You are on page 1of 2

Motivation Field was interesting Proper recognition was one of the factors that motivated X in above case.

Hertzbergs theory Challenging work, itch to scratch, responsibility to prove and recognition also helped X to get motivated as the person was new in the environment. He knows that hard work will ultimately help him to grow up the corporate ladder. Once this realization was there it acted like a intrinsic motivator and X started working irrespective of any supervision. This can also be seen in ford case where the general manger was motivated by intrinsic motivator as he finds the job challenging, there was recognition all this urged him to come back to work. Hygiene factors: Salary and fringe benefits(Performance based incentives) Salary, company polices and other things are constant in both the cases but the individual reaction is different in both. This shows that salary, company policies are hygiene factor which doesnt act as motivator. In above case we can see that motivating factors are like recognition, challenging work, competitive environment.

Work environment was cordial as previous team lead was supportive, he helped X to understand the basic day to day work and provide him with appropriate resource. This helped X to feel like a part of the system. Demotivation Group formation due to which there was a set up to fail syndrome and alienation from work. Person was demotivated. The group was based on various social, ethnic or performance backgrounds with intention to dominate others. If a person tries to be neutral then also he was considered as an outcast. This act as an extra pressure and person try to showcase himself as a member of some group because they perceive that the involvement with some group act as a substitute to performance. We can see in raft case where there was unintentional group formation based on gender and performance due to which member of one group lost confidence on other as a result the overall team failed.

Demotivation is transmitted from one person to other. People were not hearing the complaints and provide appropriate resource. Even after constant complaint to manager that the new person is having difficulty in ramping up. The mangers didnt try to understand why it is happening, but what they care was the end result. This resulted in demotivation of

employee. Like in Nut Island effect when managers were not hearing to the requirement of employees which made them alienated from rest of the organization and they feel isolated. Tension keeps on mounting and after certain instant even a small mistake was treated as blunder. Once manger made up his perception that the employee is not competitive enough, then he tries to supervise every action of his subordinate and try to pin point even small mistakes and make fuss which further demotivates the employee. This can be seen in case of changing cage where increased supervision finally resulted in demotivation.