It is in the nature of humans to increase own welfare. Profit orientation of shareholders and demands of employees are reflected by the same target: prosperity. Successful companies yield profit for shareholders, but also secured working places, good salary and wage developments, even shareholding is possible (cf. Kleinbeck et all 2001, p. 24). In order to be successful productivity continuously has to be improved. Increasing productivity means to accomplish more with less. This movement is driven by the concept of scarce resources as well as the growing competition on the markets, enabled by globalization.
The productivity of a company strongly depends on the input of employees. Until the 60s it was assumed that employees are firstly motivated by economic incentives and only later through security of employment and fair working conditions. With the human relation movement abandoning wage incentives it appeared that there should be more factors that influence the productivity of employees. It was assumed that employee satisfaction and intrinsic motivation lead to success (cf. Spender 1961, p. 426).
The core question is: how are employee satisfaction and motivation developed and how can they be used to drive productivity? The productivity measurement and enhancement system from Pritchard shall give a response to this question. Pritchard states, “the idea is to give people the tools to do the work better while at the same time help them feel a sense of ownership in the resulting system and empowerment in determining important aspects of their work” (cf. Pritchard 2011). Lean manufacturing concepts, such as world class manufacturing, are built upon this idea.
The paper on hand raises the question if employees are being motivated by the productivity measurement and enhancement system? In order to answer this question the concept of motivation will be closer defined. In a second step, a solid knowledge foundation on the productivity measurement and enhancement system is needed. Literature on the Pritchards system concentrates on the outcome productivity rather than motivation itsself. Therefore a theoretical analysis is made upon the system by means of application of motivational theories. Under the assumption that productivity is a result of motivation the question will also be answered through gained experience from implementation in business. In conclusion motivation increasing and decreasing aspects will give weight on answering the question.
Table of Contents
1 Introducing the topic
2 From work to motivation and ProMES
2.1 The term motivation
2.2 The management system ProMES
2.2.1 The idea of ProMES
2.2.2 The development and implementation in organization
3 Finding motivational aspects in ProMES
3.1 Pritchard motivational approach NPI
3.2. The key elements in ProMES
3.2.1 Group work
3.2.2 Participation
3.2.3 Goal setting and Feedback
4 Weighting motivational aspects in ProMES
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this assignment is to investigate whether the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) effectively acts as a motivational driver for employees. The research explores the theoretical foundations of motivation and applies them to the ProMES framework, evaluating its practical implementation and impact on organizational performance.
- Theoretical link between productivity and employee motivation
- Mechanisms and implementation process of the ProMES framework
- Analysis of the NPI (Naylor, Pritchard, Ilgen) motivation model
- Impact of group work, participation, and feedback loops on employee engagement
- Critical evaluation of motivation-enhancing versus demotivating factors
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Pritchard motivational approach NPI
ProMES is based on the motivation theory called NPI Model – the theory was designed by Naylor, Pritchard and Ilgen in 1980. Pritchard as well as other authors that have taken further research underlining the link between NPI and ProMES (cf. Pritchard 1990, p. 19).
According to the NPI theory, motivation is shortly described as the “process used to allocate energy to maximize the satisfaction of needs” in alliance to Hull’s drive theory (Pritchard et all 2008, p. 6). Allocation of energy that is the direction, the effort and persistence on an action, in other words what action is done, how hard it is done and for how long. The usage of the verb “maximize” indicates the economical perspective: energy of a person is a scarce resource that individuals naturally allocate according to the optimum satisfaction of needs. Needs of individuals differ in strength, thus vary in effort and persistence.
Hence creation of motivation means to go through a process. Pritchard breaks down the process into five components that are shown below (cf. Pritchard et all 2008, p. 25).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introducing the topic: This chapter highlights the need for continuous productivity improvement in companies and introduces ProMES as a motivational tool to enhance employee performance and ownership.
2 From work to motivation and ProMES: The chapter defines fundamental concepts of work and motivation, and introduces the history and basic structure of the ProMES management system.
3 Finding motivational aspects in ProMES: This section analyzes the NPI motivation model and examines key elements of ProMES, specifically group work, employee participation, and goal setting/feedback mechanisms.
4 Weighting motivational aspects in ProMES: The final chapter weighs the positive and negative motivational effects observed in practice, concluding that success is highly dependent on the voluntary willingness of personnel to engage with the system.
Keywords
ProMES, Motivation, Productivity, NPI Model, Employee Satisfaction, Goal Setting, Feedback, Group Work, Participation, Performance Management, Organizational Objectives, Human Resource Management, Efficiency, Incentives, Empowerment
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this assignment?
The assignment examines the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) to determine its effectiveness as a motivational approach for improving organizational productivity.
What are the central themes of the work?
Key themes include the psychological basis of work motivation, the technical implementation of the ProMES framework, and the critical role of employee participation and feedback in driving performance.
What is the primary research question?
The paper asks whether employees are effectively motivated by the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System and how this system impacts their work engagement.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author performs a theoretical analysis of motivational models, particularly the NPI model, and contrasts these with practical case studies regarding the implementation of ProMES.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section details the ProMES process, discusses the NPI theory, and evaluates the specific influences of group dynamics, participative design, and goal-setting feedback mechanisms.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Core keywords include ProMES, motivation, productivity, NPI Model, employee participation, and goal setting.
How does ProMES define a "contingency"?
In the context of the NPI theory, a contingency is defined as the relationship between a specific amount of an indicator and the resulting effectiveness for the organization.
Why might ProMES lead to decreased motivation in some cases?
Frustration can arise from long implementation processes, potential conflict within groups, feelings of restricted creativity when management is involved, or a lack of willingness to engage with the new system.
- Quote paper
- Anne-Kristin Rademacher (Author), 2012, Motivation through ProMES, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/201567
