INTRODUCTION

The significance of employee motivation as the panacea of productivity in organizations is illustrated by the volumes of literature on motivation and human productivity. For example, social theorists are of the view that employees are motivated by their needs and they develop through and in relationship with others (Dawson, 1993). The implication of the preceding statement is that when there is synergy between employees’ needs and organizational needs, they – employees – will be more acquiescent to productive tendencies than when their needs are not gratified. Invariably, the balancing of employees’ labour with their social needs and expectations is necessary in all organizations, and consequently Vaida (2003) states that incentives are used to reward outstanding performance and to sustain efficiency in work processes. Furthermore, Hoy and Miskel (1991:191) concur that incentives include money, power and idyllic investments as well as general incentives that are non-material. However, an over-emphasis on incentives and monetary gain overlooks the fact that people make decisions about their own behaviour. Boje and Rosile (2004) thus conclude that motivation theories – which accentuate incentives more than other motivators – incorporate the death wish since social control instrumentalities, valences, and need strengths are manipulated by managers to induce employees’ productivity. In addition, the “one shoe fits all” approach of giving incentives may not have the desired effect because of the uniqueness of employees’ needs, personalities and behaviour.

One of the assumptions of the Expectancy Theory is that people make decisions among alternative plans of behaviour based on their perceptions [expectancies] of the degree to which a given behaviour will lead to desired outcomes. Typically, in employment relations transactions such as payment for services rendered occur between employers [providers of reward and recognition] and employees [service providers] (Dawson, 1993). Other things being equal, Robinson (1992) argues that there is a link between transactional leadership and Stimulus-Response theories because incentives [in the form of a reward, salary, award etcetera] are used to ensure the reproduction and repetition of desired responses and outcomes in organizations. However, it is observed that in most transactional relationships the power and authority of managers are absolute and incontestable to the extent that employees become automatons in the production system. As a result, those who are viewed to be productive get the rewards while those who are identified not to be productive and competitive are pushed out of the system (Hemming, 1980).

There is a subtle link between expectancy, effort, productivity and reward. Werner (2002, p.335) states that a person will exert a high effort if he/she believes there is reasonable probability that the effort will lead to the attainment of an organizational goal, and the attainment of the organizational goal will become an instrument through which that person will attain his/her personal goals. If this is the case with employees, one would thus conclude that organizational goals will be elevated above personal goals, and this may account for the use of incentives and rewards to recognize the effort made by employees. In the same vein, the Beehive Survey found out that whilst over 60% of organizations in South Africa recognized that pay is just one way to motivate employees, less than 40% created long-term incentives across all levels (Sacht et al, 2003). One may argue that inadequate monetary benefits may lead to discontentment and disenchantment that are illustrated by shoddy work and a high labour turnover in some organizations. For example, the Salary Moves and Labour Trends Beehive Survey – conducted by Deloitte and Touché in South African organizations in 2003 – indicated that labour turnover [as a result of dissatisfaction with salaries and incentives] was 15% among key specialists and 17% for general monthly paid employees (Brindle, 2003).

From the preceding discussion it can be deduced that there is a relationship between pay and incentives and cognitive dissonance theories which propound that productivity is a result of the perceived difference between what is expected or desired as fair and reasonable reward – individual motivation and what is experienced in the job situation – organizational incentives. The following discussion will provide an in-depth discussion on Expectancy Theory as documented in literature sources.

LITERATURE STUDY

The literature study entailed a critical perusal of literature sources using the following key words which have a bearing on the topic: motivation; intrinsic motivation; extrinsic motivation; expectancy theory; locus of control; internal locus of control; external locus of control; goals; potential; effort; equity and outcome. The following discussion will focus on the definition of concepts and how they link with expectancy theory, motivation and locus of control.

