Remuneration Is the only Real Motivatr in Today's Workplace

...

accomplishment, challenging work, increased responsibility, and growth and development

(Herzberg, 1966).

Apart from a worker’s position in the corporation, another important factor of consideration is

personality. Between every human as individuals, different personalities are present and thus,

not everyone exhibits a similar reaction to a certain type of motivation. Frey & Osterloh (2002)

studied the outcomes of using pay-for- performance as incentives on workers with different

personalities. Workers could be extrinsically motivated and were either income maximizers or

status seekers, and workers who were intrinsically motivated were classified as either loyalists,

formalists or autonomists. Income maximizers are only motivated by remuneration as reward,

and status seekers are those who aim to stand out from their colleagues and regard them as

competition, motivated primarily by opportunities to obtain more power. As for the intrinsically

motivated workers, loyalists are those who align themselves with the company’s goals,

formalists are mostly preoccupied with following the “right” procedures and autonomists seek

to satisfy their own goals, which are usually not remuneration. Based on the studies, income

maximizers and status seekers thrived on having remuneration as reward, whilst Loyalists,

Formalists and Autonomists did not react well. Status seekers also thrived under this system

even though money is not their main motivator, but earning more money than their colleagues

in itself could be the distinction that they were motivated by. Using money as reward for the

intrinsically motivated personalities created a negative impact, as it could destroy their intrinsic

motivation to work. This is known as the “crowding out” effect (Frey & Osterloh, 2002). In

essence, remuneration can be the only motivator to the people who are looking to maximize

their income and profit, but to other personalities, they may be motivated by things like

socializing, recognition, power and self-actualization, and if money is used as a motivator, it can

actually do more harm than good.

One of the first studies on using methods other than money as motivation was the Hawthorne

Studies. The Hawthorne Studies were the beginnings of early studies on motivation, as it

occurred during a time where Taylorism, Fordism and Bureaucracy had revolutionized

management methods in the preceding years and productivity had been on an all-time high.

However, employees were commonly paid based on their individual performance but working

culture was strict, such as not being allowed to communicate with their colleagues, and being

timed even when they go to the restroom. Men like Lewin (1920) observed that the workforce

population had become de-humanised and depression was an issue that was developing. Fritz J.

Roethlisberger (1939) studied the results of the Hawthorne Studies and the outcome was that

worker productivity was greater when the management openly valued their opinions, concerns

and listened to them, whilst using remuneration as reward resulted in less productivity

(Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). This gave solid backing to the idea that management

methods had to change. Mayo (1933) had stated that managers needed to exercise better

socializing and human skills, focusing on working hand in hand with their workers and forging

and maintaining good employee-management relations, moving away from what traditional

management had been, such as negative and controlling, and using money as a means to

control employees (McGregor 1960).

Managers are usually also known as “chief motivators”. It is extremely valuable if an employee

is intrinsically and self-motivated, but ultimately it is the manager’s job to step in and motivate

their employees if their motivation is lacking and productivity is low. Mayo (1933) says that

managers require good socialising and human skills, to interact with their employees and

motivate them. He stated that working together with employees instead of exercising his

power and authority was the way to keep motivation high and increase productivity for the

firm. Aside from maintaining good relationships, it is also important to keep a balance between

intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. It is a manager’s responsibility to know his workers well, so

he can motivate each employee appropriately based on their personalities, providing a good

mix of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation while keeping the workplace fair to everyone, so as to

avoid destroying the intrinsic motivation of those employees who are not motivated