uman Resources: The Scholarship of Motivation Theory (4-6 Paragraphs) Scholarship of Motivation Theory Using databases in the Walden library (e.g., Business Source Complete or ABI/Inform complete), locate one article (attached) that discusses or applies

Can you directly motivate employees? Exploding the myth

Stephen Flynn

Introduction

As managers, we are in the ‘‘motivation game.’’ Central to this is the ‘‘deal’’ between the

employer and the employee; or to put it into more fashionable language, the psychological

contract. The management literature encourages us to harness this contract in order to tap

into employees’ discretionary effort. However, as I will show, the more we try and manage

employee motivation directly, the more it will elude us.

The psychological contract

Let’s start by being clear about what we mean by the psychological contract. It has been

defined as: ‘‘an individual’s beliefs about the terms of their relationship with the organisation

that employs them’’ (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). Originally the two types of psychological

contract were described as transactional or relational. These two original definitions can be

taken as descriptions of two polar extremes as outlined in Table I.

Very quickly in the literature these descriptions were changed into a management tool. This

tool was available for executives to apply to their organizations. Management was thus

presented with a choice over its preferred psychological contract. The contract is now

offered as a key means of translating strategy into HR and management programs and

practices. Table II sets out one framework that illustrates the choice put to management

(Brown, 2001).

So, the psychological contract is currently recommended as the tool to strike a new deal

between employer and employee.

Maturity levels

Before we can return to employee motivation we must first explain the concept of

‘‘organisational maturity levels’’ (Flynn, 2010). A maturity level is a stage of capability that is

‘‘an evolutionary plateau on an organizational improvement path’’ (Curtis et al., 2002). For

our practical purposes in dealing with motivation, we will briefly illustrate four such levels

(see Table III).

At Level 1, the organizational members aim to comply with the demands of internal and

external regulations which are imposed by all of the organization’s stakeholders.

Compliance is, however, minimal. Most achievements at this level are through heroic

efforts. Hence the model of management is just that – heroic. However, there are few

effective control systems, other than the basic financial ones. Business processes are varied

and inconsistent. Managers and employees ‘‘get by’’ or ‘‘get away with it.’’ The organization

is characterized by a sense of ‘‘irresponsible autonomy.’’ As controls are minimal or absent,

DOI 10.1108/14777281111096771 VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011, pp. 11-15, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1477-7282 j DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS j PAGE 11

Stephen Flynn is Human

Resources Director, Office

Depot Ltd, Leighton

Buzzard, UK.

employees have a significant degree of freedom to do as they see fit. However, this

autonomy is effectively misused or abused.

At Level 2, the organization concentrates upon controlling the basic work practices,

especially at the unit level (Curtis et al., 2002). Business processes are systematically

mapped and standardized. There is an air of process discipline throughout the organization.

This borders on the bureaucratic and each work activity has its own standard operating

procedure (SOP) to guide employees. You will recognize this organization by its range of

policy and procedure manuals. The organization starts to follow an ‘‘organising principle’’

which tends to be rigidly functional in structure.

At Level 3, the organization is focused on raising the capabilities of its systems, processes

and people through continuous improvement (CI). Management systematically uses

Table I

Transactional contracts Relational contracts

Specific economic conditions (e.g. wage rate) as primary incentive

Emotional attachment as well as economic exchange

Limited personal involvement in the job (e.g. working relatively few hours, low emotional attachment)

Whole-person relations (e.g. growth, development)

Close-ended time frame (e.g. seasonal employment, two to three years on the job at most)

Open-ended time frame (e.g. indefinitely)

Commitments linked to well-specified conditions Both written and unwritten terms (e.g. some terms emerge over time)

Little flexibility (change requires renegotiation of contract) Dynamic and subject to change during the life of the contract

Use of existing skills Pervasive conditions (e.g. affects personal and family life)

Unambiguous terms readily understood by outsiders Subjective and implicitly understood (i.e. conditions difficult for third party to understand)

Table II

Psychological contract Leased talent New paternalism Employee owners

Key message ‘‘We will give you a great CV’’ ‘‘We will take care of you’’ ‘‘We will build success together’’

Key reward tools Competency-based Job families Individual incentives Personal contracts

Job evaluation Profit-sharing Good benefits Promotions

Broad bands Team-based pay Share schemes Personal development

Focus of pay system Replacement value in market Job value in career structure Business value in flat hierarchy

