Workplace Motivation
Introduction
Good for Care Company is faced with numerous employee problems within the workplace. Their main grievances include unfair promotion system that doesn’t reward good performance. The employees are not offered bonuses when they perform well and this becomes a deterrent towards performing over and above what is expected of them. Favouritism has also been cited, there is a feeling that some leadership the organization are giving better treatment to a few employees without any regard to their performance. There has been a rise in workplace violence that has affected some employees, creating a big concern to the management.
The purpose of this report is to investigate the root causes of employee grievances in Good for Care Company and to find possible ways of addressing the same to boost staff motivation.
Root Causes for Work Motivation Problems in the Company
When employees in a company feel undervalued they are likely to lose interest in the job. In the case of Goof for Care Company, the leadership a favours a few employees making the rest of the workforce feel that they are not appreciated. Every employee requires to know what position they can grow into if they perform well, but where there are no clear promotion opportunities, then the employees begin to lose hope. At the same time, leadership plays a big role in promoting employee promotion and productivity. Strong leadership that treats all employees equally and addresses employee workplace grievances promptly is a clear guarantee to employee motivation. Lack of clear leadership structures in Good for Care Company demotivated employees and created other problems for the company. Job insecurity, more often than not, creates motivation problems. Employees need to be assured that their jobs are guaranteed. If not, there will be high staff turnover like in the case for Good for Care Company. Vertical and horizontal conflicts in an environment are also not conducive for staff productivity.
Analysis of Work Motivation
The discussed problems such as high turnover, job dissatisfaction and workplace misbehaviour can be well explained through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the expectancy theory.
Looking through the lens of Maslow’s theory, we see that the workers’ problems are as a result of their unmet psychological, safety, social and self-actualization needs in the company (Sadri & Bowen, 2011). The poor bonuses make the worker’s unable to comfortably satisfy their psychological needs such as food, water and clothing. The workers also feel insecure about their jobs because of the favouritism present in the company, hence denying them their safety needs. The turnover is consequently as a result of the negative attitude developed by the staff towards the poor leadership in the firm. The staff are not aware of the promotion opportunities available in the company and they are also not sure if their efforts towards the company’s productivity will be pleasing enough to the managers to maintain their places in the firm or probably earn them better ones. Their growth in the organization is therefore left to chance, under the mercies of the incompetent leaders.
In the same line of Maslow’s theory, the staff is not getting the appreciation and the development opportunities they require to grow in the company, and therefore compromising their social, esteem and self-actualization needs. They are not given any recognition whenever they take a step further than what is required. The lack of appreciation makes the worker’s efforts undervalued which lowers their confidence and esteem in building the company. The organization does not invest in the emotional wants of their staff which makes them perform way below their full potential.
Finally, according to the expectations theory, the worker’s problems is because of their unmet expectations of seeing an outcome from the efforts they put in the company (Drager, Lamla & Pfajfar, 2016). The valence aspect being neglected then motivates the workers’ organization. The staff is not given bonuses or even mere recognition for any further step they contribute to the company’s growth. Additionally, the promotion opportunities are based on their relationships with the leaders which are unfair to other workers who make genuine efforts to help in the realization of the company’s goals. No incentives, therefore, makes less sense to the workers to put their best foot forward. They also become easily triggered to opt for other jobs that pay better.
Based on the theories established worker’s motivation can, therefore, be improved by improving the incentives given to the workers, clearly defining the promotion opportunities available to the workers, restructuring the leadership in the organization and giving the workers more power in making decisions for the organization.
Some of the job redesign programs that can be undertaken to improve the workers’ productivity is improving the horizontal and vertical relationships among the workers and also change the work design in the firm (Christina et.al, 2017). The job opportunities available in the company are mainly socially based meaning that the task interdependence in the organization is generally. More solid relationships would, therefore, mean improved support, smooth interactions and better feedback for streamlined operations in the company. Better feedback motivated the workers in improving their performances while the peaceful atmosphere makes it possible to initiate this change.
The decisions also made in determining how the work is done also need to be re-evaluated. This would mean dissolving the corrupt leadership that is currently available in the firm, making the development opportunities more transparent to the worker’s, adding team building programs to the company’s schedule to deliberately increase the cohesion among the workers, and introducing necessary training opportunities to the workers to improving the prowess in certain fields. These redesign programs need to mostly invest in the workers psychological and emotional needs to promote their growth in the company.
Control Measures to Control Workplace Violence
Organization need to develop a zero-tolerance policy code of conduct can deal with matters of workplace violence (Schindeler & Reynald, 2017). Refusing to tolerate any sign of harassment and danger will put off any intruders as they will be sure that severe measures will be metered against them. While developing this, the entire organization needs to be involved starting from the executive, management and the employees. Everyone needs to be aware of and understand the policy document. Complaints should be addressed promptly and privately. Policy development needs to be followed closely by staff training to ensure that everyone knows what constitutes workplace violence and how it can be prevented. Staff should be encouraged to anonymously report cases of violence to assistance the shy victims.
Communication is also helpful in managing conflicts (Schindeler & Reynald, 2017). The organization should establish clear channels of communication where staff can report cases that breach the violence policies. Team members should be encouraged to have regular meetings where they can discuss the policy because violet intruders thrive where there are silences from victims and witnesses.
Managers need to encourage staff to accept their differences which are important in the overall in team strength. Activities such as team building can help members to understand their weakness and strengths, and consequently appreciate each other the way they are. Differences should be acknowledged as positive attributes that can help in negative conflict and the prevention of workplace violence.
Conclusion
Staff motivation is a very important aspect of employee management. The Maslow hierarchy of needs and the Expectation theories can be useful in implementing staff motivation in Good for Care Company.
References
Sadri, G., & Bowen, C. R. (2011). Meeting employee requirements: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is still a reliable guide to motivating staff. Industrial engineer, 43(10), 44-49.
Dräger, L., Lamla, M. J., & Pfajfar, D. (2016). Are survey expectations theory-consistent? The role of central bank communication and news. European Economic Review, 85, 84-111.
Christina, S., Dainty, A., Daniels, K., Tregaskis, O., & Waterson, P. (2017). Shut the fridge door! HRM alignment, job redesign and energy performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 382-402.
Schindeler, E., & Reynald, D. M. (2017). What is the evidence? Preventing psychological violence in the workplace. Aggression and violent behavior, 36, 25-33.