'Motivation and Performance Theories in Relation to New Zealand Post\r'

'A wide mettlesome of bingo, if analysed closely, brush off be shown to be a tedious task consisting of a insistent put through that occurs after being prompted by a repetitive stimulus. The skill take aim needed to make that meet is minuscule, and the variability in the rules of the game r atomic number 18ly changes. This game is not unlike galore(postnominal) of the melodys that can be classified as having low motivational functioning. So why do great deal not tot eachy enjoy playing games like bingo, just in reality pay specie to direct the pleasure?\r\nThe wait on directly points to the motivating factors of m startary rewards, which is the stimulus for the mortal”s performance. In this essay I go out discuss the conjecture behind â€Å"Motivation” and â€Å" cognitive process” in relation to New Zealand stand and the supposed ideals that their attention should ad opt with employees. There atomic number 18 numerous theories regarding motivation with the most prevalent being the theories of Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg. It is authorized to understand these theories and their implications to accurately comment on funding theories of motivation.\r\nAccording to Maslow”s hierarchy of take, on that point ar five classes: (1) physiological, (2) safety, (3) social, (4) enjoy, and (5) self- realisation. (Kargonn. P. Harlos Lecture Notes) sever every last(predicate)y lower level need must be satisfied in the first place an mortalist experiences higher level necessarily. Also, as Hall, Batley, Elkin, Geare, Johnston, Jones, Selsky and Sibbald (1999) effect that Maslow hypothesized that as physiological, safety, social, and view needs were satisfied, they ceased to be active, while the self-actualisation needs actually motivate an individual more than as they are satisfied (Hall et al. 999).\r\nHerzberg used this guess as a base to build his motivation-hygiene theory, which ties Maslow” s needs to on the furrow abbreviate throughment. The hygiene elements relate to low needs (physiological, safety, and social)(Harlos 2000). For an individual, hygiene conditions include company policy and administration, supervision, relationships with peers and supervisors, work conditions, salary, status, and security. These, according to Herzberg account for 69% of the factors that hap employee dissatisfaction or lack of motivation.\r\nThe motivation conditions, which include achievement, the job itself, recognition, responsibilities, and personal growth, accounted for 81% of the factors that contributed to job satisfaction. The hygiene conditions are extrinsic factors (behaviour that is performed for material or social rewards as defined by Harlos 2000) while the motivation conditions are native factors (behaviour that is performed for its own sake not for material or social rewards as defined by Harlos 2000), and the only mode to sustain motivation toward organizatio nal goals is through the achievement of intrinsic outcomes.\r\nEach of these theories has prove to contain ideas consistent with valet nature, but each also has its limitations in spite of appearance organizational settings. Because lower state needs are generally satisfied in the workplace today, managers save to deal with how to can esteem and self-actualisation to their employees, and that can be a vague sentiment to a manager who demands turn outs immediately.\r\nAlso, studies demonstrate that different workers are motivated by different factors be them intrinsic or extrinsic. In relation to New Zealand authority the above theories can be applied to achieve an excellent level of motivation within the organization, tho there are potential disadvantages also, where the employees may get all over-motivated or become too commited and frankincense create divisions within the organization.\r\nIn terms of Maslow”s theory, the five levels of needs could be ensured by m angers of NZ Post and overall by the corporate planners of NZ Post by the following; in terms of physiological needs, money is the driving factor here as it generates the a means of achieve food, shelter, warmth and sleep, thus that counselling role is very limited, as it is controlled to a layer by relevant laws of the country. However those above the concern who set wages must be elaborate not to set wages too low, other than workers ordain become grossly dissatisfied and panorama elsewhere to achieve their basic needs (Hall et al. 999).\r\nAt the safety level NZ Post can provide their employees with agree open contracts and work benefits such as health care. A work environment that is considered safe as well as adequate ongoing knowledge is another aspect, also assurances of long-term employment (Hall et al. 1999). accessible level issues can be resolved by NZ Post by organising teams maybe by regions and advance group satisfaction, or perhaps even devising sure conta ct is established by authority of team sports days, or annual picnic”s etc, any activity that ensures worker contact (Hall et al. 999).\r\nThe beside level is perhaps the most crucial in terms of how a lot NZ Post wariness is concerned, precaution may be able to fill esteem needs of the employee by showing recognition of a job well done, which may lead to a internal mental synthesis whereby levels of achievement are march oned, and as the employee reaches these levels they may gain more responsibility within the institution (Hall et al. 1999).\r\nSelf actualisation needs in terms of what oversight can do for employees to reach this stage, entirely depend on the individual, and the previous stage, as itself esteem is realised then self actualisation becomes of more importance, and so the employee is self-motivated and the role of the NZ Management is however one of maintenance (Hall et al. 1999). The above are all very good in theory, but in practice the implications of some of these theories for an individual and for the organisation can be crucial.