Definition of concepts

Motivation

According to Passer and Smith (2004, p.327) the concept “motivation” refers to a process that influences the direction, persistence and vigour of goal-directed behaviour. In the same vein, Coetsee (2003, p.17) states that the term “motivation” refers to the interaction between forces within an individual and his/her environment. Kreitner and Kinicki (2007, p.236) are of the view that in the present context motivation represents psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary action. Similarly, Werner (2002, p.326) describes motivation as being intentional [a person makes a choice to act] and directional [indicating the presence of a driving force aimed at attaining a specific goal]. Applied in the work situation, motivation implies the willingness of individuals and teams to exert high levels of effort to attain organizational goals, conditioned by the effort’s capability to satisfy individual and team needs (Coetsee, 2003). From the preceding discussion it can be deduced that there is no single and universal definition for the concept “motivation”. However, Boje and Rosile (2004) regard motivation as a repressive and puritanical ideology, a way to manipulate performance (and satisfaction), where visions of self-actualisation, (higher) need gratification and true happiness are fulfilled in acts of work. Boje and Rosile’s view may seem too negative to ponder, but the rise of capitalism has been propelled by high intensity motivation programmes which at times turned people into production fanatics.

Locus of control

According to Lefcourt (1976), the term “locus of control” is a generalised expectancy for internal as opposed to external control of reinforcements. In the same vein, Coetsee (2003) states that locus of control refers to what one ascribes responsibility or blames for what is happening in one’s life. The dichotomy between external and internal loci of control is aptly captured by Rotter (1975) when he states that internality and externality represent two ends of a continuum, not as either/or typology. A locus of control indicates the influence that circumstances/environment or individual characters/traits have on directing people’s activities. Research indicates that people perform better when they have a moderate to strong internal locus of control. In addition, Coetsee (2003, p.104) contends that managers with an internal locus of control are comfortable with participative management styles while managers with external locus of control are more authoritarian. The position of the locus of control is significant because all things being equal, people will either see themselves as masters of their destiny or victims of circumstances. However, the latter being true, Maltby, Day and Macaskill (2007) are of the opinion that people with an external locus of control tend to be more stressed and prone to clinical depression. Furthermore, external locus of control makes people vulnerable to manipulation and open to abuse since externals would depend largely on the reinforcement by significant others for everything they do. Conversely, internals are more at peace with themselves and they take responsibility for their mistakes and successes. The following discussion on elements of the expectancy theory is linked to locus of control.

Elements of the Expectancy Theory

1 Goals/expectations

Many people who study trends in performance and motivation in industries tend to agree that goal-setting and explication generates confidence in the workforce. Clarifying the meaning of goals is necessary for forging a shared understanding of what the organization wants to accomplish. It suffices to state that goals assist in focusing the energy of workers towards attainment of organizational visions, and Coetsee (2003 p.108) contends that top performing people are goal-directed. It may be concluded that goal-setting ensures focus on common values, raising of expectations about what ought to be achieved and what can be achieved, growing commitment to improving quality, greater confidence of stakeholders in the work of an organization, and capturing the vision of the organization within manageable short-term goals (Hargreaves & Hopkins, 1991, p.78; Coetsee, 2003, pp.108-110).

Inasmuch as it is evident that goals enable employees to focus on achievement of organizational vision, fundamental aims and strategic objectives, Dawson (1993, p.248) argues that goal-setting ensures development of quality assurance indicators for job performance. The assumption here is that when employees know and understand what is expected from them [the goals], when those expectations are to be met [the timeframe], and how those expectations should be met [ modus operandi], they will be motivated to achieve those goals within the set timeframes. Evidently, the proliferation of reciprocal determinism implies that unlocking of potential is a prerequisite for employees’ productivity.

2 Unlocking potential

The term potential refers to “possible, as opposed to actual; capable of becoming or latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed” ( Dictionary.com Unabridged v1.1). Coetsee (2003, p.121) defines potential as being able to achieve something such as goals or to become something. From the preceding definition of the term “potential” it is noteworthy to state that potential is latent [hibernating/hiding/incubated] excellence which need to be developed, unlocked or unfurled. Mabale (2004) aptly states that one of the most important functions in organizations is to ensure appropriate unfolding of potential and its optimum utilisation. Table 1, as adapted from Robinson (1992), provides a summary of essentials for unlocking potential.

Table 1 Essentials for unlocking employees’ potential

It is assumed that unlocking of potential is linked to empowerment. The term “empowerment” means giving power, authority and influence which lead to the growth process and changes that are never ending and self-initiated ( Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, 2008, p.2). Unfolding potential also implies that work should be allocated with due consideration of employees’ skills, aptitude and abilities [horses for courses] in order not to set them up for failure. Coetsee (2003, p.122) thus concludes that the levels of unlocking potential are ability to cope; believing in successful outcomes; and commitment to the realization of goals since when people are empowered they have the confidence to attempt anything.

3 Effort

According to Your Dictionary.com (sv “effort”), the term effort implies the using of energy to get something done, exertion of mental strength, a try, a product or result of working or trying. In the same vein, Coetsee (2003, p.98) is of the view that effort leads to achievement of the longings to be fulfilled – goals or expectations – which epitomize performance and the outcomes that generate a feeling of success. Effort is related to the action of trying, exertion of strength or endeavour. In most cases effort is linked to a series of actions that have to be performed as indicated by grouping of tasks and the division of work, allocation of duties, authority and responsibility without abdicating responsibility, relationships between people, collaboration and coordination as well as forged common objective or motive to achieve goals (Van der Westhuizen, 1999, p.163).

4 Equity

The direct definition of the term “equity” in Accounting – as a school subject – refers to the extent to which assets have been funded by the owner (Kew, Mettler, Walker & Watson, 2007, p.32). While this definition seems far-fetched in Organizational Behaviour, the relevance of the concept should be understood from the perspective of the equity theory which focuses on fairness and justice. The Equity theory is based on the view that employees should receive their fair share for input – aggregated as skills and effort – for the attainment of organizational outcomes (Drafke & Kossen, 1998). Equity focuses on equivalence of [the owner’s] input and [the organization’s] output. While Vroom used the term valence to refer to positive or negative values people place on outcomes (Kew et al., 2007, p.249), Porter and Lawler used the term value of reward to indicate that people desire a combination of outcomes and rewards for what they put into their jobs (Werner, 2002, p.336). It is noted that incongruence and imbalances between the input the output provides ground for inequity and de-motivation. In the same vein, Kew et al. (2007, p.243) contend that feelings of inequity revolve around a person’s evaluation of whether he or she receives adequate rewards to compensate for his or contributive inputs. Striking a balance or maintaining a state of equilibrium between input and output is essential for enhancing performance.

5 Performance

Commitment and engagement are critical components for performance. According to Coetsee (2003, p.139), performance is the realisation of goals and meeting of expectations. On the other hand, Kew et al. (2007, p.243) define performance management as a continuous cycle of improving job performance with goal-setting, feedback, coaching, rewards and positive reinforcement. The significance of goal-setting for improving employees’ performance has been discussed. According to Kew et al. (2007, p.139), the following points are necessary for feedback in a high-performance institution: focus on performance not personalities; give specific feedback linked to learning goals and performance outcome goals; give feedback as soon as possible; give feedback for improvement, not just results; and pair feedback with clear expectations for improvement.

Performance feedback should be based on accurate and credible data. In this fashion, employees will understand criteria used for performance evaluation and be more prepared to accept recommendations for improvement of performance. Elements of the Peak Performance Model such as capacity to perform, commitment to performance, and motivating climate (Coetsee, 2003, p.140) are therefore critical for enhancing performance. Additionally, managers play an important role in sustaining employees’ commitment to perform their jobs because alienation to products of production, low morale and lack of commitment which are indicators of job dissatisfaction, may set in if the elements Coetsee alludes to are neglected. The following discussion focuses on the link between forces in an individual and organizational forces in motivation.

The link between the individual forces and the organizational forces [Assumption 1] and its implications on motivation

Just as Lawler and Porter focused on value of outcomes in the form of rewards, Charlton (2000) notes that extrinsic and intrinsic rewards have reciprocal motivational effects since they represent effective methods of energising, promoting and maintaining employees’ behaviour. Schultz (2004, p.277) also notes that a reward is first and foremost a people issue: it is about motivating them, reshaping and refocusing their behaviours, and inducing them to accept organizational values. Nevertheless, one should be cognisant of the fact that rewards may or may not have a motivating effect on the basis of their attractiveness to the individual. For this reason, Mayo’s conclusions in the Hawthorne Experiments on motivation were that employees’ are motivated by more than pay and conditions. In some cases, the need for recognition and a sense of belonging may be important motivators which influence employees’ groups and teams to perform beyond expectations (Shah & Shah, 2008, p.5).

It is essential to note that motivation ensures voluntary unfolding of employees’ talents and potential for the benefit of the organization. To this end, Dawson (1993, p.61) regards motivation as the extent to which employees acknowledge the legitimacy of and seek to achieve organizational objectives and interests. The significance of this argument is that the expectancy theory predicts that employees will be motivated when they believe that putting in more effort will yield better job performance. In the same vein, better job performance will lead to organizational rewards, such as an increase in salary or benefits, and these predicted organizational rewards are valued by employees.

Environmental factors

The external environment represents factors outside organizations that affect personal functioning and it includes technological acceleration, the effect of social and other groups outside the work environment; and individuals constantly compare personal progress with personal achievement in organizations (Van Dyk, 2002, p.26). All things being equal, the job context environment is the task environment within which an individual functions, and employees who interact with their work environments – not only being defined by such environments but also defining such environments – have a higher degree of motivation than those who accept the status quo and let the work environment define them. Similarly, Passer and Smith (2004, p.444) contend that the likelihood that people will engage in particular behaviours in given situations is influenced by two factors: expectancy and reinforcement value. Passer and Smith’s view makes sense for people with an external locus and employees with a strong internal locus of control. In the same vein, Bandura regards reciprocal determinism as a situation where internal determinants and external determinants interact and cohere to enhance employee motivation (Burger, 2004 p.388). The view expressed by Bandura’s reciprocal determinism addresses questions whether employees define the work environment or the work environment defines the employees. Subsequently, Van Dyk (2002, p.25) concludes that just as individuals can only meet their expectations and needs by joining organizations, they translate their expectations into personal goals before they join organizations.

The preceding discussion clearly indicates that people are not victims of their environments [as arguments for external locus always infer], but they are masters, inventors and creators of new vistas for their lives [as it is always stated in arguments for internal locus]. Werner (2002, p.355) rightly observes that people strive towards maturity – through unfolding of their potential – in their work since they experience growth in the context of their work. One would therefore expect creation of the following conditions in order to improve employees’ motivation:

· Communication: managers explain expectations and the organization’s performance standards (Dawson, 1993);

· Listening: managers listen to employees’ views regarding expectations on performance standards (Hargreaves & Hopkins, 1991);

· Encouragement: managers provide encouragement in order to motivate and inspire employees to improve performance and aspire for quality (Chetty, 1997);

· Agreement: managers forge collective agreements on performance standards and operational strategies (Sono, 2002); and

· Reporting: managers provide feedback on successes and levels of performance of employees as a strategy for improving the quality of production (Van der Westhuizen, 2002).

The creation of an environment that is appropriate for personal growth and development provides enough motivation for working in an organization. When conditions in the organization do not satisfy an employees’ physiological, safety and security, acceptance, love and self actualisation needs employees tend to become demotivated, lethargic, unproductive and grumpy.

Expectations

Employers and employees have expectations when they come into an employment relationship. Kotter (1976, p.93) contends that the first group of expectations represents what an individual expects to receive from an organization and what the organization expects to give the individual while the second group of expectations includes what an individual expects to offer the organization and what the organization expects to receive from the individual. The two types of expectations defined above indicate a give-and take relationship which is intended to create a win-win situation for employees and organizations. According to Van Dyk (2002, p.33), expectations are contained in psychological contracts which Porter et al. (1975, p.109) regard as the “dynamics of organization-individual interactions”, and cooperative contracts. Similarly, Kreitner and Kinicki (2007, p.190) define a psychological contract as an individual’s perception about the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange with another party. Schein (1980, p.77) aptly summarizes the value of expectations when he states:

… it is my central hypothesis that whether a person generates commitment loyalty, and enthusiasm for the organization and its goals… depends to a large measure on two conditions: (1) the degree to which his own expectations of what the organization will provide him with what he owes organization match with what the organization’s are of what it will give and get; (2) assuming there is agreement on expectations what actually is to be exchanged…

It can be construed that it is necessary for employers and employees to communicate their expectations.

Esteem

According to Robinson (1992), people want to be secured, to be in control, to seek meaning in the work they do, and to be in winning teams rather than losing teams. The points raised by Robinson are essentials for employees’ esteem needs. In addition, employees are more likely to identify with the organization when they have worked there for a long time; the organization is well-known in public [accessibility]; they know who their competitors are and how their organization is distinct from these competitors [comparative fit]; and when the employees are at work discussing issues related to their work place [normative fit] (Turner, 1999). The satisfaction of esteem needs builds congruence between the employee’s self-concept and self-esteem. An employee whose esteem needs are assuaged is confident in his or her work, and he or she can operate at higher levels of motivation even if valences and contingencies for motivation are minimal. Similarly, Dawson (1993, p.65) notes that every employee needs to be accepted as a valued member of a social grouping in order to build his/her confidence within a community of peers.

Criteria for Motivation

Effective leadership

The term “leadership” has different interpretations, and only a few will be provided. The World Book Dictionary (1989, sv ‘leadership’) defines the concept “leadership” as “control; being in charge”. According to Webster’s New World Encyclopaedia (1990, sv ‘leadership’) the concept “leadership” refers to “a process or technique of managing, organising and operating a business.” According to Prinsloo (1991, p.135), the concept “leadership” implies “inducing stakeholders to act for certain goals that represent values and motivations as well as aspirations and expectations of school managers and stakeholders.” Moorhead and Griffin (1989, p.347) define the concept “leadership” as:

... The use of non-coercive influence to direct and co-ordinate activities of group members towards goal accomplishment. Leadership is the set of characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to employ such an influence effectively...

A few essential points can be lifted from the preceding definitions such as inducing, control, being in charge etcetera. However, the definition that carries more weight is the one provided by Moorhead and Griffin, “non-coercive influence”. Leadership implies making people do what the leader wants, but this is not done in an aggressive manner. Managers are value-directed, and they understand where the organization wants to go [vision], and they point out the direction to their followers. Invariably, machines, materials, methods, markets, and money (five m’s) do not provide leadership, even though they are important for the growth and development of an organization (Mabale, 2004), and without effective leadership the factors such as money, equipment, people, and machinery are sterile and useless (Kroon, 1990, p.87). It is in this context that Robinson (1992) states:

… A leader is not appointed because he knows everything and can make every decision. He [1] is appointed to bring together the knowledge that is available and then to create the prerequisites for the work to be done. He creates systems that enable him to delegate responsibility for day-to-day operations…

Through the astute leadership that is provided in an organization, employees may develop a positive work ethic. In such organizations, employees are willing to achieve organizational objectives and targets because they know what is expected of them. One may conclude that effective leaders do not only blaze the trail and clear stumbling blocks that could hamper productivity; they also set high standards for job performance.

Goal-setting and attainment of objectives

Organizational goals direct the actions of both the employers and employees. As a result, the setting of simple and specific goals which have measurable outcomes assists employees to know clearly what they are supposed to do. In addition, organizations should set attainable and realistic goals for employees and not set employees up for failure with unrealistic expectations. There is therefore sense in what Pascale and Athos (1981) in The Art of Japanese Management, as cited in Mwosa (1987), noted when they wrote:

… Managerial reality is not an absolute; rather, it is socially and culturally determined across all cultures and in all societies. Human beings coming together to perform certain collective acts encounter certain problems that are related to establishing, directing, co-coordinating and motivating. Culture affects how these problems are perceived and how they are resolved. Social learning also establishes horizons of perception…

Managers are expected to set goals which are within the employees’ performance range, and that is why the potential, aptitude, abilities, skills, knowledge and values of employees should be considered before one is engaged to do the work. For example, employing a traditional and conservative Catholic in an abortion clinic may not be advisable – on moral and value-consideration – even if that person is a highly skilled surgeon. It is also necessary to bear in mind that goal-setting should also anticipate the outcomes to be attained. Commitment to the tasks at hand becomes easier when one has a mental construct of what the end of the product of the whole undertaking will be. Coetsee (2003, p.175) states that aligned commitment is the extent to which employees understand and live the shared vision of the organization.

Unlocking/Unfolding of potential and effort

Mathibe (1998) notes that in line with industrial needs for productivity and competitiveness, competencies and skills acquisition are the sine qua non for task performance in present-day production systems. The words of Frederick Taylor of getting “the right man for the right job” are relevant here because organizations that want to gain competitive advantage over competitors need skilled and well-trained employees. Additionally, employees that are skilled and trained for the jobs do not feel threatened, either by the changes, the job itself or new entrants – who happen to be well-trained and skilled in the jobs – into the job market. Skill obsolescence in the face of globalization and technological advancements also increases the need for unfolding of potential and development diverse skills in employees. Multi-skilling is the buzz-word in many organizations since it is assumed that it generates a highly developed form of work intensification, flexibility, inter-changeability and mobility in the workforce (Tomaney, 1990, p.37).

Organizations need workplace practices that unlock potential in order to enable them to be productive. One may argue that job performance [effort] requires interaction, synergy and symmetry between the intellect [the head], emotions [the heart] and skills [the hand].

Equity, valences and incentives

The Expectancy Theory is based on the assumption that people are motivated to behave in ways that produce desired and valued outcomes (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2007, p.246). This view is closely linked to Skinner’s Operant Conditioning because on both occasions an individual or operant is responsible for the outcome or reinforcement which leads to the repetition of desired behaviors. Mwamwenda (1995) explains that reinforcement follows the repetition of a desired behavior [outcome] after a stimulus [input] has been provided. The link with Pavlov’s dog which salivated also indicates that stimuli may be generalized just as in the case of employees getting promotion or bonuses at particular intervals for the work they did well. Robinson (1992) contends that effective motivation depends on a concern for ethical values and when duties, responsibilities and formal relationships are appropriately planned, organized and controlled. It suffices to state that ambivalence about the conditions in an organization may generate despondency and lack of motivation (Heystek, 2002), even if an organization has attractive incentive schemes and salary structures. One has to caution though, while dependence on incentives schemes to enhance employees’ motivation may ensure efficiency in the short-term, in the long-term one may proof to be an ineffective mechanism for sustainability in the business. For example, in organizations that set production targets as in mining – employees work long hours [over-time] – which may compromise safety standards – just to reach the target and to get the bonuses. Fatalities – in the mines – have been recorded due to this practice, and such mines were forced to close for some time in order to upgrade their safety.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

An empirical study on the relevance of the expectancy theory for employee motivation was conducted at Rustenburg Section of Anglo Platinum. Due to time constraints, the researchers used quantitative research methods for data collection and they distributed questionnaires to 50 contractor facilitators in Part-Time ABET. The questionnaire has two sections: Section dealing with biographical data, and Section B dealing with questions arranged in the 4 point Linkert Scale. The data that were collected was analyzed and recorded in a Table 2 showing rank, the mean and standard deviation

Table 2: Mean Score rating

Discussion

There is a link between facilitators’ motivation and the leadership that is provided in ABET. It is interesting to notice that respondents rated item 4 at number 1 with the mean at 4.65 and the standard deviation at 0.56. According to the respondents, employees are exposed to an appraisal system in order to identify and close gaps in performance. From the preceding discussion it can also be concluded that through placement tests, unbundling of unit standards and the integrated learning and assessment programme [ILAP] gaps in performance are identified and closed. However, options rated eight: item 10 “the organization has a well-developed incentive programme for recognition of performance”, item 2 “management has a high expectation for employees’ performance” and item 6 ‘employees” training and development programmes are linked to the needs of employees and the organization” indicate sources of de-motivation. In relation to item 10, one may argue that the money paid to facilitators is comparable with the best in the market. However, when one considers the fact that these facilitators are contractors with no extra benefits there is room for discontentment since none of them has job security. Similarly, item 2 suggests that the respondents are of the opinion that management does not have high expectations for their performance. As some of the facilitators explained, the company does not value their services and that is why they are not given long-term contracts and full-time employment hence their response with the mean at 3.99 and the standard deviation of 0.15