Focus of pay competitiveness Retaining key talent Entry-level recruitment All staff, aggressive total pay

Pay structure Market rates, job family structures

Broad grades Broad bands

Reward for high performers High base salary Promotion High bonuses

Variable pay Individual and project incentives Corporate, e.g. profit share Value-based, business challenge and team incentives

Table III Organizational maturity levels

Level 1 Compliance management Level 2 Process management Level 3 Capability management Level 4 Strategic management

PAGE 12jDEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONSj VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011

‘‘toolkits’’ such as Six Sigma to guide CI. Project management becomes a discipline in itself.

Forecast and actual project benefits are analytically tracked. The organization is managed

using a range of measurements, for example key performance indicators (KPIs).

At Level 4, the organization is guided by a fully integrated business strategy. The vision and

the values are lived and an open systems approach is manifest. The organization has a clear

common purpose and delegation goes to the ‘‘lowest’’ possible level within the hierarchy as

a consequence. There is a culture of ‘‘responsible autonomy.’’

Employee motivation and maturity levels

We can now return to employee motivation. There are a number of motivational frameworks

that we could use; however, we have chosen the ‘‘motivations’’ described by Warr (2007).

We will match each ‘‘motivation’’ with its appropriate maturity level. All motivations are

possible at all maturity levels, but ‘‘higher’’ motivations are problematic at ‘‘lower’’ maturity

levels. For clarity, where an employee motivation is introduced it has been italicized in the

text. All motivations and maturity levels are summarized in Table IV.

Maturity level 1: compliance management

At this level of maturity, there is an almost total reliance upon extrinsic motivation.

Management follows a ‘‘stick and carrot’’ approach. Money is seen as the prime motivator

and the exclusive solution to ‘‘employee problems’’. Employees are expected to be driven

by such incentives: it is felt that they are only ‘‘in it’’ for the money. The psychological contract

is thus transactional and short-term. Other hygiene factors are generally neglected.

Ambiguity tends to be high so job insecurity exists. Overall, management keep throwing

money at employees in a desperate attempt to ‘‘motivate’’ them.

Maturity level 2: process management

Money still exists at this level so is still a relevant motivation. However, as process

management improves a wider assortment of motivations emerges.

The process of personal appraisals is introduced at this level (Flynn, 2010). Management by

objectives (MbO) is evident and SMART goals are set. This provides employees with the

motivation of externally generated goals.

Jobs are tightly defined at this level. A degree of role and environmental clarity arises for

employees. To support the effective operation of the SOPs, basic job training is offered

which gives the opportunity for skill use.

Table IV Employee motivation and maturity levels

Organizational maturity level HR maturity level Employee motivation

1 Compliance management Initial Money Contact with others

2 Process management Foundation Externally generated goals Environmental and role clarity Security Opportunity for skill use Supportive supervision Equity (horizontal and vertical)

3 Capability management HR agenda Valued social position Variety Career opportunity and progression

4 Strategic (culture) management Integrated people strategy Opportunity for personal control Equity (horizontal, vertical and personal)

VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011 jDEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONSj PAGE 13

Hygiene factors are addressed at this maturity level, so through health, safety and welfare

(e.g. Safe Systems of Work), physical security is attained to a large extent.

In common with the operating procedures, other processes associated with human

resources such as discipline, grievance and consultation are standardized. These are

guided by the principles of natural justice, so early signs of equity emerge.

Finally, to support SOPs and all the other HR aspects associated with this level of maturity,

basic job training is provided for managers and especially first line managers This helps to

build a supportive supervisory environment for employees.

So, at maturity level 2, we start to see the foundations being built for a broader range of

motivations. This is enhanced at higher maturity levels.

Maturity level 3: capability management

Again, all the motivations that arose at levels 1 and 2 are available at level 3.

The organizational structure at this maturity level is not only functional but also delayered.

There is greater clarity of the unique purpose not only of each role but also of each level in the

managerial hierarchy. This enables the creation of functional career frameworks. Employees

thus have clearer career opportunities and also the chance of gaining valued social

positions within the organization.

Jobs were narrowly defined and restricted at maturity level 2. The emergence of CI at level 3

broadens jobs into roles and introduces job enlargement. This offers employees task variety.

