Is Money the Most Important Motivator For Employees - Coursework Example

There can be little doubt that workers expect to be paid for their services. While many employees seek satisfaction from various avenues at their workplace, they nevertheless expect to receive adequate monetary compensation. One may try to dispel the concept that money is a motivator for an employee(s) by presenting other desires the employee may have such as comfort level, ideal social conditions, a “good fit” for the task at hand, and so on. Although these can be motivating factors, they are all secondary to the primary motivating factor, money. This paper will be show that money is truly the motivating factor for employees. Moreover, all other motivational forces experienced by employees will be explored and ultimately dismissed as secondary to financial gain. First, a bit of geography. It is critical that the issue of cultural differences be addressed here. For instance, in Russia there is a strong aversion to money (even though Russia is now a democratic-capitalist society). There is in an inherent difference between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. The greatest difference is that it appears that Russian Orthodoxy does not favor “earthly” things, or any activities that include life on earth. Rather, they are concerned with their religious beliefs and the hereafter. Moreover, they view money as the root of all evil, and regard it with a potential to enslave man. (Dinello, Natalia, 1998, p. 47) Although since the early 90’s the Russian government has adopted Western political as well as business ideals and practices, it is entirely possible that much of their population has remained to adhere to their traditional Eastern Orthodoxy. With the risk of stating the obvious, Russian employees will not be considered here. Nevertheless, money means many things to many people throughout the majority of the world. x The history of money is that of a convenience to enable trading (Mitchell, Terrence, R., Mickel, Amy, E., 1999, p. 569). Furnham and Argyle examine the psychology of money in their book The Psychology of Money (Mitchell, Terrence, R., Mickel, Amy, E., 1999, p. 568) and explain that money is in fact used to obtain “things” and it is further used to gauge their value. In other words, if something costs one pound, and something else costs 10 pounds, then one immediately places greater value on the latter. Although it could be argued that various people have various attitudes regarding money, a great importance is placed on money by most which stems from this simple concept of money indicating value, as well as the need of it to acquire such things. Furnham and Argyle continue in their book to demonstrate the relevance of money to people through experiment. Their studies established a positive correlation of .25 (which is indeed an accepted, significant correlation) between one’s happiness and their financial status. Their studies did not discriminate between age, race, gender etc. (Mitchell, Terrence, R., Mickel, Amy, E., 1999, p. 569) demonstrating that there is no doubt money is a powerful, social motivator. Interestingly, psychologists have studied people’s perspectives on money extensively. And have additionally studied the various effects money has on individuals throughout their lifespan. Conversely, economists have certainly studied money, but from an antiseptic vantage point. Therefore, their studies, findings, etc. are concerned with the absolute value of money and not how humans perceive it. It has been professionally established that money affects individuals on many levels ranging from being the root of mood disorders to ultimately determining one’s self worth (Mitchell, Terrence, R., Mickel, Amy, E., 1999, p. 569). Sociologists have also contributed greatly in the studying of money and its effects on people. They have established that since money is used in most societies to pay workers and also to purchase goods, that people’s attitudes toward it are shaped accordingly. Following this logic, it was discovered that money is incorporated into people’s desires such as achievements, upward social mobility, and power (Mitchell, Terrence, R., Mickel, Amy, E., 1999, p. 569). Although throughout cultures as well as within specific cultures money and its perceptions vary, one cannot argue against the established fact of many professionals that money is a motivational force on many levels. It is clear that companies benefit from offering pay incentives to employees. Anyone who wishes to dispute this fact is misinformed. Companies benefit because employees are financially motivated. Three such benefits are increased production from employees, an influx of higher quality employees, and a desire for employees to stay at their jobs feeling that they are properly compensated (Shaw, Jason, D. et al, 2002, pp. 492). This is not to say that there are a fraction of employees who simply don’t care about money; the point is that employees are money motivated. If this were not true, companies would surely cease offering pay incentives. In the U.S., over 90 percent of companies offer employees extra monetary benefits for performance (Shaw, Jason, D. et al, 2002, pp. 492). Affirming that not just employees are money motivated, but that society also perceives money and the desire to acquire it as good. Although as previously stated there is a fraction of employees that appear to not be money motivated, Mitchell and Mickel (1999) discovered that such people only arrive at that state when all of their basic needs were met. One can deduce then that money is still a “motivator” simply because without it such needs would certainly never be met! It was further evidenced that employees who were motivated by money had a desire to progress, a positive view of self, as well as a good measure of intelligence (Mitchell, Terrence, R., Mickel, Amy, E., 1999, pp. 574). Norwegian employees in the recent past have been retiring at an earlier age. Sixty-two years of age has been a commonplace retirement age; down from what in 1989 was sixty-seven years of age. Since that time, Norway’s industry has implemented pay increase incentives in order to deter employees from retiring early (Hern, Erik et al, 2000, pp. 481). Hern et al (2000) conducted various studies to verify that a monetary strategy was in fact increasing the older workforce