Findings

Managers understand where the organization wants to go [vision], and they point out the direction to their followers. As a result, managers develop communication networks and channels for dissemination of organizational vision, values, mandates and goals to as a strategy for mobilization of employees’ energy and enthusiasm. In addition, the empirical investigation indicated that management provides strong leadership to employees. Strong leadership implies that aligning diverse views towards a common vision and programme of action. Just as organizational goals direct the actions of both the employers and employees, the role of management is to communicate organizational goals and procedures, to strengthen group cohesion and organizational effectiveness. On the other hand, respondents indicated that all employees understand the vision, values and mission statement of the organization.

Employees that are skilled and trained for the jobs do not feel threatened, either by the changes, the job itself or new entrants – who happen to be well-trained and skilled in the jobs – into the job market. Similarly, lack of motivation from respondents may be ascribed to the Company’s lack of planning for employees’ capacity building and empowerment. Incentives and extrinsic rewards enhance motivation are important since employment relations are based on transactions such as payment for services rendered which occur between employers [providers of employment and reward] and employees [service providers]. In the same vein respondents indicated their lack of motivation and poor response to the lack of the lack of a well-developed incentive programme for recognition of performance.

Recommendations

Managers should explain the vision, values and missions/goals of the organizations to their subordinates in order to win their confidence and commitment to organizational goals. Such explanations should also cover issues such as incentive schemes the organization provides, developmental opportunities as well as performance standards that are expected. One should also stress the importance of communication in leadership since it dispels all fears and misunderstandings that may develop between management and employees. Organizational goals should be explained to all employees as strategy for getting their buy-in. When employees know the goals of the organization they serve, they can then be expected to work towards the realization of such goals. In this respect, employees should be able to walk the talk and not just end at the rhetoric of “talking about the walk”. SMART goals should thus be developed; work shopped and implemented in order to inspire the employees and to indicate to them what management’s expectations are.

There is a need for intensive and expansive programmes aimed at unfolding employees’ potential. Skilled and empowered people are always confident workers. As such, people development is very important in most organizations that regard themselves as learning organizations. A learning organization recognizes that it exists in the midst of a developing and changing world, and as a result investment in the unfolding of employees’ potential is regarded as a not-negotiable necessity. Unfolding of potential is not only undertaken for improved work performance, it is also undertaken as a strategy for countering skill obsolescence that typifies technological development and advancement. In spite of the negative hype against extrinsic rewards, they still remain one source of motivation that people with an external locus relate to. A case in point, there are indications that external rewards Google gives to its employees may be ascribed for its status throughout the world as the best employer. One may therefore argue that there is a need for organizations to provide schedules of reinforcement in order to sustain employees’ levels of motivation.

Conclusion

The success of every organization, society and country depends on the direction and Leadership that is provided. Similarly, experience in, and knowledge of contemporary management and Leadership approaches is necessary for upholding the notion of efficacy, quality and motivation in organizations. In the same vein, competitive organizations are led by people who understand that people empowerment raises productivity, operational autonomy and innovation. However, there are economists who argue that organizations cannot grow and expand if employees’ are poorly skilled, de-motivated and oblivious of organizational goals. On the same note, there are indications that when people have appropriate skills for job performance, and when they understand the rules of the globalised and globalizing industry such as ours, their productive capacity will increase.

References list

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D. & Akert, R. M. 2005. Social Psychology. New Jersey: Pearson

Boje, D . & Rosile, G. A. 2004. Death, Terror and Addiction in motivational theory. In: Brewis, J.,

Linstead, S., Boje, D & O’Shea, A. (Eds.), Passion, of organizing. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business.

Brindle, T. 2003. Re-aligning the workplace. In: The Star, 5 February 2003.

Burger, J. M. 2004. Personality. Belmont: Thompson.

Charlton, G. 2000. Human habits of effective organizations. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Chetty, C. 1997. The school effectiveness movement: origins. The Curriculum Journal, 8(1): 45.