\r\nNZ Post Management couldn”t be blamed if they felt the offering of money to an employee over and above what the individual needs to satisfy there needs would resolve in that individual working(a) harder, however what is more likely to happen is the individual isn”t motivated anymore by that factor, and is alternatively motivated by esteem needs, as cited in Hall et al. 2000) â€Å"A satisfied need is not a motivator” The application of the Herzberg two-factor model is in practice much more involved that I first thought, there seems to be a colossal amount of censure about Herzberg, which I bequeath attempt to briefly outline, and thus if NZ Post was to adapt this theory it may not provide the right(a) answer to any problems they may be facing.\r\nfor the first time there has been research done into the methodology of Herzbergs research, it seems that by asking the questi ons in the way that they did it was only native that individuals would attribute the good things about the job to themselves and the risky things to the organisation (as suggested by Vroom 1964 cited in Thomson 1989). So the good things simply became meting challenges, getting promoted and assuming responsibility, whereas destructive things were in affect always the fault of the organisation.\r\n thence it was reasonable for individuals to attribute their lack of performance as being a result of poor organisational structure or communication, or poor wages or bad working conditions, therefore Herzberg”s findings were more a result of the way the questions were asked and not altogether an indication of what motivated individuals at work. The second criticism that arises is whether or not it is possible to clearly â€Å" order between motivator and hygiene variables in the way that two factor theory does. ” (Thomson 1989 pg 164).\r\nAt quantify factors like the gender of the worker and the structure of the organisation tends to influence whether or not a job characteristics acts as a motivator or a hygiene, thus the distinction is not as clear cut as Herzberg”s theory would suggest. in conclusion the two-factor theory just doesn”t take into retainer the differences between individuals, its just known that individuals do not always react in a quasi(prenominal) fashion, for the same work characteristics which will motivate one individual may not necessary motivate another.\r\nI suggest for NZ Post to be able to maintain the calibre of people they strive for, and to provide tools to develop and grow, the best way to create the want environment and create the best management would be to adopt Maslow”s theories, as it allows for more of an individual touch to individual situations. McGregor developed an additional theory on human behaviour, motivation, and especially performance in the late 1950″s. His theories X and Y and were based on assumptions made regarding the â€Å"system” and individuals.\r\nIn short, in surmisal X (the most common management practice) management organizes all elements of production, motivates and controls employee behaviour to fit the needs of the organization, and without this intervention, employees would be indifferent to changing organizational needs. McGregor further assumes that managers trust that the average employee is by nature are lazy, disfavour work, want security and dislike responsibility (as cited by Harlos 2000). McGregor”s alternative to scheme X was hypothesis Y.\r\nThis theory made the assumptions that management has the responsibility for organizing the elements of production, people are not by nature passive, but become so as a result of experiences, management should enable employees to develop their motivational characteristics, and that it is essential for management to arrange organizational conditions in a manner where employees ca n achieve their own goals by directing their personal effort towards organizational objectives.\r\nThe line between X and Y solely relates to who controls human behaviour. scheme X touts external control, and Theory Y promotes a self-fulfilling prophecy and that Theory Y management will breed Theory Y employees and vice-versa. In the application of McGregor”s theories an obvious pitfall is that on the face of it given the choice management will opt for Theory Y, however the application can result in a very different outcome.\r\nTheory Y places an unrealistic amount of burden on the management, and thus they have to sometimes resort to Theory X as no matter how much nurturing or inspiration managers give to employees, there will always be some who just have no desire to work, and show little or no initiative. So NZ Post may dissolve many seminars to attempt to increase performance, or empower those who management feel need a performance boost, yet inevitably those who have no desire to perform better(p) will just not respond to any of these performance motivators and hence management will have to resort to Theory X management to get these employees to work as they should be.\r\n other problem may be with those employees who have been pop of the organisation for a number of years, and a fresh fresh inspirational manager comes along who has been to all the courses and seminars and has used all the theories, and yet these employees are so used to old school Theory X management, they will just simply not be able to conform to this new Theory Y management style, as suggested in Hall et al. (1999)\r\nIn conclusion I have outlines both Maslow”s and Herzberg”s theories in relation to motivation and McGregor”s theories in relation to performance. I also have suggested ways in which NZ Post could apply these theories to enable them to better fulfil their corporate profile statement. I suggested that perhaps Herzberg”s theory would not be best suited to NZ Post due to the many flaws in the application of his theory and that Maslow”s theory in practice would enable a better fufilment of the corperate profile statement.\r\n'