June 1998

Volume 36 Number 3
Understanding Employee Motivation
James R. Lindner
Research and Extension Associate
The Ohio State University
Piketon Research and Extension Center
Piketon, Ohio
Internet address: lindner.16@osu.edu
Introduction to Motivation
At one time, employees were considered just another input into the
production of goods and services. What perhaps changed this way of
thinking about employees was research, referred to as the Hawthorne
Studies, conducted by Elton Mayo from 1924 to 1932 (Dickson, 1973).
This study found employees are not motivated solely by money and
employee behavior is linked to their attitudes (Dickson, 1973). The
Hawthorne Studies began the human relations approach to management,
whereby the needs and motivation of employees become the primary focus
of managers (Bedeian, 1993).
Motivation Theories
Understanding what motivated employees and how they were motivated
was the focus of many researchers following the publication of the
Hawthorne Study results (Terpstra, 1979). Five major approaches that have
led to our understanding of motivation are Maslow's need-hierarchy
theory, Herzberg's two- factor theory, Vroom's expectancy theory, Adams'
equity theory, and Skinner's reinforcement theory.
According to Maslow, employees have five levels of needs (Maslow,
1943): physiological, safety, social, ego, and self- actualizing. Maslow
argued that lower level needs had to be satisfied before the next higher
level need would motivate employees. Herzberg's work categorized
motivation into two factors: motivators and hygienes (Herzberg, Mausner,
& Snyderman, 1959). Motivator or intrinsic factors, such as achievement
and recognition, produce job satisfaction. Hygiene or extrinsic factors,
such as pay and job security, produce job dissatisfaction.
Vroom's theory is based on the belief that employee effort will lead to
performance and performance will lead to rewards (Vroom, 1964).
Rewards may be either positive or negative. The more positive the reward
the more likely the employee will be highly motivated. Conversely, the
more negative the reward the less likely the employee will be motivated.
Adams ' theory states that employees strive for equity between themselves
and other workers. Equity is achieved when the ratio of employee
outcomes over inputs is equal to other employee outcomes over inputs
(Adams, 1965).
Skinner's theory simply states those employees' behaviors that lead to
positive outcomes will be repeated and behaviors that lead to negative
outcomes will not be repeated (Skinner, 1953). Managers should positively
reinforce employee behaviors that lead to positive outcomes. Managers
should negatively reinforce employee behavior that leads to negative
outcomes.
Motivation Defined
Many contemporary authors have also defined the concept of motivation.
Motivation has been defined as: the psychological process that gives
behavior purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995); a predisposition to
behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific, unmet needs (Buford,
Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995); an internal drive to satisfy an unsatisfied need
(Higgins, 1994); and the will to achieve (Bedeian, 1993). For this paper,
motivation is operationally defined as the inner force that drives
individuals to accomplish personal and organizational goals.
The Role of Motivation
Why do we need motivated employees? The answer is survival (Smith,
1994). Motivated employees are needed in our rapidly changing
workplaces. Motivated employees help organizations survive. Motivated
employees are more productive. To be effective, managers need to
understand what motivates employees within the context of the roles they
perform. Of all the functions a manager performs, motivating employees is
arguably the most complex. This is due, in part, to the fact that what
motivates employees changes constantly (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991).
For example, research suggests that as employees' income increases,
money becomes less of a motivator (Kovach, 1987). Also, as employees
get older, interesting work becomes more of a motivator.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to describe the importance of certain factors
in motivating employees at the Piketon Research and ExtensionCenter and
EnterpriseCenter. Specifically, the study sought to describe the ranked
importance of the following ten motivating factors: (a) job security, (b)
sympathetic help with personal problems, (c) personal loyalty to
employees, (d) interesting work, (e) good working conditions, (f) tactful
discipline, (g) good wages, (h) promotions and growth in the organization,
(i) feeling of being in on things, and (j) full appreciation of work done. A
secondary purpose of the study was to compare the results of this study
with the study results from other populations.
Methodology
The research design for this study employed a descriptive survey method.
The target population of this study included employees at the Piketon
Research and ExtensionCenter and EnterpriseCenter (centers). The sample
size included all 25 employees of the target population. Twenty-three of
the 25 employees participated in the survey for a participation rate of 92%.
The centers are in Piketon, Ohio.
The mission of the EnterpriseCenter is to facilitate individual and
community leader awareness and provide assistance in preparing and
accessing economic opportunities in southern Ohio. The Enterprise Center
has three programs: alternatives in agriculture, small business
development, and women's business development. The mission of the
Piketon Research and Extension Center is to conduct research and
educational programs designed to enhance economic development in
southern Ohio. The Piketon Research and Extension Center has five
programs: aquaculture, community economic development, horticulture,
forestry, and soil and water resources.
From a review of literature, a survey questionnaire was developed to
collect data for the study (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991; Harpaz, 1990;
Kovach, 1987). Data was collected through use of a written questionnaire
hand-delivered to participants. Questionnaires were filled out by
participants and returned to an intra-departmental mailbox. The
questionnaire asked participants to rank the importance of ten factors that
motivated them in doing their work: 1=most important . . . 10=least
important. Face and content validity for the instrument were established
using two administrative and professional employees at The Ohio State
University. The instrument was pilot tested with three similarly situated
employees within the university. As a result of the pilot test, minor
changes in word selection and instructions were made to the questionnaire.
Results and Discussion
The ranked order of motivating factors were: (a) interesting work, (b) good
wages, (c) full appreciation of work done, (d) job security, (e) good
working conditions, (f) promotions and growth in the organization, (g)
feeling of being in on things, (h) personal loyalty to employees, (i) tactful
discipline, and (j) sympathetic help with personal problems.
A comparison of these results to Maslow's need-hierarchy theory provides
some interesting insight into employee motivation. The number one ranked
motivator, interesting work, is a self-actualizing factor. The number two
ranked motivator, good wages, is a physiological factor. The number three
ranked motivator, full appreciation of work done, is an esteem factor. The
number four ranked motivator, job security, is a safety factor. Therefore,
according to Maslow (1943), if managers wish to address the most
important motivational factor of Centers' employees, interesting work,
physiological, safety, social, and esteem factors must first be satisfied. If
managers wished to address the second most important motivational factor
of centers' employees, good pay, increased pay would suffice. Contrary to
what Maslow's theory suggests, the range of motivational factors are
mixed in this study. Maslow's conclusions that lower level motivational
factors must be met before ascending to the next level were not confirmed
by this study.
The following example compares the highest ranked motivational factor
(interesting work) to Vroom's expectancy theory. Assume that a Centers
employee just attended a staff meeting where he/she learned a major
emphasis would be placed on seeking additional external program funds.
Additionally, employees who are successful in securing funds will be
given more opportunities to explore their own research and extension
interests (interesting work). Employees who do not secure additional funds
will be required to work on research and extension programs identified by
the director. The employee realizes that the more research he/she does
regarding funding sources and the more proposals he/she writes, the
greater the likelihood he/she will receive external funding.
Because the state legislature has not increased appropriations to the centers
for the next two years (funds for independent research and extension
projects will be scaled back), the employee sees a direct relationship
between performance (obtaining external funds) and rewards (independent
research and Extension projects). Further, the employee went to work for
the centers, in part, because of the opportunity to conduct independent
research and extension projects. The employee will be motivated if he/she
is successful in obtaining external funds and given the opportunity to
conduct independent research and extension projects. On the other hand,
motivation will be diminished if the employee is successful in obtaining
external funds and the director denies the request to conduct independent
research and Extension projects.
The following example compares the third highest ranked motivational
factor (full appreciation of work done) to Adams's equity theory. If an
employee at the centers feels that there is a lack of appreciation for work
done, as being too low relative to another employee, an inequity may exist
and the employee will be dis-motivated. Further, if all the employees at the
centers feel that there is a lack of appreciation for work done, inequity may
exist. Adams (1965) stated employees will attempt to restore equity
through various means, some of which may be counter- productive to
organizational goals and objectives. For instance, employees who feel their
work is not being appreciated may work less or undervalue the work of
other employees.
This final example compares the two highest motivational factors to
Herzberg's two-factor theory. The highest ranked motivator, interesting
work, is a motivator factor. The second ranked motivator, good wages is a
hygiene factor. Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman (1959) stated that to the
degree that motivators are present in a job, motivation will occur. The
absence of motivators does not lead to dissatisfaction. Further, they stated
that to the degree that hygienes are absent from a job, dissatisfaction will
occur. When present, hygienes prevent dissatisfaction, but do not lead to
satisfaction. In our example, the lack of interesting work (motivator) for
the centers' employees would not lead to dissatisfaction. Paying centers'
employees lower wages (hygiene) than what they believe to be fair may
lead to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, employees will be motivated when
they are doing interesting work and but will not necessarily be motivated
by higher pay.
The discussion above, about the ranked importance of motivational factors
as related to motivational theory, is only part of the picture. The other part
is how these rankings compare with related research. A study of industrial
employees, conducted by Kovach (1987), yielded the following ranked
order of motivational factors: (a) interesting work, (b) full appreciation of
work done, and (c) feeling of being in on things. Another study of
employees, conducted by Harpaz (1990), yielded the following ranked
order of motivational factors: (a) interesting work, (b) good wages, and (c)
job security.
In this study and the two cited above, interesting work ranked as the most
important motivational factor. Pay was not ranked as one of the most
important motivational factors by Kovach (1987), but was ranked second
in this research and by Harpaz (1990). Full appreciation of work done was
not ranked as one of the most important motivational factors by Harpaz
(1990), but was ranked second in this research and by Kovach (1987). The
discrepancies in these research findings supports the idea that what
motivates employees differs given the context in which the employee
works. What is clear, however, is that employees rank interesting work as
the most important motivational factor.
Implications for Centers and Extension
The ranked importance of motivational factors of employees at the centers
provides useful information for the centers' director and employees.
Knowing how to use this information in motivating centers' employees is
complex. The strategy for motivating centers' employees depends on
which motivation theories are used as a reference point. If Hertzberg's
theory is followed, management should begin by focusing on pay and job
security (hygiene factors) before focusing on interesting work and full
appreciation of work done (motivator factors). If Adams' equity theory is
followed, management should begin by focusing on areas where there may
be perceived inequities (pay and full appreciation of work done) before
focusing on interesting work and job security. If Vroom's theory is
followed, management should begin by focusing on rewarding (pay and
interesting work) employee effort in achieving organizational goals and
objectives.
Regardless of which theory is followed, interesting work and employee
pay appear to be important links to higher motivation of centers'
employees. Options such as job enlargement, job enrichment, promotions,
internal and external stipends, monetary, and non-monetary compensation
should be considered. Job enlargement can be used (by managers) to make
work more interesting (for employees) by increasing the number and
variety of activities performed. Job enrichment can used to make work
more interesting and increase pay by adding higher level responsibilities to
a job and providing monetary compensation (raise or stipend) to
employees for accepting this responsibility. These are just two examples of
an infinite number of methods to increase motivation of employees at the
centers. The key to motivating centers' employees is to know what
motivates them and designing a motivation program based on those needs.
The results presented in this paper also have implications for the entire
Cooperative Extension Sysyem. The effectiveness of Extension is
dependent upon the motivation of its employees (Chesney, 1992; Buford,
1990; Smith, 1990). Knowing what motivates employees and
incorporating this knowledge into the reward system will help Extension
identify, recruit, employ, train, and retain a productive workforce.
Motivating Extension employees requires both managers and employees
working together (Buford, 1993). Extension employees must be willing to
let managers know what motivates them, and managers must be willing to
design reward systems that motivate employees. Survey results, like those
presented here, are useful in helping Extension managers determine what
motivates employees (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991). If properly designed
reward systems are not implemented, however, employees will not be
motivated.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Bedeian, A. G. (1993). Management (3rd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.
Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of
agricultural education faculty: A constant phenomena. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 32 (2). 16-22.
Buford, J. A., Jr., Bedeian, A. G., & Lindner, J. R. (1995). Management in
Extension (3rd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Extension.
Buford, J. A., Jr. (1990). Extension management in the information age.
Journal of Extension, 28 (1).
Buford, J. A., Jr. (1993). Be your own boss. Journal of Extension, 31 (1).
Chesney, C. E. (1992). Work force 2000: is Extension agriculture ready?
Journal of Extension, 30 (2).
Dickson, W. J. (1973). Hawthorne experiments. In C. Heyel (ed.), The
encyclopedia of management, 2nd ed. (pp. 298-302). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Harpaz, I. (1990). The importance of work goals: an international
perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 21. 75-93.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to
work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Higgins, J. M. (1994). The management challenge (2nd ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees? Workers and
supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons, 30. 58-65.
Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, July 1943. 370-396.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free
Press.
Smith, G. P. (1994). Motivation. In W. Tracey (ed.), Human resources
management and development handbook (2nd ed.).
Smith, K. L. (1990). The future of leaders in Extension. Journal of
Extension, 28 (1).
Terpstra, D. E. (1979). Theories of motivation: borrowing the best.
Personnel Journal, 58. 376.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.html .
Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles
appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies
of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in
educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications,
electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only
with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office ,
joe-ed@joe.org .