The targets associated with CI, the short-interval measurements and the KPIs in the

Performance Management Systems further enhance goals for employees as a motivational

element. This short-interval measurement gives greater opportunity for feedback, which

further enhances role clarity (Warr, 2007).

Maturity level 4: strategic management

As we saw above, the motivations that we associate with lower levels are still present at level 4.

At this ‘‘higher’’ maturity level, a full intrinsic motivational framework is available. The culture

of ‘‘responsible autonomy’’ enables personal control (Warr, 2007, pp. 149-52). Roles

develop beyond maturity level 3 and now job enrichment applies, further enhancing variety.

The reward agenda evolves to enable vertical, horizontal and now personal equity (Flynn,

2010). At maturity level 4 the procedural equity, which first arose at level 2, is enhanced by

the emergence of distributive justice, where all employees believe that they receive their fair

share of overall rewards within the organization.

So, before a motivation can be readily available to employees, the related maturity level must

first be established. In other words, the environment must be right.

Discussion

So much for the theory; what about the practical implications? Some examples may help.

If you and your management team want to ‘‘empower’’ employees, then you need to be at

maturity level 4. Well, personal control as a motivation is not readily available until strategic

management is attained. Any attempt to create empowerment at lower maturity levels will

fail, as the environment will not be supportive. In fact, even if it were successful,

‘‘ The ‘choice’ of psychological contracts is thus limited by the actual maturity level. ’’

PAGE 14jDEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONSj VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011

empowerment below level 4 is likely to recreate the ‘‘irresponsible autonomy’’ that we

associate with level 1.

If the deal you wish to craft involves extensive career opportunities in the business, and you

assess that you are at level 1, can you leapfrog to level 3? This will not be sustainable (Curtis

et al., 2002). The foundations built at level 2 that support the developments in level 3 would

be absent. All those business and HR processes that act as the bedrock for higher levels

would be missing. The organization would soon collapse back into level 1.

And finally in this discussion, perhaps you wish to drive improvements through individual

performance-related pay (PRP). All other indicators suggest you are at level 2. Well, this type

of PRP scheme requires detailed measurement of individual performance. This is not readily

available until level 3 is attained. Such a PRP system is likely to create dysfunctional behavior

and de-motivate employees.

Summary

We started this article by introducing the psychological contract. We saw how this has

shifted from being merely a description of the unconscious ‘‘deal’’ to becoming a

management tool. This tool could then to be used consciously to craft a new deal between

employer and employee. This deal would then motivate the employee.

We then looked at a range of motivations. We showed how each related to the maturity level

of the organization. So, depending upon the actual maturity level, only some motivations are

available to the organization. The ‘‘choice’’ of psychological contracts is thus limited by the

actual maturity level. Moreover, motivations are actually a function of the maturity level and

not a tool directly available to management. The more management try directly to manage

the motivation of employees, the more this becomes extrinsic motivation which we associate

primarily with maturity level 1. The more we apply extrinsic motivation the more it damages

intrinsic motivation.

Motivation has been transformed from a scientific concept into a managerial tool of control.

Fundamentally, motivation only becomes a problem when the inherent meaning of work is

lost. Employees have then to be ‘‘motivated’’ by managers. Employees are hence depicted

as passive and immature. People, as employees, have therefore to be ‘‘managed’’ by being

‘‘motivated.’’

Motivation is personal and internal. It is not manageable directly – we cannot ‘‘do’’ motivation to

employees. The maturity level is the ‘‘environment’’ in which each motivation may (or may not)

thrive. As managers and employers we should work on this ‘‘environmental management,’’ put

meaning back into work and leave employees to their own motivational devices.

Keywords:

Motivation (psychology),

Psychological contracts,

Human resource

management

References

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Brown, D. (2001), Reward Strategies, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

Curtis, B., Hefley, W.E. and Miller, S.A. (2002), The People Capability Maturity Model, Addison-Wesley,

Reading, MA.

Flynn, S.M. (2010), Linking Human Resource Strategy and Practice: An Integrated Framework, Matador,

Leicester.

Warr, P. (2007), Work, Happiness and Unhappiness, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Corresponding author

Stephen Flynn can be contacted at: [email protected]

VOL. 25 NO. 1 2011 jDEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONSj PAGE 15

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints