Motivation, Morale & Productivity.
How does motivation relate to morale and productivity? Is there really a difference between the three concepts? Yes, and managers and supervisors should not only know the difference between the concepts but how to leverage one to bolster the others.
In her book Manager’s Guide to Motivating Employees, author Anne Bruce defines motivation as “consisting of the drives that move us to do what we do,” albeit on a personal, individual level (2011). How does this definition translate to the workplace? What influence, if any, does motivation have on morale?
What is motivation?
Motivation comes in two forms, internal and external. Intrinsic motivation refers to factors that motivate the individual from within “--such as personal interest, desire, and fulfillment” (Bruce, 2011). External motivation, as the term implies, refers to factors outside of the individual that “influence our internal needs, wants, and subsequent behaviors—such as rewards, promotions, and praise,” (Bruce, 2011). Although motivation and morale are often intertwined and sometimes used interchangeably, there are discernible differences.
The difference between motivation and morale.
Motivation differs from morale in that morale refers to the feeling of belonging for the individual, as that feeling of belonging will determine the level of enthusiasm that the individual will employ to achieve goals set by his or her group (Child, 1941). Even further, Child’s (1941) definition of group morale also differs from motivation, as group morale refers to the confidence of the group not only in the goals of the team, but the cohesive vision and belief in the team’s leadership. It could be said that motivation is the reason to accomplish a goal, while morale is the confidence required to do so. Productivity is mainly a byproduct of the relationship of motivation and morale, and refers to the direct output of work, i.e. products made or services rendered.
The cost of ignoring motivation and morale.
Understanding the relationship between these three concepts is crucial to being an effective manager or supervisor. This connection is something that the laboratory service delivery for the NHS in England failed to recognize when they began experiencing markedly high staff turnover yet continued “pushing profit and cost driven rather than quality” services for their patients (Osaro & Chima, 2014). For the staff who remained at the lab, this directly resulted in “burn out, low morale, high sickness absences, increased error rate, poor team spirit, diminished productivity and suboptimal laboratory service delivery,” (Osaro & Chima, 2014). The fact that top NHS managers received pay raises up to 18% while their subordinates “were rewarded with pay freezes” during a very difficult time no doubt contributed to lowered overall morale (Osaro & Chima, 2014). In short, the laboratory team had little to no confidence in management, resulting in extremely poor individual and group morale as well as having a direct, negative impact on the laboratory’s productivity.
Likewise, motivation also has a direct impact on productivity. In her article explaining how employee motivation is linked to increased productivity in law firms, Theresa Neff (2002) found a large discrepancy in the survey data regarding “whether firm gatherings included support staff”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the attorneys overwhelmingly reported the belief that monetary benefits would be most important, i.e. motivating, to the support staff members. Upon review of the support staff survey data Neff (2002) found that the motivating factors most often overlooked by the attorneys was that of respect and positive recognition being “almost as important to staff members as salary and retirement benefits”. This discrepancy in perception of employee motivation has a direct impact on employee productivity which can make or break a company’s bottom line. Monetary rewards are not long-term and will not provide the motivation needed to satisfy an employee, as “...some companies are seeing tenured employees resign, citing lack of appreciation as a top reason for leaving,” (Neff, 2002).
Reading between the motivation and morale lines.
While effective managers and supervisors understand and implement methods to improve motivation, morale and productivity, there are always tangential issues that can contribute to lower productivity even among highly motivated employees. For example, a highly motivated teacher of the year who contributes consistently to group morale may find himself caring for a sick relative during off-hours, resulting in lowered productivity in the eyes of the administrator, e.g. rushed lesson plans, increased classroom management issues, coming to work late, having to leave early or miss days for doctor’s appointments, etc. While the teacher’s morale is high because he feels he is part of the team, and his motivation is high because his job is one that he loves, his productivity is suffering stemming from external issues outside his control.
An effective supervisor would take the employee aside not to reprimand, but to determine how he or she could be of service to the employee in their time of need. This is equitable behavior but ethical as well, as the employee has been driven and has performed consistently for years. This would no doubt contribute to the employee’s perception of being appreciated and respected, which feeds into morale, motivation and productivity.
Managers and supervisors can make or break organizations. For this reason, it is crucial that leaders realize their responsibility to not only understand the interplay between motivation, morale and productivity but their role within them.
Need more information on motivation, morale and productivity?
-The Penguins
References
Bruce, A. (2011). Manager’s guide to motivating employees. McGraw-Hill.
Child, I. L. (1941). Morale: a bibliographical review. Psychological Bulletin, 38(6), 393–420.
