Various Theories that Are Related to Motivation - Starbucks - Case Study Example

Running Head: Motivational Theory and Practice Motivational Theory and Practice Name Course Lecturer Date Motivational Theory and Practice Introduction Motivation concerns the psychological processes that lead to persistence and direction of behavior. Indeed, the place and nature of motivational in a work related situation has continued to be the subject of the recent developing study. Theories have been tested, propounded and superseded at a certain pace that have left various organizational behind the researchers. It is obvious that motivation theories have not anticipated envisaging performance but rather predicting decision procedures and volitional behavior. This implies that the organizational theorists and managers will get easy answers to the practical requirement in motivational theory. The paper explores various theories that are related to motivation. In addition, the theories have been applied in the Starbucks in the strategies that are intended to make the company competitive. Hierarchy of needs Theory One of the most widely used models of motivation was coined by Abraham Maslow. According to this model, unsaturated needs are the main sources of motivation (Montana & Charnov, 2008). He suggested that there five basic needs systems that do account for behavior. He placed these needs in a hierarchy ranging from the most immature and primitive, that is, in terms of behavior that they do promote, to the most mature and civilized. The five needs system include; survival security or safety, sense of belonging, ego-status and self-actualization. Montana & Charnov (2008) asserts that according to Maslow, there is a natural drift in which people become aware of and therefore, are motivated by the needs in the ascending order. Advancement on the Maslow hierarchary is taken to be roughly equivalent to climbing the ladder, a rung at a time. In the climbing, one is aware of the next rung and presupposes successful compromise of the lower one. The lowest rung consist of the physiological needs. It reflects people’s concern mainly for survival. The safety rung does reflect the concern for security and avoidance of danger (Kickul et al., 2002). Belonging needs in the third rung and reflects the normal desire by individuals to be appreciated and accepted by others. The fourth is the ego-status need that motivates individuals to contribute their efforts in a group in return for rewards that recognition may assume. The highest rung represent self- actualization needs that are realized when someone experience a sense of achievement and growth, of self-fuifillment and satisfaction through doing. Maslow did not imply that every need does receive complete satisfaction. Rather, Maslow believed that a minimal degree of satisfaction is required before the need stops to preoccupy some to the exclusion of the higher needs (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006). The theory lacks basic support and this is attributed to the fact that there is not enough research to suppoivate, rt the hierarchy of needs, unmet needs do motivate, stepwise progression and satisfied neeeds do activate another need. This has created a mixed support about its accuracy (Miller, 2008). However, some critics view it as crucial in its provision of a example of individuals relations principe and applicatin in an organizational context (Hersey et al., 2007). Starbucks engages Maslow’s concept in the company. There is evidence of safety needs in the strategies. The needs have been satisfied through promotion of conditions that will increase the heath of the employees. By expanding health care benefits to part-time workers, the company would be in a position to satisfy the basic health needs of the employees. Indeed, this would motivate the employees and the company would be able to win the employees’ commitment and loyalty. As a result, the company would compete effectively in the market. In addition, as the safety needs of the employees would be met, the company would decrease the cost that is incurred in hiring and trying. Indeed, the extension of the health programs to the terminally ill employees also contributed to the motivation of the employees (Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000). The affiliation needs in the strategy for the company are met. The establishment of a social relationship among the employees and managers is evident in the company. Indeed, the employees are encouraged to speak their minds as to what the company is doing, that is, take part in the decision making. As such, the employees are able to create a good rapport with the employers which result in the establishment of a sense of belonging (Latham & Pinder, 2005). By creating a stock option plan for the employees, the company satisfies the need of self actualization. The provision of this allows the employees to exercise their creativity and responsibility in the company. In addition, the company encouraged the employees to participate in corporate social program. This would assist other employees who in hardship. In addition, the selection of employees to participate in first hand training on environmental and conservations issues from coffee growers, motivate the employees as they are involved in the running of the company (Tepper et al., 2001). Two-Factor Theory Fredrick Herzberg took a different approach in motivation. While Maslow was concerned with the sources of motivation in life, in a general perspective, Herzberg did focus on the source of motivation that seemed relevant to work and accomplishment of work. According to Murphy et al., (2008) Herzberg modified Maslow needs approach. In addition, Herzberg did an investigation that resulted to his observation that needs which were similar to the ones suggested by Maslow were evident in the job context. Herzberg model essentially describes that the needs that correspond to Maslow’s self actualization and ego-status levels are direct sources of motivation (Aryee et al., 2002). According to the model, belongingness is closely linked to motivation. This is mainly significant in the area of subordinate-supervisor relationships and non-work issues that are related to interpersonal satisfactions. The upper rungs in Maslow’s ladder are called motivators by Herzberg. The lower needs in the rungs in the Maslow’s model that are concerned with physiological needs and safety, are termed as potential dissatisifier in this model rather than a source of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, the belonging factors overlap both groups. Upper level motivators, lead to behaviors which are relevant to the work that has to be accomplished while the dissatifiers endorse behaviors that focus on issues tangential to the work itself. The model concludes that as much as the lower level needs will be satisfied, according to Maslow, they do no longer appear as a source of goal directed behavior. Still, there is no reason to expect that employees will perform effectively in their work. The reason to this is that the disatisfiers serve as maintenance factors, the needs the individuals assume as most of the m will be met adequately. A good working conditions and good boss are example of such dissatifiers needs (Daft & Lane, 2008). Essentially, the two-factor theory describes two dimensions that contribute to the behavior of employees in the work place. The hygiene factor which is the first dimension involves the presence or absence of job dissatisfiers, such as company policies, pay, working conditions and interpersonal relationships. It is obvious that when the hygiene factors are poor, the work is dissatisfying. However, good hygiene factors are seen to get rid of the dissatisfaction but they do not cause people to become motivated and satisfied in their work. Motivators are the set of factors. These include needs such as recognition, achievement, opportunity growth and responsibility. The model asserts that when these motivators are present, the employees are highly satisfied and motivated. Therefore, motivators and hygiene factors do represents distinct factors that largely affect motivation. Basically, the theory is clear for the leader that there is a need to remove the dissatisfiers and meet the motivators of the employees in order to create satisfaction in the work place. Criticisms of the theory include; assumption of relationship between productivity and satisfaction, lack of measure of used satisfaction and the theory is inconsistent with the research carried out earlier (Gabor, 2000). The Starbucks strategy has indeed utilized the concept of the theory. With the increased profitability in the company, the company seeks to allow the employees to share in the success of the company. The stock option for all employees, create a platform for the engagement of the employees in the running of the company. Thus, the role of the employees in the growth of the company is recognized. Creation of management by the teams brings in the concept of distributing responsibilities to the employees. Indeed, according to the theory it is a motivator. It is evident that the employees are allowed to take over the activities of the companies such as decision making. This creates job satisfaction among the employees as they are allowed to take part in the running of the business. Still, they are given an opportunity for growth. The involvement of the employees in the charitable work exposes them to an opportunity of growth. In addition, they are able to be productivity as well as become organizational citizenship. Equity Theory The issue of equity is a key concern of managers in relation to distribution of rewards and other pays. According to Rakowski (2011) various views have be put forward concerning the motivating effects of unfairness and inequity. However, the ideas of Stacy Adams seem to be the best. The perception of unfairness is indeed, a powerful force in the business field. The motivating force behind the equity theory is the determined for equity that emerges after unfairness or inequity is perceived. Equity, essentially involve individuals comparing their performances and the rewards that they receive with rewards and performances that other people receive by doing the same task. It is obvious that employees who are inequitably rewarded, they became dissatisfied, reduce the quality and quantity of output or leave the company (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). However, if people perceive rewards as being equitable, they may continue to give the same output as always and remain in the organization. Still, if employees perceive that the rewards are greater than the considered equitable, the employees are likely to work harder than before in order to gain the rewards. It is observed that some employees may overestimate their contributions and the rewards other employer receive. Essentially, the equity theory constitutes of inequitable rewards that lead to departure from organization, reduce output and dissatisfaction. Equitable rewards that consists of continuation of the same efforts and output and more equitable rewards that results to more harder work than before. However, the theory has been criticized due to several unclear issues. Nevertheless, the most significant issue is that motivation is highly influenced by rewards. The Starbuck does utilize the theory in its strategies. The company was able to attract motivated employees by its pay scale. The employees were rewarded according to their efforts. Indeed, each employee was compensated and a comprehensive benefit package was given according to how they contributed to the success of the company. This contributed to the employees’ engagement to the job as their output were recognized. As a result job satisfaction was evident. It also increased employees’ turnover (Pervin & John, 2001). Essentially, work is always performed by people and for every individual there is a complex interaction of performing work, performing it in a particular way, using particular standard and certain levels of enthusiasm and energy. This complex is referred to as motivation. Using different theories, there are various issues that will motivate employees to be effective in the work place. In addition, there are other reasons that may decrease the performance of workers in the work. Therefore, there is need for the managers to learn the factors that motivate the workers in order to be effective in the work place. References Aryee, S. Budhwar, P. & Chen, Z. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–285. Daft, R., & Lane, P. (2008). The leadership expereince. New York: CengageBrain. Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (2000). The ‘‘what” and ‘‘why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Gabor, A. (2000). The Capitalist Philosophers: The Geniuses of Modem Business-Their Lives, Tmes, and Ideas. New York: Crown Business. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2007). Management of orgniztional behavior . Leading Human Resources , 1-25. Kickul, J. Lester, S. & Finkl, J. (2002). Promise breaking during radical organizational change: Do justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 469–488. Koontz, H., & Weihrich, H. (2006). Essentials of management. New York: Tata Mc Graw-Hill Education. Krehbiel, P. & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, outcome favorability, and emotion. Social Justice Research, 13, 339–360. Latham, G & Pinder, C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516. Miller, K. (2008). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes. London: CengageBrain. Montana, P., & Charnov, B. (2008). Management. New York: Barron. Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: The mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 652–668. Pervin, L. & John, O. (2001). Personality:Theory and research (8th ed.). New York: Wiley. Rakowski, N. (2011). Maslow's hierarchy of needs model-the difference of the Chinese and the Western pyramid. Norderdstedt: GRIN Verlag. Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. Tepper, B. Lockhart, D. & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 789–796. Read More