Introduction
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.
|
Motivators
|
Hygiene Factors
|
|
Achievement
|
Company Policy
|
|
Work itself
|
Supervision
|
|
Responsibility
|
Work conditions
|
|
Advancement
|
Pay
|
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
1. Salary:
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.
10. Stressful:
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.
Recommendation
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.
Conclusion
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.
Bibliography
- 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