Coetsee, L.D. 2003. Peak performance and productivity. Potchefstroom: Van Schaik.

Davis, J & Wilson, S.M. 2003. Development and knowledge economy. In: Brown, R [Ed].

Universities and development. London:Association of Commonwealth Universities.

Dawson, T. 1993. Principles and practice of modern management. Kent:Hodder & Stoughton.

Drafke, M. W. & Kossen, S.1998. The human side of organizations. Massachusetts: Addison.

Hargreaves, D. H. & Hopkins, D. 1991. The empowered school. London: Cassel.

Heystek, J. 2002. The role of consultant heads in New Visions Programme. Nottingham: NCSL.

Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. 1991. Educational Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kotter, J. P. 1976. The psychological contract. California Management review, XV(3): 91-99.

Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. 2007. Organizational Behaviour. Boston:McGraw-Hill.

Kroon, J. 1990. General management. Durban: Haum.

Lefcourt, H. M. 1976. Locus of control: current trends in theory and research. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mabale, B. J. 2004. Optimisation of educators’ potential in primary schools. Unpublished MEd. Dissertation. Mafikeng: North West University.

Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. 2007. Personality, individual differences and intelligence. Harlow: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Mathibe, I. R. 1998. The development, character and effect of education in a technocratic age.

Unpublished M.Ed Dissertation. Pretoria:Unisa.

Moorhead, G. & Griffin, R. W. 1989. Organizational behaviour. Boston: Houghton Muffin.

Mwamwenda, T. S. 1995. Educational Psychology: An African Perspective. Durban: Butterworths.

Mwosa, J. L. 1987. Concepts of development. In: Ndengwa, P., Muretheili, L. P. & Greene, R. H.

(Eds.) Management for development. Nairobi: Oxford

Pascale, R. T. & Athos, A. G. 1981. The Art of Japanese management. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Passer, M.W. & Smith, R.E. 2004. Psychology: the science of mind and behaviour. 2^nd Ed.

Boston:McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E. & Hackman, J. R. 1975. Behaviour in organizations. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Robinson, J. 1992. Managing after the superlatives. Kent: Tudor.

Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalised expectancies of internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological monographs, 80(whole no. 609).

Sacht, T. 2003. The Beehive model. Equity Skills News and Views, 2(14). 15 September 2003.

Schein, E. H. 1980. Organizational psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Schultz, H. B. 2004. Compensation management. In: Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S.,

Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership. London: Oxford

Shah, K & Shah, PJ. 2008. Theories of motivation. http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=730207054490265&mkt=en-ZA&lang=en-ZA...

Sono, T. 2002. Cultural diversity and change management. Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk,

P.S., Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership. London: Oxford

The World Book Dictionary, 1989.

Tomaney, J. 1990. the reality of workplace flexibility. Capital and class, 40: 29 – 60.

Turner, TC. 1999. Some current issues in Research on Social Identity and Self-categorisation

Theories. In: Ellemers, N., Spears, R. & Doosje, B. (Eds.), Social Identity. Oxford:Blackwell

Van der Westhuizen, P.C. 1999. Effective Educational Management. 9^th Impression.

Pretoria:Kagiso

Van Dyk, P. S. 2002a. The functional systems and efficiency approaches to human resources

management and leadership. In: Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership.

London:Oxford

Van Dyk, P. S. 2002b. definition of scope of human resources management. In: Nel, P.S.,

Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership. London:Oxford

Walton, R. E. 1985. From control to commitment. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Webster’s New World Encyclopaedia. 1990. Sv ‘leadership’ p.103. London: PPrentice-Hall.

Werner, A. 2002. Leadership. In: Nel, P.S., Gerber, P.D., Van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, G.D.,

Schultz, H.B., Sono, T & Werner, A. Human Resources Management and Leadership.

London:Oxford

Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. 2008. Empowerment. http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=73146331305670&mkt=en-ZA&lang=en-ZA... 2008/04/23.

Your Dictionary.com. Definition of effort from YourDictionary.com. http://www.yourdictionary.com/effort. 2008/04/23.