Since this day many theories have been developed trying to identify what lies behind the motivation of workers. What is it that pushes workers to improve their performance, increase their effort and ultimately feel part of an organization? “Motivation is a conscious decision to perform one or more activities with greater effort than other competing activities” (Roberts and Corbett, 2009, Understanding Organizational Behavior IB1230 p.240). It could be interpreted that motivation being a ‘conscious decision’ cannot be forced, but only be triggered by managers using certain methods. However, even today many managers refuse to give up Taylorism and the use of the scientific management. As a result the idea of the ‘rational economic man’ still exists and managers still treat the workers as ‘cogs in a machine’ presumed that they are motivated only by pay. This essay will argue that today job has come to be a way to make a living, and pay is just the mean for a better living but not what motivates people to work (Gostick and Elton). Pay itself does not motivate people to improve their performance or increase their effort. What people desire beyond their material well-being, that pay can offer, is self-fulfillment and a sense of belonging?
To begin with, the effectiveness of the scientific management has been challenged many times but the first blow was the Hawthorne Studies conducted by Elton Mayo in the 1920s. Until then workers had mostly no saying on the decision-making or work process, and based on McGregor’s ‘Theory X’, were seen as genetically lazy, with no real ambitions. With his experiment Mayo wanted to show the relation of productivity and the poor working conditions and how this could be controlled by alternating some factors of the working environment. However, productivity was increasing whatever the working conditions, leading to the conclusion that workers wanted to perform better in return of the interest that the managers had shown to them. The results of this study challenged the established conception of the ‘rational economic man’ and brought the era of the ‘social man’ and McGregor’s ‘Theory Y’. Workers are still human beings when they enter ‘the factory door’ with feelings and ambitions, in search of ‘self-actualization’. So this leads to the conclusion that motivation is affected by social factors as well, and sometimes workers place more importance to these than pay itself.
‘Self-actualization’ needs were what Maslow considered to be the highest level in his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’. Maslow supported the view that people must firstly satisfy each before they can move on to the ‘higher-order needs’. It is believed that ‘self-actualization’ is what continuously motivate workers as it is never fulfilled but always pursued. However, what managers must understand is that once they offered to workers the taste of self-achievement and freedom it is difficult to then remove them. Also ‘self-actualization’ is not only achieved through work and individuals’ progress in this pyramid. It is achieved at different times by individuals and using different methods by their managers (Fincham and Rhodes).
Herzberg further developed this idea in his ‘Two Factor Theory’ where he presented job satisfaction to be a result of the ‘motivators’ and job dissatisfaction as a result of the ‘hygiene factors’. Therefore it was assumed that different factors let to either job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
It can be argued that there are similarities with ‘Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs’ as motivators satisfy the top needs of the pyramid whereas hygiene factors fulfil the basic human needs. Pay here is assumed to be a factor that leads to job dissatisfaction when is not met and thus included in the hygiene factors. It is broadly believed that workers with a satisfied pay will not necessarily be encouraged to perform better but only manage not to be dissatisfied. On the other hand, if the work itself is challenging and there is a potential of recognition, this is more likely to keep workers motivated and devoted to the organization. That is why Herzberg talks about ‘job enrichment’, a “means to encourage motivation by building greater responsibility and variety into a job” (Roberts and Corbett, 2009, Understanding Organizational Behavior IB1230 p.248). After all, as he argued, “the very nature of motivators, as opposed to hygiene factors, is that they have a much longer-term effect on employees’ attitudes” (Herzberg, 2003, One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? p. 70). Therefore it can be assumed that pay is just a short-term solution to the motivation problem since when they reach a satisfies economic position then they will turn their attention to the social factors.
However, Herzberg’s Theory did not come about without criticisms that compromise its effectiveness in motivating the workers. It is argued that his research was not objective as it only included accountants and engineers, occupations that were considered to be profitable. In addition, as it is clearly illustrated by Heider’s ‘Attribution Theory’ people tend to attach successes to internal factors and externalize any failures. As a result the interviewees blamed the managers for feeling dissatisfied from their job and on the other hand, recognized themselves as the main factor leading to job satisfaction. Another strong criticism involves the fact that the workers may not have been honest of what really motivates them, offering therefore a reason why pay is included as a hygiene factor (Fincham and Rhodes). It was argued that this behavior may exist because workers want to be socially accepted and thus portrait themselves to be motivated by a more “noble” factor than pay (Rynes, Gerhart and Minette). Recent studies still draw the same conclusions as the one carried out by Herzberg more than 50 years ago. Workers are more likely to contribute to the work process if they feel comfortable in the work environment, close to their managers and have a sense of achievement. Once more, pay did not play a major role in motivating people since the pursue of ‘self-actualization’ remains the major concern of workers and their ultimate goal (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd).
Moreover, pay has a major role in Adam’s ‘Equity Theory’ where workers are presented to be motivated by pay in relative terms rather than in absolute. Money can be measured and thus it allows comparisons to be made leading to the importance of equity and fairness as a factor of motivation. Therefore it is argued that workers are more likely to improve their performance if they consider their pay to be fair relative to the effort they had put and the effort of the others. This idea is supported by the experiment held out by Adams where the students who they receive higher pay relative to their efforts were motivated to work harder in order to “restore equity in the exchange” (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005, Principles of Organizational Behavior p.203). However, there is the risk that conflict maybe arise because workers and managers have different perceptions of what the effort the workers must be and the pay that is considered to be fair for that effort.
Beyond the theories the managers can put in practice, they must firstly realize that the workers are individuals with different needs, values, experiences, that have an impact on what finally motivates them. As said before, people are on different levels on the ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ pyramid and place different value on different ‘hygiene factors’ and ‘motivators’ (see figures 1.1 and 1.2). In order for this obstacle to be overcome the managers must concentrate on the individuals who work in the organization. What drives the motivation of the each worker may change, because of different circumstances. Known the worker on a personal level gives the advantage to change the behavior towards them. It is true that with the current crisis and the growing fear of the unemployment many workers do not have the feeling of security in their job. Thus this is their motivation for the specific time and what the managers must try to restore. However it could be argued that in this decision-making process the workers must have the chance to be heard and a compromise decision to be reached in order for any organization to have a brighter future.
On the other hand, inter-group conflict may be aroused because of manager’s expectations concerning certain groups. “What managers expect of subordinates and the way they treat them largely determine their performance and career progress” (Livingston J.S, 2003, Pygmalion in Management p.176). Therefore if a manager expects a group to perform baldy and not be able to reach a certain target, this demotivates the individuals of the group and their performance is declined as expected. However, this may not always be the case since the individuals’ desire to prove the manager wrong may drive them to improve their performance and thus raise the expectations which the manager previously had. It could be argued that the conflict is sometimes desirable as it changes the behavior of the workers to the best which it is in line with the interactionist approach. In this example pay did not play the major part in motivating workers even though it could be claimed that the individuals improve their performance in order to receive a better reward. However Herzberg’s followers would argue that what really motivated the group was the job that became more challenging and gave the opportunity of self-achievement and recognition.
Of course, the behavior of the workers is affected by the organization’s structure and culture. According to Maslow workers pursue their ‘self-actualization’ through work and therefore it could be argued that the “organizational performance will depend ultimately on the extent to which individuals are provided with the opportunity to satisfy their own goals by contributing to the goals of the organization” (Mullins J., 2008, Essentials of Organizational Behavior p.355). People are more likely to be motivated and feel part of an organization when they share the same values, beliefs and attitudes. Therefore the organization policy may focus on the pay as a measure to reward better performance and to the individual needs of the workers. It is true that some workers will be motivated through this but for the wrong reasons. The organization’s structure encourages them to behave unethical in order to gain a raise in their pay or a promotion (Luecke, 2006). Indeed the ideas that people work for money and that more money rewards mean better performance are only just myths. As argued before, people look for something deeper in doing their work and managers who ignore that and continue to ‘bribe’ their employees in fact they “pay the price in a lack of loyalty and commitment”(Pfeffer J., 2003, Six dangerous myths about pay p.99). Of course the policy of the organization and its structure depends on which country it operates as there are different perceptions of what motivates people. This is evident from a survey in 2000 where among eight countries U.K valued ‘good pay’ the highest. However, this is a result of the different methods used in these countries from which British companies may learn in order to rely less on pay to motivate their workers.
Does Money Really Affect Motivation? A Review of the Research
How much should people earn? Even if resources were unlimited, it would be difficult to stipulate your ideal salary. Intuitively, one would think that higher pay should produce better results, but scientific evidence indicates that the link between compensation, motivation and performance is much more complex. In fact, research suggests that even if we let people decide how much they should earn, they would probably not enjoy their job more.
Even those who highlight the motivational effects of money accept that pay alone is not sufficient. The basic questions are: Does money make our jobs more enjoyable? Or can higher salaries actually demotivate us?
Let’s start with the first: does money engage us? The most compelling answer to this question is a meta-analysis by Tim Judge and colleagues. The authors reviewed 120 years of research to synthesize the findings from 92 quantitative studies. The combined dataset included over 15,000 individuals and 115 correlation coefficients.
The results indicate that the association between salary and job satisfaction is very weak. The reported correlation (r = .14) indicates that there is less than 2% overlap between pay and job satisfaction levels. Furthermore, the correlation between pay and pay satisfaction was only marginally higher (r = .22 or 4.8% overlap), indicating that people’s satisfaction with their salary is mostly independent of their actual salary.
In addition, a cross-cultural comparison revealed that the relationship of pay with both job and pay satisfaction is pretty much the same everywhere (for example, there are no significant differences between the U.S., India, Australia, Britain, and Taiwan).
A similar pattern of results emerged when the authors carried out group-level (or between-sample) comparisons. In their words: “Employees earning salaries in the top half of our data range reported similar levels of job satisfaction to those employees earning salaries in the bottom-half of our data range” (p.162). This is consistent with Gallup’s engagement research, which reports no significant difference in employee engagement by pay level. Gallup’s findings are based on 1.4 million employees from 192 organizations across 49 industries and 34 nations.
These results have important implications for management: if we want an engaged workforce, money is clearly not the answer. In fact, if we want employees to be happy with their pay, money is not the answer. In a nutshell: money does not buy engagement.
But that doesn’t answer the question: does money actually demotivate? Some have argued it does, that there is a natural tension between extrinsic and intrinsic motives, and that financial rewards can ultimately depress or “crowd out” intrinsic goals (e.g., enjoyment, sheer curiosity, learning or personal challenge).
Despite the overwhelming number of laboratory experiments carried out to evaluate this argument — known as the over justification effect — there is still no consensus about the degree to which higher pay may demotivate. However, two articles deserve particular consideration.
The first is a classic meta-analysis by Edward Deci and colleagues. The authors synthesized the results from 128 controlled experiments. The results highlighted consistent negative effects of incentives — from marshmallows to dollars — on intrinsic motivation. These effects were particularly strong when the tasks were interesting or enjoyable rather than boring or meaningless.
More specifically, for every standard deviation increase in reward, intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks decreases by about 25%. When rewards are tangible and foreseeable (if subjects know in advance how much extra money they will receive) intrinsic motivation decreases by 36%. (Importantly, some have argued that for uninteresting tasks extrinsic rewards — like money — actually increase motivation. See, for instance, a meta-analysis by Judy Cameron and colleagues.) Deci et al’s conclusion was that “strategies that focus primarily on the use of extrinsic rewards do, indeed, run a serious risk of diminishing rather than promoting intrinsic motivation” (p. 659).
The second article is a recent study by Yoon Jik Cho and James Perry. The authors analyzed real-world data from a representative sample of over 200,000 U.S. public sector employees. The results showed that employee engagement levels were three times more strongly related to intrinsic than extrinsic motives, but that both motives tend to cancel each other out. In other words, when employees have little interest in external rewards, their intrinsic motivation has a substantial positive effect on their engagement levels. However, when employees are focused on external rewards, the effects of intrinsic motives on engagement are significantly diminished. This means that employees who are intrinsically motivated are three times more engaged than employees who are extrinsically motivated (such as by money). Quite simply, you’re more likely to like your job if you focus on the work itself, and less likely to enjoy it if you’re focused on money. This finding was true even at low salary levels (remember, as per Gallup and Judge et al, there’s no correlation between engagement and salary levels). Now, a skeptic might ask if this is just a correlation showing that people who don’t like their jobs have nothing to think about other than the money. This is hard to test. Yes, that could be one reason; another could be that people who focus too much on money are preventing themselves from enjoying their jobs.
This research also begs the question: Is this a money-focused, engagement-eroding mindset one that employees can change? Or is does it reflect an innate mindset — some people happen to be more focused on extrinsic rewards, while others are more focused on the task itself? We don’t know. But my guess is that which you’re focused on depends mostly on the match between your interests and skills and the tasks you’ve been given. And in theory, your mindset should be malleable — the brain is remarkably plastic. We can try to teach people that if they focus on the task itself and try to identify positive aspects of the process, they will enjoy it more than if they are just focused on the consequences (rewards) of performing the task. The analogy here is that it’s much more motivating to go for a run because it’s fun than because I must get fit or lose some weight.
Intrinsic motivation is also a stronger predictor of job performance than extrinsic motivation — so it is feasible to expect higher financial rewards to inhibit not only intrinsic motivation, but also job performance. The more people focus on their salaries, the less they will focus on satisfying their intellectual curiosity, learning new skills, or having fun, and those are the very things that make people perform best.
The fact that there is little evidence to show that money motivates us, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that it actually demotivates us, supports the idea that that there may be hidden costs associated with rewards. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we should work for free. We all need to pay our bills and provide for our families — but once these basic needs are covered the psychological benefits of money are questionable. In a widely cited paper, Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton reported that, in the U.S., emotional well-being levels increase with salary levels up to a salary of $75,000 — but that they plateau afterwards. Or, as Arnold Schwarzenegger once stated: “Money doesn’t make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million.”
But one size does not fit all. Our relationship to money is highly idiosyncratic. Indeed, in the era of personalization, when most things can now be customized to fit our needs — from social media feeds to potential dates, to online shopping displays and playlists — it is somewhat surprising that compensation systems are still based on the premise that what works for some people will also work for everyone else.
Other than its functional exchange value, pay is a psychological symbol, and the meaning of money is largely subjective. For example, there are marked individual differences in people’s tendency to think or worry about money, and different people value money for different reasons (e.g., as a means to power, freedom, security, or love). If companies want to motivate their workforce, they need to understand what their employees really value — and the answer is bound differ for each individual. Research shows that different values are differentially linked to engagement. For example, income goals based on the pursuit of power, narcissism, or overcoming self-doubt are less rewarding and effective than income goals based on the pursuit of security, family support, and leisure time. Perhaps it is time to compensate people not only according to what they know or do, but also for what they want.
Finally, other research shows that employees’ personalities are much better predictors of engagement than their salaries. The most compelling study in this area is a large meta-analytic review of 25,000 participants, where personality determined 40% of the variability in ratings of job satisfaction. The more emotionally stable, extraverted, agreeable or conscientious people are, the more they tend to like their jobs (irrespective of their salaries). But the personality of employees’ is not the most important determinant of their engagement levels. In fact, the biggest organizational cause of disengagement is incompetent leadership. Thus, as a manager, it’s your personality that will have a significant impact on whether your employees are engaged at work, or not.
How Amazon’s Higher Wages Could Increase Productivity
Amazon recently made headlines by announcing that it would voluntarily increase its minimum hourly wage to $15. With a federal minimum wage of only $7.25, this pledge might seem like a curious decision — especially for a company as laser-focused on cost containment as Amazon. But thinking only about the costs involved in raising wages misses a key issue: pay hikes can also boost workplace productivity.
Given Amazon’s well-deserved reputation as a data-driven (and long-term oriented) company, you can bet that Amazon’s management team has done the analysis and figured out that paying employees more is, from a business perspective, more benefit than cost. They’re not the first company to make a decision like this — most notably, Walmart set a minimum wage of $11 earlier in 2018 — and we hope others come to realize that paying workers more can be a matter of enlightened self-interest.
In fact, the company has been accused of being too self-serving in its minimum wage hike — concerns arose nearly immediately after its announcement that the increase might be financed by cuts to bonuses and benefits that would leave workers no better off than before.
In their own research, they’ve explored the impact that minimum wages can have on businesses, as well as the ways in which higher wages can motivate employees and spur productivity. They’re fascinated by companies’ motivations to do prosocial (and also antisocial) things. And looking at Amazon’s recent announcement, there’s reason to think that a pay hike would be good both for Amazon’s employees and its bottom line.
Ultimately, Amazon may very well benefit from increasing its minimum wage, even if it does end up paying its workers more. Here’s why:
First, higher wages allow firms to attract and retain better employees (assuming competitors don’t follow suit and raise their wages as well). But there is an important — and often overlooked — second effect. Paying wages that are above the market rate (known within economics as “efficiency wages”) can also be an important motivating force for your existing employee base. The intuition is straightforward: higher wages makes a job more desirable. This leads to a larger applicant pool waiting to take over when openings occur, and makes it easier to replace a slacker employee. It also means that workers have more to lose by slacking off — who cares if you’re fired from a $7.25 an hour job, but where else will you find somewhere that pays $15 per hour?
The concept of efficiency wages is an old idea, dating back at least to Henry Ford’s introduction of the “five dollar day” in 1914, at a time when the daily wage at manufacturing plants near his Highland Park factory was $2.30. Ford himself called it his finest cost-cutting move, because of the boost to productivity that came as a result.
There’s good reason to think that Jeff Bezos’s $15 per hour will be as successful as Ford’s $5 a day.
The manner in which Amazon announced its $15 wages is likely to boost the productivity gains coming from the wage hikes. How so? Beyond the classic notion of efficiency wages — I work harder because I fear losing a better-paying job — above-market wages can lead to a second productivity gain driven by employees’ innate sense of reciprocity. Research (including our own work) has found that when a company gives unexpected pay increases, workers often reciprocate by working harder than is required (even if they don’t worry about getting fired). And, what better way to signal your good intentions and concern for workers than through a flamboyant public announcement of a substantial pay raise.
Finally, some of Amazon’s high wage PR may be directed at government officials. With a president who has taken to bashing the company and its leader, it can’t hurt to look like the good guy once in a while. And if governments at the state and city-level make good on their pledges to raise the minimum wage locally, Amazon will be paying $15 an hour sometime soon anyway — so why not get out in front of the issue now?
Of course, there remain open questions about the implementation of Amazon’s new plan: Will employee benefits (like annual bonuses) be rolled back to finance the wage increase? Will some contract workers be excluded from it? We hope not, and we hope that Amazon is sincere about meaningfully improving wages for their lower wage workers. Furthermore, the law of unintended consequences being what it is, we’re sure that not even Amazon will anticipate all of the effects of higher wages — one story that followed close on the heels of the announcement described brewing resentment among incumbent Amazon workers that newbies would get the same high wage as more senior employees.
And, to be clear, if increasing wages turns out to be a profitable decision that does not take away from our support for Amazon’s decision. We applaud cases in which companies do right by their employees, the environment, and society in general. And if Amazon ends up making more money as a result, that’s all to the greater good.
Advantages of High Paying Jobs
The most attractive word in professional life is “Salary”. Moreover, when this salary is high it gives a great motivation to the one who is drawing it after a laborious work and hard study.
A high paying job gives the mental satisfaction of the full utilization of one’s studies and the cost engaged behind the study from schooling till college. The good mind reflects a good human being.
2. Respect comes with money & position:
When one draws a high salary, the job is ought to be a very respectable one. A doctor is always respected for his service towards the community where an engineer who serves the community with his work is also respected from the heart.
The high position they hold in the society gives them the power & prestige to serve the community unbiased. And also hard-earned money brings respect to friends, relatives & family as well.
3. Security in Job:
The jobs are such that their demand curve is never downward. A doctor’s demand is ever- rising, wherein a well-experienced engineer is a treasure to a company.
Again a company would always prefer to retain a good management employee who is dedicated towards his work and is worth a high pay. A high paid job for a suitable candidate can never bring a threat towards job stability.
4. Satisfied mind brings happiness:
When one’s hard work and laborious study pays in terms of high pay, he/she is satisfied to the full. He/ She utilize the money to the fulfillment of his/her dreams and responsibilities, which in turn makes the one happy and contended.
The mind states in the purest form and the person becomes happy from within. Their mind-body reflects a happy being that stands as an example in front of many in the same path.
5. Money flow in the economy increases:
With a high paid job the money flow in the economy increases in a variety of ways. Firstly the company hiring a person on a high pay will always try to utilize the intellect in a possible way.
One who is highly qualified can engage his ideas in getting business and provide service in a wide field and also from abroad as well. This would lead to a rise in GDP. Gross Domestic production is the result of the summation of the total production that took place in the economy.
GDP denotes that Income= expenditure = production. GDP is a very crucial indicator of an economy’s progress. A rise in GDP denotes a rise in the standard of living of its citizens.
6. Expenditure towards healthcare & education increases:
A society prospers when it’s free from diseases & ailments and is educated up to the mark. When one is able to fulfill his/her basic needs like shelter, food & clothing easily, the next basic need comes for proper healthcare & education.
When one gives the family proper health protection and education, then it directly counts to the wellbeing of society.
7. Healthy work environment:
When one enters high paying jobs, it’s obvious that the job will be respectable and of high status. This gives an opportunity to the worker to work in a healthy working environment which in turn nurtures his knowledge and skill to the fullest.
It becomes easier for the employee to give his fullest output which in turn gives benefit to the company as a whole.
Disadvantages of High Paying Jobs
1. Late starting of Career:
To get a high paid job one has to qualify oneself to that mark by completing several courses, cracking various competitive examinations. This process of getting a well-paid job, in turn, increases the study period thus resulting in the late start of the career.
When a person starts his/her career late, the time span of the career eventually gets shortened which in turn lowers the opportunity to earn over a long period of time.
2. Increase in Working Hours:
A high pay along with it brings demand from higher working hours. Whenever a company invests good money behind one, then it becomes obvious that they would demand and squeeze out the maximum from him/her. They would like to extract more and more from the one they are paying so high. They would give assignments beyond their working hours to finish.
Sometimes such high paid jobs do not bear any working hours mentioned as such, which easily gives the opportunity to the company to engage their employees to work beyond time or extra time mostly.
3. Increase in work pressure:
A high paid job is directly proportional to higher work pressure. When your company pays you well, you are bound to abide by what they say and direct you. It is very likely that such jobs will bring untimely assignments, with tight deadlines and merciless work pressure.
Most of such jobs buy your will and you are bound to say yes to such work pressure as you might be scared of the consequences of attrition from such pay.
4. High pay buys rest:
Most highly paid jobs come with packages of high-end Laptops with unlimited internet facilities, cell phones and many more, but these are actually ways of the company to buy your personal time as well.
The employer easily gives you assignments to finish within a time span though you have left the office. He bounds you to work from home though you are beyond your working hours. One can hardly find rest though being at home comfort. His/her brain works being away from office under tremendous pressure.
5. Family life ruins:
A high paid job buys your family life as well. A day cannot be more than 24 hours. When you are running after money and more money it’s obvious that you will have enough time neither for yourself nor for your family. And when you are employed by somebody you are bound to follow the instructions and complete the task within a stipulated time span which obstructs you to spend time with your family.
It would happen that you could not turn up to commitments to your family just because your boss’s assignment need to be met. Once engaged in such high paid assignments one would have to forget vacations, occasions and all which in turn will turn a human into a machine thus cutting all bonds of relations, destroying family peace and harmony.
6. Health ruins:
As a high pay promises you a dearth of time, running behind work deadlines, it ruins your health as well. You would not get time at all. Daily stress, tension and restless hours, sleepless nights will result in degradation of health without doubts.
7. Education cost:
To get high paying jobs the kind of education needs to be gained is very costly and not everybody can afford it. To become a doctor or an engineer is very costly and it always needs to be kept in mind that the job is worth the study.
Education loan to pursue such hefty courses are available, but not many meritorious students can be eligible to apply for the same. There occurs a compromise between merit and money also.
8. Fear of attrition:
Associated with a high paid job is the risk of getting jobless. When one climbs too high, the risk of falling and breaking bones increases proportionately. Same is the condition with a highly paid job. Getting jobless and the fear of it is higher here than a low paid job.
For example, if we take the case of commercial pilots in the USA, they face continuous uncertainty in their career because of the condition of the airline industry and constant competition from low-cost airlines.
9. Fear of fall in lifestyle:
High salary brings with it the achievement of better and best lifestyle with high end and luxurious items for a living. In such high paying jobs as there is an opportunity to buy a high lifestyle, there always remains a risk of falling jobless resulting in the diminishing of the standard of living.
Some of the highly paid jobs are associated with maximum stress and tension. Some of them are the jobs of air traffic controllers and surgeons whose decisions always matter for lives. In their work there remain zero margins for error. Stress-related to job result to be more taxing than anything else resulting in physical & mental illness.
11. Fear of not performing:
Fear of not performing to the mark always haunts the mind of a person engaged in a high paying job. There prevails a high competition level in such offices. So if anyone fails to perform well to the boss’s expectations he/she might be demoted or be losing his/her job.
12. Compromise towards dream job:
Sometimes people go for a wrong job just in the lust of a higher salary. We in this world run after money, sometimes forgetting our passion and will. What we want to do in life most of the time gets suppressed for the lust of money and we accept those high paid job offers which we were never ready to or very less interested to do.
13. Limiting the Growth opportunity:
In a highly paid job, there remains very less opportunity to grow. The career becomes stagnant at one point. If one gets every satisfaction in a go, he/she finishes his/her erg to eat more, the same happens when one gets every requirement from a single job, his erg to grow stops and where growth stops we know life ends.
14. Risk-oriented jobs:
Most of the highly paid jobs associate high degrees of risk with it. For example, an air traffic controller has to be highly alert in his job else will be responsible for lives, on the other hand, a small mistake in a doctors diagnosis or surgery may cause a loss of life.
15. Choice for options gets restricted:
An alluring salary and perks are always responsible for blocking career options and choices. Choices become less and options sink with high paying jobs. One feels insecure in leaving a job which is highly paid and pursuing a career in a trait which one dreamt of.
16. Makes Workaholic:
High paid job pertaining to higher work hours and pressure makes a man workaholic. Always work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. No time for oneself, any recreation or recess will bring boredom in life resulting to aging before time. There would be fatigue in work thus resulting in less efficiency in assignments.
Each researcher has their own recommendation regarding their study that investigated the relationship between high salary, compensation pay and employee motivation. Organization or employer should understand what influences individual’s motivation which determines how they behave and why they behave in a certain way. Organization can use theories of motivation in order to determine level of motivation or factors that can influence employee motivation in organization. One of the theories that organization can be use is the basic one, Maslow’s theory. Maslow’s theory shows that human needs are a function of the capacity in which the needs have already been fulfilled. This means that a fulfilled need has a low motivation value.
Bishop (1987) suggested that pay is directly related with productivity and reward system depends upon the size of an organization. Compensation pay such as pay or reward package and promotion will influence employee motivation in organization. For efficiency of compensation pay, organization can give compensation pay based on their size of organization. If the organization is big, employer should provide compensation pay that suitable to their employee such as high compensation pay in term of give employee high pay so that employee will motivate and tend to perform well. Consequently, it will increase employee motivation in organization and employee.
Herzberg’s theory explained that if employer give an opportunities for promotions and actual promotions are highly to motivate higher performance than regular pay structures. This is supported by Maslow’s earlier needs theory, which ranks self-esteem and self-actualization as higher-order needs compared with physiological needs, which would include pay, as lower-order needs. Promotions do usually increase pay, but the motivational influence stems from recognition, increased responsibility, more challenging work and a personal sense of accomplishment — all of which are motivating factors, according to Herzberg. Herzberg even notes “opportunities for advancement” specifically as a motivator. If employer gives opportunity or promotion to employee, motivation of employee will increase towards to perform better in work because employee feels that employer appreciate their contribution to organization and get recognition from organization.
In conclusion, pay does motivate people but this will not last in the long-run. Money is the means for a better life but is mostly seen as “a condition to work rather than related to particular effort” (Handy C., 1993, Understanding organizations p.52). Once the workers achieve their material well-being they will try to satisfy their desire for self-fulfillment. As a result pay does motivate to some extent and mostly at the beginning of someone’s career but then he/she will pursue recognition, achievement and finally ‘self-actualization’. Therefore managers must strive to learn their workers on a personal level, consider their worries and needs in order to discover what ultimately motivates them to give their best effort. The Tandem Computer took this step, and moved away from offering money for better performance to being more concerned of keeping their workers satisfying through the work itself. Therefore it “would not even tell you your salary before expecting you to accept the work” (Pfeffer J., 2003, Six dangerous myths about pay p.93). More organizations must take this difficult step in order to depend less on money and offer their workers greater opportunities for personal growth.
- Roberts, Ashley and Corbett, Martin, 2009. Understanding Organizational Behavior IB1230 Warwick Business School: McGraw-Hill Custom Publishing
- Fincham, Robin and Rhodes, Peter, 2005. Principles of Organizational Behavior Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Mullins Laurie J., 2008. Essentials of Organizational Behavior Second Edition. Harlow: England; New York: Financial Times/Prentice Hall
- Timpe Dale. A, 1986. Motivation of Personnel. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company Limited
- Gostick Adrian And Elton Chester, 2009. The Carrot Principle. London: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd
- Handy Charles, 1993. Understanding Organizations Fourth Edition. London: England; Penguin Group
- Grey Chris, 2009. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Organizations Second Edition London: SAGE Publications Ltd
- Herzberg Frederick, Mausner Bernard, Snyderman Barbara Bloch, 1993. The motivation to Work Second revised Edition. New Brunswick: New Jersey; Transaction Publishers
- Latham Gary P., 2007. Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research, and Practice. Thousand Oaks: California; Sage Publications, Inc.
- Manville Brook and Ober Josiah, 2003. “Beyond Empowerment: Building a Company of Citizens” Harvard Business Review, 81(1), pp. 48-53
- Fryer Bronwyn, 2003. “Moving Mountains” Harvard Business Review, 81(1), pp. 41-47
- Herzberg Frederick, 2003. “One More Time: How to you motivate Employees?” Harvard Business Review, 81(1), pp.86-86
- Luecke Richard, 2006. “Harvard Business Essential: Performance Management”. Boston: Massachusetts; Harvard Business School Press
- Kerr Steve, 2003. “The Best-Laid Incentive Plans” Harvard Business Review, 81(1), pp.27-37
- Nicholson Nigel, 2003. “How to motivate your problem employees” Harvard Business Review, 81(1) pp.57-65
- Livingston Sterling. J, 2003. “Pygmalion in Management” Harvard Business Review, 81(1) pp.97-106
- Levinson Harry, 2003. “Management by whose objectives?” Harvard Business Review, 81(1) pp.107-116
- McClelland David C., Burnham David H., 2003. “Power is the great motivator” Harvard Business Review, 81(1) pp.117-126
- Goleman Daniel, 2000. “Leadership that gets results” Harvard Business Review, 78(2) pp.78-90
- Manzoni Jean-François, Barsoux Jean-Louis, 1998. “The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome” Harvard Business Review, 76(2) pp.101-113
- Pfeffer Jefferey, 1998. “Six Dangerous Myths About Pay” Harvard Business Review 76(3) pp.109-119
- Goffee Rob, Jones Gareth, 1996. “What holds the modern Company together?” Harvard Business Review, 74(6) pp.133-148