Although I consider motivation as an internal process of each one of us, it is triggered based on the evaluation we make of the variables or stimuli of the environment, considering our own interests and expectations before them. Therefore, being "motivated" is the result of the interaction of the individual in a determined, particular and specific environment in time and context.
In this sense, it is logical to think that motivation has a strong external component, even when we should not leave aside people's ability to self-motivate. In the following paragraphs, I will analyze how, considering the contributions of the different theories of motivation, companies can address the issue and increase this variable, which favorably affects the effort and performance delivered by workers in their jobs.
Let us consider, first of all, that work as an area of human relationship, not only consists of an exchange of services for remuneration, but also a source of professional and personal satisfaction. Both Maslow and Herzberg offer us quite argued theories in this regard, even though the theory of "two factors" (Herzberg), allows us to elucidate typical organizational problems related to the subject.
Regarding the above, many companies generate sophisticated non-monetary compensation systemsAs part of the incentive plan (motivational), even though they have not been able to resolve basic aspects of the contractual relationship, wages, working conditions, job stability, among others, which generates frustration for managers as performance levels usually do not increase. It is evident that although instances of "motivation" are generated, situations that are minimal and that should exist by the mere fact of generating the contractual relationship are not considered, I refer to those mentioned above and that are related to those "hygienic factors", that by not being present, they generate great dissatisfaction, but that by being present, they only generate "no dissatisfaction".
Only when these hygienic factors are resolved, companies will be able to motivate their workers with actions of recognition, status, achievement, among others. In other words, motivation is achieved when companies see their workers as people who, regardless of the fact that they are "workers", specialists in an area or dedicated to a task or discipline, require considerations from the human sphere.
On the other hand, there is an interesting subjective factor to analyze. Workers select those behaviors that they consider allow them to obtain expected results, which are generally associated with certain individual objectives. The performance, therefore, is related to the perception of the real scope of the goals and the satisfaction of expectations. According to Vroom, these arguments are situational, due to the subjectivity of individual expectations and goals.
Related to the above, motivation will increase if workers perceive that their effort is directly related to the fulfillment of individual objectives. If the reward is equal to a different level of performance, trying will be useless, since it does not bring greater benefits and therefore performance will decrease. This could explain, among other arguments, the successful implementation of variable remuneration systems among modern companies.
Additionally, the workers will value all those actions that the company implements as long as they are directly linked to increasing the competencies that are related to personal and group performance. In this sense, the relevance of training, for example, is motivational, since it allows increasing production and therefore income.
The motivation of the workers will increase, also, when their work environment allows them to satisfy needs of Power, Affiliation and / or Achievement. Efforts to motivate must be consistent with these profiles.
Many people feel full satisfaction to feel with the powers to make decisions, lead projects, people, ultimately being in command. This worker profile is usually comfortable in positions of leadership, management or as freelancers who own their own businesses. Identifying this type of profile allows strengthening the career development systems that consider upward mobility.
Other types of workers strive to be part of something, feel valued by a specific group, or be linked to a particular company (brand). The pride of belonging is a great motivator that increases performance to "enter" the system and maintains that performance when you are part of it. In this case, companies have the responsibility of promoting their position in the market and associating their name with certain aspects valued by the people who work in it. It is also necessary that there is an internal communication plan that confirms the position and prestige of the company among its employees.
Workers in need of achievement increase their performance when companies value and reward individual and / or group contributions and when they create jobs with attractive and challenging goals. The redesign of jobs, the formation of high-performance teams, focusing on job skills, among others, can be viable strategies to motivate this type of worker.
It is clear that given the differences between these three types of workers, a process of identification of needs and classification is required to design the appropriate mechanisms of motivation, since to promote those who have a need for affiliation, or to demand more complex goals for those who feel a need for affiliation, job dissatisfaction will increase and the performance of said workers will decrease.
On the other hand and curiously, there is evidence about the power of money as a motivational factor that increases performance, camaraderie and dedication to the organization (Lawler, 1975, cited by Chiavenato, 2000). To efficiently achieve this relationship, workers must perceive that there is a direct relationship between task, effort, remuneration and time to receive it to associate performance with money.
However, we encountered a major obstacle: performance evaluations. In general and ignoring the exceptions, these evaluations are not constructed based on specific indicators by position, but rather by general factors and with a high level of subjectivity. This prevents making continuous improvement decisions, much less associating performance with compensation. I highlight the fact that many companies have fairly advanced performance evaluation systems, of greater complexity and objectivity.
There is a consensus that in some countries, such as Chile, public sector performance evaluations (generally) lack objectivity or specific mechanisms focused on personal productivity, with an incentive to performance. This feature transforms the rating into an administrative instance to achieve a sense of fairness and equity rather than as a performance enhancing element.
One way to avoid demotivation of workers is to achieve the perception that the efforts made in a job are "fair", compared to others within the same company (internal equity), as with the same job in the industry (Competitiveness). Many workers lessen their efforts by feeling that they work more than others who work less and earn the same. Even when they feel that they are trying too hard in relation to the profits obtained. The result of both subjective analyzes gives rise to a feeling of frustration when the worker considers not having job alternatives, or the decision to seek new job opportunities in other companies or other positions within it.
We will achieve internal equity if we manage the compensations considering the relative weight of the jobs, comparing the functions of each one of them through a system, for example, of scores. This allows not only to allocate remuneration with greater objectivity, but also increases objectivity and the perception of equity among workers.
It is inevitable that workers will compare their benefits and remuneration with other companies. While this is inevitable, one way to avoid demotivation is to achieve a level of external equity or competitiveness with companies with similar characteristics and from the same industry. There are workers in the retail industry who are demotivated when compared to professional industry peers such as Minera. This comparison is fallacious since they are different realities. In this, companies have to be careful when communicating their motivational messages, as well as when looking for valid comparisons.
Another way to avoid demotivation is to consider that within the company there are competent and motivated people for the work itself (previously given reasons), so assuming "Theory X" (McGregor) as valid for all companies is a mistake. Leadership styles and control systems must be structured according to the cultural characteristics of the company and its workers. The humanized companies of the Z theory (Ouchi) are more consistent, in theory, with the new trends in human capital management.
Finally, it is interesting to see how we can increase the performance of workers under some practices of dubious morality or ethics, such as the psychological pressure that a threat of dismissal exerts on a system of fragile job stability. Although results are achieved, these have proven to be temporary, unfit for a society that seeks development and inconsistent under the gaze of social responsibility and new trends in human capital management.
