Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

MONEY IS THE BEST MOTIVATOR

Money plays an important role in motivation. Managements make use of financial incentives for
example wages and salaries, bonus, retirement benefits, health insurance, medical
reimbursement, etc. to motivate employees. However, these incentives may not always be
motivating. In many cases, management may have to increase the financial incentives to keep the
employees with the organization. This can be appreciated from the practice of making wages and
salaries competitive between various enterprises so as to attract and maintain good work force.
It is observed that people keep working for a company for money but do not necessarily produce
any extraordinary results. On the contrary, people take initiative and produce extraordinary
results because of their own motivation. It is rightly said, Money and job satisfaction are the
two wings of a bird; one is enough for survival, but to fly high both are required.

Most of us believe that it is very easy to motivate a person. However, it is true that nobody can
motivate anybody. Motivation is an inner feeling, a desire, and an inclination that compels a
person to act or behave in a certain manner. An individual gets either motivated or demotivated
solely because of oneself. As a practicing manager we have a very limited role as far as job
contents, design or working conditions are concerned. Nevertheless, we have an important role to
play i.e. creating the right environment for people to feel motivated and perform.

Money is a real motivating factor when the psychological and security needs of the employees
have not been fully fulfilled. Money plays an importance role in satisfying these needs.
Therefore, management can use financial incentives for motivation. Money helps in satisfying
the social needs of the employees to some extent because money is often recognized as a basis of
status, respect and power.
Money is also a significant means of getting a minimum standard of living although this
minimum has the tendency to go up as people become more affluent. Money will not always be a
motivating factor to all people.
In my opinion, monetary benefits exclusively cannot stimulate employee performance. Besides,
formulating reasonable salary packages, employees can be motivated by creating inspiring work
environment, enhancing two way communication, increasing job satisfaction, providing
encouragement and rewarding them for their valuable (individual/team) contributions as well as
having fun along with work.
It is a comprehensible fact that when an individual is at his/her entry or middle level, his drive
for monetary benefits is at a higher side in most cases as compared to those, who are working at
a superior level. Senior employees by and large seek recognition along with monetary benefits as
they wish to satisfy their self-esteem and professional ego. Therefore they require greater
ownership in what they do.
Another important role we need to play effectively is to carry out Performance Appraisal and
provide feedback to our team members on a regular basis. Though all of us know recognition and
rewards motivate a person yet on many occasion we fail to do so.

Things that get rewarded get done. As a manager if we fail to reward the right behavior,
most likely we get the wrong results

A mistake most of us often commit is that we handle all our team members in the same manner.
We forget what motivates one does not necessarily motivate the other. Different people have
different needs; it is their craving for fulfilling these needs that pushes them to put in
extraordinary efforts. For instance, a person in his early years of career may be more concerned
for money. However, over a period instead of money, the job security matters to him more. At
this stage he/she may not be as disappointed on not getting the incentive as on missing a
promotion.

If Two Heads are better than one


then are four even better

The first results showed that, yes, two heads were indeed better than one. The volunteers
combined their information optimally and reached a level that none of the players could
possibly achieve as an individual (good news for Warren and Ben!). In effect, the volunteers
were able to combine weak neuronal activities residing in two separate brains to maximize
performance. There was, however, a twist in the tale.

The key to the success was communication about how they felt about their answer and how
confident they were in their decision. When they were not allowed to communicate with each
other about their confidence, they couldnt do any better than the best solo player. So, even if
Warren found a fantastic junior mining stock that he thought was a sure thing, it would only
help to maximize profits if he could share his level of confidence in the stock with Ben.

It was also critical that both players reported their confidence reliably. If one of them was poor at
the task but didnt know it, the team performance only got worse. Put differently, if Warrens
sure thing was actually a mediocre option, then making a decision together would not make
their team better at all. In fact, it would have a detrimental effect.

This implies that two heads may be better than one, but only when we can competently discuss
our different perspectives. If one person in the team has flawed information -- or is less
competent -- then the outcome can be negative and perhaps you should completely ignore them.
Bahramis study tells us that whats important for successful collaboration is the ability to
estimate and report our own ability accurately. However, this is not always easy, especially for
incompetent individuals. In psychology, there is a known cognitive fallacy called the Dunning-
Kruger effect. The most incompetent individuals often overestimate their skills and think they
are all above average, though thats logically impossible. Having such a person in your team
would severely damage performance. Simply put, if you are not sure about your competency in a
team, the most productive thing to do is to tell your team members -- though in reality, of course,
this is not easy.

Another well-known cognitive fallacy is the overconfidence effect, which is the tendency for our
subjective confidence to be larger than our objective accuracy. Alongside the Dunning-Kruger
effect, these effects would imply that successful collaboration has some problems to overcome
before we can reap the benefits. They might also point to the construct of confidence as being a
difficult indicator of accuracy, but studies like Bahramis suggest that by engaging in a
discussion about our confidence judgements we may be able to refine them to reach an optimal
decision.

Finally, it is interesting to consider the extent to which the principle that two heads are better
than one extends to three, four or more heads. Lets say that in addition to Warren and Ben, we
introduce Mervyn and Vince to the equation. What would happen to performance? In this
context, the phenomenon of "social loafing" may be informative. Increasing the number of
group members can sometimes reduce the social pressure on each individual in the group, and
actually reduce a given persons contribution.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen