This report was carried out with the intention of determining the feasibility of applying intrinsic motivation in the work place. The report focuses on two methods of increasing intrinsic motivation in the workplace. These methods include job enrichment and job enlargement. Methods of analysis included using five different criteria to select the best method suitable for the company. These measures included the time it would take to apply each method, the desirability of the method to members of the workforce, the practicality of method, efficiency of the method, and the cost of implementation. While conducting the report, I used questionnaires and surveys to gather information from members of the workforce.
The report finds that job enrichment is the best way to increase intrinsic motivation in the workplace. This is because the method employed provides the employee with the opportunity of gaining satisfaction from carrying out his duties effectively. It was also discovered that job enrichment, and as a consequence, job satisfaction, lowers the rate of employee turnover and is cost-effective in the long run.
The report is based on an organization whose management has realized that the employees lack intrinsic motivation. External motivation methods have already been put in place including bonuses and other forms of rewards. However, the performance of most of the employees does not seem to improve. In addition, there is a high rate of employee turnover. The management is seeking to use intrinsic methods of motivating the employees in order to overturn this current state of affairs. The purpose of the report was to evaluate keenly the alternatives provided to the management for increasing intrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic Motivation- this is the opposite of external motivation and stems from within the individual. Intrinsic motivation brings about job satisfaction that leads to better performance by the employees and leads to increased commitment to the employer.
Job Enrichment- this is a method of intrinsically motivating self-driven employees by giving them additional responsibilities that are usually carried out by individuals higher up in the corporate ladder (Hackman & Oldham 1976).
Job Enlargement- this is the process of simply adding more responsibilities for the employee without giving him access to more complicated tasks that are usually assigned to those in more senior positions.
This report was generated to assist the management of the company to identify the most effective method of increasing intrinsic motivation in the employees. Two alternatives were given as alternatives to increasing job satisfaction, and job commitment. These methods were job enlargement and job enrichment.
When evaluating these two alternatives, it was discovered that companies that used job enrichment saw a larger increase in overall performance as compared to those companies that used job enlargement. Volvo successfully implemented job enrichment and realized a 64% increase in individual employee performance and a 32% total increase in output production for the financial year it implemented the said method (Gibson, 1973).
On the other hand, Indiana Bell Telephone Company used job enlargement or task addition but did not realize a great leap in performance levels of the employees. The most favorable result of job enlargement was that it led to a reduction in monotony. Unfortunately, General Motors was not successful in implementing the method. The employees did not feel that the additional tasks were challenging enough. They also felt that the added tasks were also as monotonous as their previous tasks.
The report uses a number of criteria to scientifically select the best method for the company. The criteria chosen included the period of implementation, desirability, cost, practicability, and efficiency. Job enrichment was found to have more desirable effects on the workers, more efficient, and was more practical to the culture of the organization (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). However, the method would take a longer period to implement and it would also be more costly as compared to job enlargement. A thorough cost-benefit analysis showed that despite its high costs, and the large amount of time it would take to implement, job enrichment was still the better option in the long-run (Paul, Robertson, & Herzberg, 1969; Smith, 1981).
Based on the report’s evaluation of alternatives and findings and analysis sections, job enrichment is the most beneficial alternative to select. The method will have long lasting effects on the attitude of the employees towards their work and the company in general.
Gibson, C.H. (1973). Volvo increases productivity through job enrichment. California Management Review, 15 (4): 64-66
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance 16, 250-279.
Paul, W.J., Robertson, K.B., Herzberg, F. (1969). Job enrichment pays off. Harvard Business Review March 1969 Issue.
Smith, H.R. (1981). The Uphill Struggle for Job Enrichment. California Management Review, 23(4): 33