Do you agree with the connection in motivation, commitment and productivity?
I encourage you to read the article at the link below and join the discussion:
The formula “performance = f (ability x motivation x opportunity)” is demonstrated in the article on how performance is a result of the combination of the three (Penn State university, n.d.). An employee who has low motivation will display a behavior that is passive such as withdrawal and low productivity. This implies that performance is tied to behavior but not to motivation. The article states that to have engaged employees usually starts from the top from the leaders. When you have leaders that “match employees with jobs that fit their strengths” and “striving to build a strong foundation for strong engagement” this provides motivation and active behavior (Kimball & Nink, 2006)
The article gives strong evidence on how an employee survey can help in succeeding with increasing employee engagement. Kimball and Nink mention that the purpose behind the survey is to give “insight into what is driving employee engagement and, therefore, facility performance” (2006). By having leaders who desire to have great relationships with their employees you can ensure a higher productivity and job satisfaction. This shows the connection between motivation, behavior and work attitude and can provide leaders useful information to implement. As important the survey is so is the follow up from leaders to take the learned information and “develop employees around their strengths” (Kimball & Nink, 2006). Although employees are hired for their ability a leader who learns their strengths and embraces them while providing opportunity will have better performance from their employees.
In the last three years at my work we have had seven different directors so my experience with engagement has been challenging. One director in particular was really a great motivator. He listened to employees concerns and worked with them to come up with plans to help change. He recognized each of our strengths and encouraged us to focus on them. He strived in building a team and increasing engagement. He was well liked and productivity and job performance increased as did job satisfaction in our department. We had a couple record months and were rewarded for our hard work. During this time most of us displayed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which is a behavior of doing more than what is expected, and was a direct result of having a director provide us with great motivation and opportunity to succeed.
On the other side when he left the director that followed has none of these characteristics. He does not provide any motivation and often his attitude causes passive behavior in our department. People tend to stray off and not care, more have called in and in general the overall atmosphere is negative. All OCB is gone and most doing only minimum to get by with a few exceptions. We have also noticed our numbers are down all around- a direct consequence of passive behavior and negative work attitude. It is amazing how a manager can affect a whole department good or bad just by their attitude and behavior. This definitely demonstrates the formula from the lecture how performance is effective by all three factors.
References
Kimball, L.S., & Nink, C.E. (2006). How to Improve Employee Motivation, Commitment, Productivity, Well-Being, and Safety. Corrections Today, 68(3), 66-69. http://www.mtctrains.com/sites/default/files/4/How%20to%20Improve%20Employee%20Motivation,%20Commitment,%20Productivity,%20Well-Being%20and%20Safety.pdf
Penn State University, (n.d.) Introduction to Behavior, Motivation, and Attitudes at Work. Retrived January 20th 2016 from Psychological Foundations of Behavior, Motivation, and Atttitudes at Work PSY 539 https://elearning.la.psu.edu/psy/539/lesson-1
Shop Amazon Devices- $10 off Kindle for Kids Bundle
