Motivating employees extrinsically to perform
It is argued by Amabile (1993) that there exist numerous jobs which are purely extrinsic
motivated. However, when taking Herzberg‟s (1959) Two-Factor theory into account, it is
argued that extrinsic factors (or hygiene factors) cannot cause motivation or satisfaction, so it is
likely that those factors are not causing high performances (Brass, 1981). SAPRU, (2013) argue
that an exclusively increase in extrinsic factors will not lead to an increase in performance.
However, it seems that there are some extrinsic factors which can (in combination with intrinsic
factors) lead to higher performances (Ansar et al., 1997). Extrinsic motivators are not a logically
inherent part of the work, as Amabile (1993) describes. She states that they are intended to
control the performance of the work. Examples are: promised rewards, praises, critical feedback,
deadlines, surveillance and specifications on how the work needs to be done. An example of a
purely extrinsic task is doing formal performance reviews of B. Keijzers; Employee motivation
related to employee performance in the organization an employee; that‟s a task which is barely
intrinsically motivated. In Seligman‟s (2002) theory, a person who is extrinsically motivated can
be described as an employee who perceives his work orientation as “a job”; this kind of worker
performs his job for the paycheck at the end of the month. Salary is an extensively researched
extrinsic motivator. Since it is labeled as an extrinsic factor, it is not perceived as causing
motivation in the workplace (Herzberg, 1959). However recent research of Lauby, ( 2005)
resulted in considerable evidence that higher wages directly affect job performance. They also
argue that in the case that labour turnover is costly for an organization (because of severance,
training and hiring costs), firms could pay higher wages to decrease quit rates and save on
turnover costs. These statements are confirmed by Rynes et al. (2004); they argue that pay is
probably the most important motivational factor. And Jurgensen (1978) concluded that job
applicants seemed to believe that pay is the most important attribute to everyone except
themselves. Ansar et al. (1997) also argue that that lowering wage levels to market parity can even
reduce worker productivity. However, Deci (1972) argues that pay can decrease intrinsic
motivation. Deci (1972) proved in his research that if payments are non-contingently presented it
decreases intrinsic motivation and it does not if payments are contingently presented. However, it
not only seems that pay increases job performances but a high commitment to supervisors and a
high job security can obtain the same results (Becker et al., 1996; Kraimer et al., 2005). Becker et
al. (1996) concluded in their research that a high overall commitment to an employee‟s
supervisors and peers increases job performance. But, they state that overall commitment to
organizations is uncorrelated with job performance. Kraimer et al. (2005) argue that when
organizations succeed in providing employees a high job security, job performances will increase.
And the other way around; they concluded that the less job security an employee has, the fewer
obligation the person has to perform well. However, Miner, (2007) argue that job security can be
expensive for firms if they rely on temporary workers. But according to Lindner (1998), managers
should begin by focusing on pay and job security before focusing on the five intrinsic job
characteristics. Lindner (1998) also argues that the reinforcing circle of performance is applicable
to salary, commitment to supervisors and peers and job security; through one of these factors a
higher performance is established, which causes satisfaction for the employee and results in a
higher motivation to perform well in the future. B. Keijzers; Employee motivation related to
employee performance in the organization it is argued by researchers that extrinsic factors do not
contribute to an increase in performance.
However, it seems that for some forms of extrinsic factors the opposite is true. It is stated that
salary, commitment to supervisors and peers and job security can increase job performances.
Through providing one or more of these factors a higher performance is established, therefore the
employee gains external satisfaction and is motivated to perform well in the future. But managers
should be careful with extrinsic motivational factors, since in some cases they can decrease
intrinsic motivational factors
Working Conditions on the Organizational Performance
Long ago since the advent of organizations, the concept of effectiveness has been considered as
the basic purpose of various organizations. Organizational researchers, managers, and
administrators, in an effort to improve the organizational effectiveness, developed the science of
organizational behavior and human resource management. In an effort to improve organizational
effectiveness, or in other words improve the behavior and attitude outcomes, organizations and
managers have been trying to identify what is affecting on these variables and in a way manage
them effectively. The workplace environment plays a crucial role for the employees. Nowadays
when employees have more working alternatives, the environment in workplace becomes a
critical factor for accepting and/or keeping the jobs. The quality of environment in workplace may
simply determine the level of employee‟s motivation, subsequent performance and productivity.
How well employees get along with the organization influence the employee‟s error rate, level of
innovation and collaboration with other employees, absenteeism and ultimately time period to
stay in the job.
Although compensation package is one of the extrinsic motivation tool (Ryan and Deci, 2000) it
has a limited short term effect on employees‟ performance. A widely accepted assumption is that
better workplace environment motivates employees and produces better results. Office
environment can be described in terms of physical and behavioral components. These components
can further be divided in the form of different independent variables. An organization‟s physical
environment and its design and layout can affect employee behavior in the workplace. Thomas G.
Cummings, (1998)estimates that improvements in the physical design of the workplace may result
in a 5-10 percent increase in employee productivity. Stallworth and Kleiner (1996) argue that
increasingly an organization‟s physical layout is designed around employee needs in order to
maximize productivity and satisfaction. They argue that innovative workplaces can be developed
to encourage the sharing of information and networking regardless to job boundaries by allowing
communication freely across departmental groups. (Schermerhorn 2010) argues that the modern
work physical environment is characterized by technology; computers and machines as well as
general furniture and furnishings. To achieve high levels of employee productivity, organizations
must ensure that the physical environment is conducive to organizational needs facilitating
interaction and privacy, formality and informality, functionality and cross-disciplinarily.
Consequently, the physical environment is a tool that can be leveraged both to improve business
results (Mohr, 1996) and employee well-being (William Pride, 2011)
Ensuring adequate facilities are provided to employees is critical to generating greater employee
commitment and productivity. The provision of inadequate equipment and adverse working
conditions has been shown to affect employee commitment and intention to stay with the
organization ( Fox, 2007; Griffin, 2012) as well as levels of job satisfaction and the perception of
fairness of pay (Schermerhorn, 2010)). From a safety perspective, Jain, (2005) indicates that
environmental conditions affect employee safety perceptions which impact upon employee
commitment.
Extensive scientific research conducted by (Mukherjee, 2005) has also yielded indications
suggesting that improving working environment results in a reduction in a number of complaints
and absenteeism and an increase in productivity. The indoor environment has the biggest effect on
productivity in relation to job stress and job dissatisfaction. As suggested by Robbins,(2009) in
the twenty-first century, businesses are taking a more strategic approach to environmental
management to enhance their productivity through improving the performance level of the
employees. It is evident in the research findings of (SAPRU, 2013) that the more satisfied
workers are with their jobs the better the company is likely to perform in terms of subsequent
profitability and particularly productivity. Fox, (2007) argues that the relationship between work,
the workplace and the tools of work, workplace becomes an integral part of work itself. The
management that dictate how, European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online) Vol.6, No.1, 2014 148 exactly, to maximize
employee productivity center around two major areas of focus: personal motivation and the
infrastructure of the work environment.
An attractive and supportive work environment can be described as an environment that attracts
individuals into the health professions, encourages them to remain in the health workforce and
enables them to perform effectively. The purpose of providing attractive work environments is to
create incentives for entering the health professions (recruitment) and for remaining in the health
workforce (retention). In addition, supportive work environments provide conditions that enable
health workers to perform effectively, making best use of their knowledge, skills and competences
and the available resources in order to provide high-quality health services. This is the interface
of the work environment and quality of care. Working environment can be divided into two
components namely physical and behavioral components.
The physical environment consists of elements that relate to the office occupiers‟ ability to
physically connect with their office environment. The behavioral environment consists of
components that relate to how well the office occupiers connect with each other, and the impact
the office environment can have on the behavior of the individual. According to Haynes (2008),
the physical environment with the productivity of its occupants falls into two main categories
office layout (open-plan verses cellular offices) and office comfort (matching the office
environment to the work processes), and the behavioral environment represents the two main
components namely interaction and distraction.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource
Management Review, 3 (3), 185-201
Ansar, J., Cantor, P. & Sparks, R. W. (1997). Efficiency wages and the regulated firm.
Journal of Regulatory Economics, 11, 55-66
Baron, R. (2000). Personnel Management. New York: Dryden Publication.
Brass, D. J. (1981). Relationships, Job Characteristics, and Worker Satisfaction and
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly , 26 (3), 331-348.
Buford, J. A., Jr., Bedeian, A. G. & Lindner, J. R. (1995). Management in Extension(3rd
ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Extension.
Cassidy, T. & Lynn, R. (1989). A multi-factorial approach to achievement motivation:
The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 62, 301–312.
Crouse, N. (2005). Motivation Is an Inside Job: How to Really Get Your Employees to
Deliver the Results You Need. iUniverse.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological
well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology , 49. 14–23
Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and non contingent rewards and controls on
intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 8, 217-229.
Dockel, A. G. (2003). Management (3rd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.
Drischel, K. (2005). Human Resource Management. New York: USA
Greenberg, P. (2003). Management (Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices) London: Pan
books Ltd.
Gbadamosi, G. and Moruf A. Adebakin (1996) “Organizational Behaviour” Lagos:
Pumark Nigeria Limited (Educational Publishers).
Greenhalgh , H and Bennet, R. (2005). Human Resource Management. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall
Hackmam , B. E., & Oldham, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education
faculty: A constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (2), 16-
22.
Hitt, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M. & Gilbert, N. L. (1992). Foci and Bases of
Employee Commitment: Implications for Job Performance. The Academy of
Management Journal, 39 (2), 464-482.
Hongoro, O.A.M. (2006). Job satisfaction of professional librarians: A comparative
study technical and public service department in academic libraries in
Jordan. Dissertation Abstract International 46, 3179A.
Fargus, C.M. (2000). Job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Social Psychology
137 (5), 677-689.
Fox, W. (2007). Managing Organisational Behaviour. Chicago: Juta and Company Ltd.
Ott, H. (1989), “Classical Readings in Organizational Behaviour”, Pacific Grove, CA
Books/Cole Publishing Company
WHO, J. E. (2006). Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Aptitudes, Job Knowledge, and Job
Performance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 29, 340-362.
Gbadamosi J. E and Adebakin, R.F. (1996). Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors
of Job Performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96 (1), 72-98.
Griffin, R. (2012). Management. Cengage Learning.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley & Sons
Jain, N. (2005). Organisational BehaviourVol. 2, Volume 2. Yorkshere: Atlantic
Publishers & Dist.
Keritner, R. (2004). Organizational behavior: Understanding and Prediction. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kombo, D. K. and Tromp, D.L.A (2006) Proposal and Thesis Writing: An introduction.
Nairobi: Pauline Publications Africa.
Koonz, H. (1990). Essential of Management. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Kostiuk, P. F. & Follmann, D. A. (1989). Learning Curves, Personal
Characteristics, and Job Performance. Journal of Labor
Economics, 7 (2).
Kirigia, K. A. (2006). What motivates employees? Workers and
supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons, 30. 58-65.
Koonz, H. (1990). Essential of management. new york: MC GRAW HILL.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C. & Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). The role
of job security in understanding the relationship between
employees’ perceptions of temporary workers and
employees’ performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90 (2), 389-398.
Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Compan Bishop,
J.
H. (1989). The recognition and reward of employee
performance. Lauby, S. J. (2005). Motivating Employees. American Society
for Training and
Development.
Latham , S. (2007). Element of Organization Behavior. Nairobi: University Press.
Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. Journal of
Extension, 36 (3). Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational Behaviour. 8th ed.
Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Williamson, T. (1985) .Human Resource Effectiveness. London: IPM House.
Mays, B. (2005). Job satisfaction of academic librarians. An
examination of the relationship between satisfactions, faculty
status participation. College and Research Libraries 56 (4), 341-
350
McBurney, W. (2009). Research Methods. New york: books world.
Miner, J. (2007). Organizational Behavior: From theory to practice. 4. M.E.
Sharpe. Msoroka, M. (2013). Motivating Workers in Educational Institutions:
Adams' Equity and
Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theoretical Implications. GRIN Verlag.
Mukherjee, S. (2005). Organisation & Management And Business
Communication. New Delhi: New Age International.