population. Taken into consideration were the employees’ exact retirement dates as well as their pension packages. It was ultimately found that thirty percent of employees stayed at work full time for at least another year. Obviously, taking part time into account that percentage rose. One may argue that thirty percent is not much of an increase, but it is indeed an increase based solely on the offering of money. Furthermore, in Norway, the tax system was found to be discouraging to older employees because they would not experience taxes on their pensions, but would incur high taxes for further employment with increased salary. In the U.S., workers prefer to work more hours than in any other nation. Many studies have proven this, and generally speaking, the U.S. tends to be very concerned with materialistic things. Even to the point of placing work above family. However, most other advanced nations are closing the gap regarding materialism in the 21’st century, as evidenced in studies revealed by Reynolds (2004, pp. 109). Studies conducted among managers in a company who were subjected to various pay incentive programs showed that there was an overall positive attitude about monetary gain. Additionally, it produced a greater trust between managers and staff, as well as producing a perception that money was the greatest value in their employment (Brudney, Jeffrey, L., Condrey, Stephen, E., 1993, pp. 143). Jeffrey Gordon (1997 pp. 1520) discusses the impact of a “New Economic Order” wherein greater competition of products has produced increasingly better goods for less money to buyers. Due to the growing demand, it was found that employees rise to the occasion so to speak in working harder for more pay. Research has demonstrated that workers who actively participate in their companies financial programs, such as a 401k, carry those companies past the competition (Quarrey, Michael, 1987, pp. 126, Harvard Business Review). These employees clearly showed great motivation due to monetary gain. In Japan, a certain company’s management came up with various strategies to increase workers production. One of the most successful of these was the implementation of a “gain-sharing plan” whereby all the employees would gain from financial incentives. This was ground breaking in that it demonstrated that not just individuals could be motivated at the workplace by money, but so too could groups of employees (Barrie, Smith, T. 1986 pp. 28). This in turn negated the premise that each person has a unique opinion about money and therefore will demonstrate different work behaviours. Money is above all the greatest incentive for employees, no other motivational programs approach its efficacy (Rynes, Sara, L., et al, 2005, pp. 572). In Rynes’ et al Personnel Psychology, the employee-employer relationship was examined intensely as it applied to money. Organisations and their employees were found to experience greater performance through pay incentive programs. Alternate results were attributed to the methods implemented by management. For example, although there would be greater motivation among employees, it sometimes caused problems among groups due to the fact that they felt left out or “outperformed.” These types of findings only showed that revisions, honing and such simply needs to take place to bring about the much desired result. Nevertheless, over and over again it is proven that employees are motivated by money. Let us not forget that athletes are in fact employees. The U.S. is fertile ground for examining the effects of money on such employees (athletes). In the not too distant past, athletes performed at high levels, never considered leaving their team, and consequently earned little money. Nowhere in the sports industry does this hold true today. Athletes are quick to jump to other organisations for only one reason, money. Regardless of their comfort level, social connections etc. Sports costs in the 1998 U.S. were over 17 billion dollars (Washington, Robert, Karen, David, 2001, pp. 187). Sports fanaticism is global. With such money flowing, how can one deny that the employee, in this case the athlete, is motivated by money. One may say, “they’re in it for the sport, or the fame,” but when an athlete, who is indeed an employee of an organisation, visits his/her fellow’s home (which just so happens to be an elaborate mansion) it is only human nature that they desire the same. Much has been discussed in this paper about statistical fact regarding the employee and his/her level of motivation at the workplace in response to money. By now, the reader is armed with more than enough data. Letting the facts be, the reader can simply apply common sense now. There can be many arguments devised to show that each person is unique, and therefore not motivated by money. However, putting aside personality traits, ask if people would be motivated to work if they did not have to at some level. In other words, what is junk to one may be deemed gold to another. It makes no matter. To acquire the junk, or the gold, one must be motivated to work in order to secure the money to make any such acquisition possible. Works Cited 1. Dinello, Natalia. Russian Religious Rejections of Money and Homo Economicus: The Self-Identifications of the “Pioneers of a Money Economy” in Post-Soviet Russia. Sociology of Religion, 59.1 (1998): 45-64. JSTOR. 2. Gordon, Jeffrey, N. Employees, Pensions, and the New Economic Order. Columbia Law Review, 97.5 (1997): 1519-1566. JSTOR. 3. Hern, Erik et al. Early Retirement and Economic Incentives. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102.3 (2000): 481-502. JSTOR. 4. Mitchell, Terence, R. and Mickel, Amy, E. The Meaning of Money: An Individual-Difference Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 24.3 (1999): 568-578. JSTOR. 5. Rynes, Sara, L. Personnel Psychology: Performance Evaluation and Pay for Performance. Annual Review Psychology, 56 (2004): 571-600. http://www.arjournals.annualreviews.org 6. Shaw, Jason, D. Pay Dispersion and Workforce Performance: Moderating Effects of Incentives and Interdependence. Strategic Management Journal, 23.6 (2002): 491-512. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30943|38 7. Washington, Robert, E. Sport and Society. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (2001): 187-212. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678619 Read More