Motivating Employees under Adverse Conditions
The second article is about how to motivate employees in adversity. The article is divided into 8 paragraphs. The first two paragraphs are used to describe the challenges faced by motivating employees in adversity, and the last six paragraphs give six specific incentive plans. The structure of the article is a typical type of question asking and problem solving. The following is the translation of each paragraph.
Click to view this IELTS reading What you need to master in Key words And corresponding Answer analysis ：
Cambridge IELTS 6 test 3 message 2 Motivate employees
Cambridge IELTS 6Test3 Read Passage2 Answer Analysis Motivating Employees under Adverse Conditions
Cambridge IELTS 6 Test 3 Passage 2 Read the original translation
Challenge
It is a great deal easier to motivate employees in a growing organisation than a declining one. When organisations are expanding and adding personnel, promotional opportunities, pay rises, and the excitement of being associated with a dynamic organisation create feelings of optimism. Management is able to use the growth to entice and encourage emp loyees. When an organisation is shrinking, the best and most mobile workers are prone to leave voluntarily. Unfortunately, they are the ones the organisation can least afford to lose – those with the highest skills and experience. The minor employees remain because their job options are limited.
It is much easier to motivate employees in a growing organization than in a declining one. As the organization grows and increases its staff, the promotion opportunities, salary increases and excitement associated with a vibrant organization will generate a sense of optimism. Management can use this growth to attract and encourage employees. When the organization shrinks, the best and most mobile employees tend to leave voluntarily. Unfortunately, they are the most unbearable loss for the organization - people with the best skills and experience. Secondary employees stay because their job options are limited.
Morale also suffers during decline. People fear they may be the next to be made redundant. Productivity often suffers, as employees spend their time sharing rumours and providing one another with moral support rather than focusing on their jobs. For those whose jobs are secure, pay increases are rarely possible. Pay cuts, unheard of during times o f growth, may even be imposed. The challenge to management is how to motivate employees under such retrenchment conditions. The ways of meeting this challenge can be broadly divided into six Key Points, which are outlined below.
Morale also suffered during the decline. People worry that they may become the next redundant person. Since the staff articles come from the old roast duck IELTS workers who spend most of their time spreading rumors and providing moral support to each other, rather than focusing on work, productivity is usually affected. For those who have a stable job, it is almost impossible to get a raise. There may even be a pay cut, which is unheard of during the growth period. The challenge for managers is how to motivate employees under such tight conditions. The approach to the challenge can be roughly divided into six key points, which are summarized as follows.
Key point 1
There is an abundance of evidence to support the motivational benefits that result from carefully matching people to jobs. For example, if the job is running a small business or an autonomous unit within a larger business, high achievers should be sought. However, if the job to be filled is a managerial post in a large bureaucratic organisation, a candidate who has a high need for power and a low need for affiliation should be selected. Accordingly, high achievers should not be put into jobs that are inconsistent with their needs. High achievers will do best when the job provides moderately challenging goals and where there is independence and feedback. However, it should be remembered that not everybody is motivated by jobs that are high in independence, variety and responsibility.
There is sufficient evidence to support the motivational benefits of carefully matching people to work. For example, if the job is to run a small business or an autonomous sector in a large enterprise, high achievers should be sought. However, if the position to be held is a management position in a large bureaucratic organization, you should choose candidates who have high requirements for power but little need for subordination. Therefore, high achievers should not engage in work that is inconsistent with their needs. High achievers will do their best when their work provides moderately difficult goals with independence and feedback. However, it should be kept in mind that not everyone will be motivated by independent, diverse and responsible work.
Key point 2
The literature on goal-setting theory suggests that managers should ensure that all employees have specific goals and receive comments on how well they are doing in those goals. For those with high achievement needs, typically a minority in any organisation, the existence of external goals is less important because high achievers are already inter nally motivated. The next factor to be determined is whether the goals should be assigned by a manager or collectively set in conjunction with the employees. The answer to that depends on perceptions of goal acceptance and the organisation’s culture. If resistance to goals is expected, the use of participation in goal-setting should increase acc eptance. If participation is inconsistent with the culture, however, goals should be assigned. If participation and the culture are incongruous, employees are likely to perceive the participation process as manipulative and be negatively affected by it.
The literature on goal setting theory shows that managers should ensure that all employees have specific goals and accept the evaluation of their performance in these goals. For those with high achievement requirements (minority in any organization), the existence of external goals is not so important, because high achievers often have internal motivation. The next factor to be determined is whether the goals should be assigned by the manager or set together with the employees. The answer depends on target acceptance and organizational culture. If there may be conflicts with goals, participation in goal setting will increase acceptance. However, if participation is not consistent with the company culture, goals should be specified. Because if the participation does not match the company's culture, employees may think that the participation process is manipulated and thus negatively affected.
Key point 3
Regardless of whether goals are achievable or well within management’s perceptions of the employee’s ability, if employees see them as unachievable they will reduce their effort. Managers must be sure, therefore, that employees feel confident that their efforts can lead to performance goals. For managers, this means that employees must have th e capability of doing the job and must regard the appraisal process as valid.
No matter whether the goal can be achieved or not, or whether it is within the management's perception of employees' ability, if employees think that the goal cannot be achieved, they will reduce the workload. Therefore, managers must ensure that employees are confident that they can achieve performance goals through their efforts. For managers, this means that employees must have the ability to complete their work and must consider the evaluation process to be effective.
Point 4
Since employees have different needs, what acts as a reinforcement for one may not for another. Managers could use their knowledge of each employee to personalise the rewards over which they have control. Some of the more obvious rewards that managers allocate include pay, promotions, autonomy, job scope and depth, and the opportunity to participa te in goal-setting and decision-making.
Because employees have different needs, incentives for one person may not be suitable for another. Managers can use their knowledge of each employee to personalize the rewards they control. Some obvious rewards assigned by managers include salary, promotion, autonomy, scope and depth of work, and opportunities to participate in goal setting and decision-making.
Key point 5
Managers need to make rewards contingent on performance. To reward factors other than performance will only reinforce those other factors. Key rewards such as pay increases and promotions or advancements should be allocated for the attainment of the employee’s specific goals. Consistent with maximising the impact of rewards, managers should look for ways to increase their visibility. Eliminating the secrecy surrounding pay by openly communicating everyone’s remuneration, publicising performance bonuses and allocating annual salary increases in a lump sum rather than spreading them out over an entire year are examples of actions that will make rewards more visible and potentially more mo tivating.
Managers need to be rewarded based on their performance. Factors other than rewarding performance only enhance these factors. Key rewards, such as salary increase and promotion, should be given to employees according to whether they have achieved specific goals. Consistent with maximizing the role of rewards, managers should seek ways to improve visibility. By openly communicating everyone's salary, publishing the performance bonus and distributing the annual salary increase at one time instead of apportioning it to the whole year, the confidentiality around salary is eliminated. These actions will make the rewards more visible and possibly more motivating.
Point 6
The way rewards are distributed should be transparent so that employees perceive that rewards or outcomes are equitable and equal to the inputs given. On a simplistic level, experience, abilities, effort and other obvious inputs should explain differences in pay, responsibility and other obvious outcomes. The problem, however, is complicated by th e existence of dozens of inputs and outcomes and by the fact that employee groups place different degrees of importance on them. For instance, a study comparing clerical and production workers identified nearly twenty inputs and outcomes. The clerical workers considered factors such as quality of work performed and job knowledge near the top of th eir list, but these were at the bottom of the production workers’ list. Similarly, production workers thought that the most important inputs were intelligence and personal involvement with task accomplishment, two factors that were quite low in the importance ratings of the clerks. There were also important, though less dramatic, differences on the outcome side. For example, production workers rated advancement very highly, whereas clerical workers rated advancement in the lower third of their list. Such findings suggest that one person’s equity is another’s inequity, so an ideal should probably weigh different inputs and outcomes according to employee group.
The distribution of rewards should be transparent, so that employees think the rewards or achievements are fair and equal to the investment. In short, experience, ability, effort and other obvious inputs should be sufficient to explain the differences in compensation, responsibility and other obvious results. However, due to the existence of dozens of inputs and achievements and the different degrees of attention paid to them by employee groups, this problem is actually very complicated. For example, a study comparing office workers and production workers identified nearly 20 inputs and outcomes. Office workers place factors such as work quality and work knowledge at the top of their list, but these factors are at the bottom of the list of production workers. Similarly, production workers believe that the most important inputs are intelligence and personal participation in completing tasks, both of which are low in the importance level of clerks. There are also important differences in the results, although less dramatic. For example, production workers rank promotions high, while civilian workers rank promotions at the bottom third of their list. These findings show that one person's fairness means another person's unfairness, so ideally, different inputs and results should be weighed according to employee groups.
Cambridge IELTS 6Test3 Reading Passage1 Birth and Development of Original Translation Movies
The Search for the Anti aging Pill
