and practical application in human resource management and organizational behavior would demand that one focuses on motivation theories (Latham and Pinder, pp 486). The research model focuses on literature review from which the authors draw conclusions. It is a representation of the evolution of the field from a theoretical point of view with the authors focusing on theories hailing as far as the Greek philosophers. Much as the paper points-out the evolution of the field from philosophy to psychology based on empirical models by behavioral scientists, there is minimal demonstration of the applications of the models. It is vital to understand that models are developed to assist promote desired behavior. Latham and Pinder indicate the need to focus on context. Citing Pinder (pp 11), they concluded in their artcle that motivational is a psychological process which results from the interaction of an employee and the environment (Latham and Pinder, pp 486). Unlike Steers and Mowday, they appreciate the environmental factors that may affect performance, and hence motivation approaches. Key contexual interactions include micro-environment such as national culture ,macro-environment such as teams, leadership and organizational culture, and intra- and interpersonal interactions. An interrelation between the article’s focus and practical applications would have enhanced the article’s strength and value of generalization. The article approaches future needs from the needs of the past and today. This is similar to most empirical studies whose focus is derived from the need established in literature review. It delineates early developments in motivation theory as being based on hedonism as postulated by Greek philosophers that individuals focus on getting pleasure and evading pain. The evolution process then gets into the 19th century where behavioral science brougt in more empirically researched models such as instict models, learning, and operant conditioning among others from psychological focuses. Apart from psychological approach, the 19th century saw mixure of works based on pragmatism and sociology, and content theories such as the Maslow’s need hierarchy theory and that by McCelland. By focusing on these developmental steps, the author demonstrate the evolution with relatively high clarity showing the transition from philosophical to more empirically informed models associated with psychology. However, there is disconnect between eras with reference to the need for improvement of models. The authors do not delineate some limitations of models to justify need for newer or better. The period between 1960 and 1990 is hailed as a golden age for works in motivational theories especially with regard to development of process-related models. Hailed as better and more empirical than the earlier philosophical content theories, process theories provide a dynamic and a more contexualized approach that considers causal relationships (Steers and Mowday, pp 381) and participation of employees as well as their representation (Robbins and Judge, pp 108). Key models of this age include expectancy theory, equity theory, goal setting theory and social cognitive theory. The period after 1990 into the new millenium is indicated as demonstrating reduced academia publications in the field. The article notes that one will rarely find publications purely dedicated to theoretical developments (Steers and Mowday, pp 383). However, given the tremendous changes in market competition the paper is apparently regretting the lack of developments when it questions the decreasing contemporary intellectual activity. The article recommends future focus needs by giving brief reviews of six articles. These artciles focus on the need for new metatheories that are more complex and applicable, that focus on time value in work context. An article reviewed focuses on psychological and neurobiological whilst another one evaluates the relationship of aging to motivation and performance. These highlight the need to closely understand the employee, individually and relative to group dynamics. The recommendation by the article as influenced by the reviewed articles is that the future needs an improvement of current and past models by modifying them to practical implications of todays changing business environment. Whilst the papers approach in delineating the thesis is objective with reference to a futuristic approach using the past, it does not adequately answer the research question. It sought to explore the need for future focus in motivation theories and the direction of agenda thereof. Such would require the thesis to clearly bring out limitations and issues with practical use of the various theories, irrespective of the period of development. However, the paper concentrates at demonstrating to the readers how well informed it is with regard to evolution of the field. Even so, the article is weak at showing what influenced transition between times and theories. For instance, it does not demonstrate the precursors of the shift from the content focus to that on process. The authors would have cited limitations of the former setting pace for the latter enhancing the article’s recommendations for a more futuristic view. In addition to this, the authors would have described in more details how latter models have improved on the former, apart from just outlining them. Conclusions The changes being experienced in organizational behavior and human resource management relative to globalization should be an awakening for more studies preparing for the future. Such studies should focus on benefiting managers and organizational managers. In addition to this, the contemporary management requires more practical models based on empirical studies. The article by Steers and Mowday sought to build on the needs of the future organizational behavior and human resource motivation needs. It sought to demonstrate the need for such, and in what direction such developments would yield. It seeks to do this by evaluating the past and today of the field in order to chart the course for the future. As the authors demonstrate, any future agendas will require a reference to the future highlighting the need for modification and adaptation. However, as the critique has indicated, the article answers a different research question losing on its objectivity. It dwells at demonstrating the evolution across ages, and not the need. This makes the recommendations given via a brief of six articles relatively weakly founded. In doing this, the authors lack a solid reference to practical application by failing to adequately relate limitations to practical organizations across the ages mentioned. This is because it is vital to link an individual to different aspects of a context in which he or she is expected to perform. Finally, the article does not give succinct and clear conclusion. Such would have linked the approach, the finding and recommendatios, thus meet the set out objectives. Works cited Adler, N. International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cincinnati, Ohio: Thomson, 2007. Arshadi, N. "Motivational traits and work motivation: mediating role of self-efficacy ." Journal of Education and psychology, 3 (2) (2009): 67-80. Latham, G and C Pinder. "Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the Twenty-first century." Annual Review of Psychology, 2005 (56) (2005): 485-516. Pinder, C. Work Motivation in Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. Robbins, S and T Judge. Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010. Steers, R and R Mowday. "The future of work motivation theory." Academy of Management Review, 29 (3) (2004): 379-387. Read More