There is no surprise that so much attention is given to reward management and motivation of employees, since success of a company, after all, depends on performance of its employees. Thus, many strategies have been elaborated to encourage desirable behavior and motivate workers to perform their tasks to the best of their abilities. Many studies have been conducted on this issue, and the present paper will deal with one of the papers written on reward management and motivation theories.
The paper under consideration presents a review of different motivation theories. The author begins with the definition of terms and introduction of general management theories and principles. Then, the objective and aims of the study are formulated. The subsequent paper structure corresponds to the objectives and aims: the author provides definition of motivation, gives proofs of its importance, provides a review of different motivation theories, defines the aims of reward management and its methods giving special attention to monetary and non-monetary rewards, and, finally, analyses the challenges facing reward management. A clear structure of the paper, its logic flow, attempt at analysis and not merely description, the wide use of academic literature deserve a positive feedback. However, the paper has some shortcomings like the presence of typos mistakes, a small amount of incomplete sentences, lack of explanation and analysis of some ideas, lack of consistency within separate sections of the paper. In the succeeding paragraphs advantages and disadvantages of the paper will be analyzed more closely on a section-by-section basis.
The starting section of the paper under consideration presents a brief definition of management and lists some practices involved in managerial activity. The definition is not very specific in itself, but the succeeding paragraphs significantly add to its understanding.
Reviewing management theories, the author starts with Henry Fayol’s theory, which seems reasonable taking into consideration that Fayol’s theory is one of the most long-living concepts that proved its vitality in practice. The author lists 5 elements of management described by Fayol but fails to provide an adequate explanation for all of them. The importance of planning is underlined, but organizing is described very briefly, commanding and coordinating are presented in comparison, and controlling is not described. Then the text is interrupted by the exposition of four distinctive styles of management proposed by Gary Ludwig, which is properly related to the subject in itself, but misplaced in the paper structure. After that, the author returns to Fayol’s theory and describes 14 principles of management elaborated by Fayol. However, the exposition of these principles lacks consistency. Only seven principles are properly explained, whereas the rest are not even clearly listed. Then one more definition of management follows, borrowed from Peter Northouse, where the emphasis is put on the ability to influence followers. Presenting several definitions in the paper is good in itself, but it would have been better if all definitions were presented in one part of the paper – in the beginning. The author continues his review of management theories with explaining managerial grid and reward management theory.
Thus, the author coped with the task of terms definition but there are some flows in the inner logic of this section, as it has been demonstrated: different definitions of management are presented in different parts of the paper instead of being provided one-by-one and compared; the explanation of Fayol’s theory is interrupted by the exposition of the views of other researchers; some notions introduced by Fayol are not adequately explained.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
After the definition of terms, the author defines the objective of the study which lies in “the analysis of reward management within the context of motivation theory”. To meet this goal, the author defined four aims: overview of motivation, discussion of motivation theories, analysis of the aims of reward management, and analysis of the effectiveness of reward management. The objectives and aims of the study are defined clearly and correspond to each other.
The following sections of the paper are organized according to the objectives defined above. Therefore, the author begins with the definition of motivation and justifies the importance of motivation in management practices. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is rightfully mentioned but the author doesn’t elaborate on it though it would be a reasonable step since Maslow’s pyramid belongs to the basic concepts of management theory. The definition of motivation provided by the author is rather expanded and its importance is proved successfully.
Continuing the study, the author provides a review of different motivation theories. In the introducing paragraph, the author expresses the intention to examine McGregor’s theory Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory and Elton Mayo’s motivation theory. However, the actual text does not correspond to the declared plan. McGregor’s theory is briefly described; Herzberg’s theory got a proper attention, and critical views of it are also presented; then follows the analysis of Vroom’s Valence x Expectancy theory which the author believes to be one of the most successful theories, though it is not clearly explained why it is better than the others. Then, the author mentions “another set of theories” that emphasize the importance of reward for motivation. However, it is not clear what the difference of these theories from the ones mentioned above is since all motivation theories in general agree that reward is necessary to motivate employees. Finally, expectancy theory is mentioned but no proper analysis of it is provided. Mayo’s theory is not mentioned at all though declared in the beginning. Thus, the author made an attempt to embrace a wide range of theories in his analysis which left too little room for examining them in detail, which resulted in poor presentation of some of the theories and limited the analytic part of the paper.
Then, the author moves to examining the aims of reward management. He lists six aims of reward management in bullet points and jumps to discussing the possible obstacle for achieving the defined aims which he sees in inability to match the rewards with the employee’s expectations. As a means to overcome this obstacle, the author proposes to create a strategic reward management scheme.
From this logically flows the examination of the methods of reward management. In this section the author notes that there are both monetary and non-monetary rewards, and then dwells upon pay and compensation issues. He examines two types of pay schemes: fixed levels pay and reward linked to performance. The author does not give preference to any of these schemes limiting the study to the description. However, it may be noted that the second scheme seems to be more effective in terms of motivation since it stimulates hardworking. Yet, in different cases different schemes should be applied. For some jobs, applying the second scheme is not practically possible – e.g., there is hardly any possibility to distinguish between the performances of production line workers.
Finally, the author analyses challenges facing reward management and defines three main obstacles for success of motivation techniques. This section of the paper seems to be the most coherent one; it is logically structured and proper explanation for all three obstacles is given. Conclusion of the paper restates some of the ideas but does not provide a comprehensive glance at the subject. Reward management is once again defined here and its importance is re-emphasized.
Therefore, the paper under consideration presents a review of a wide range of management theories and emphasizes the need for proper reward management. The objectives declared by the author are generally achieved. However, lack of analysis should be attributed to the weaknesses of the paper. The author devoted much space to the description of different theories and did not give proper attention to their comparison and analysis. He does not give preference to any of the theories described. In addition, the paper would benefit from the use of examples. Overall, the paper is rather informative and encompasses a wide range of issues, but it lacks coherence in some places and analytical input.