Evaluating Motivational Theories in Workplace

This assignment critically analyzes a research article examining the effectiveness of motivational techniques used by managers to increase employee productivity. The critique focuses on the article's alignment with existing motivational theories, its methodology, data analysis, and overall contribution to understanding workplace motivation.

1
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
Student Name
Institution Name

2
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
Guclu, H. & Guney, S., 2017. The Effects of the Motivation Techniques Used by managers to
Increase the productivity of their Workers and An Application. Bussiness Management
Dynamics, 6(7), pp. 1-18.
The globalization effects have complicated business processes and management activities.
Currently, with the world increasingly becoming a global village, enterprise activities have
diversified from the primary functions of production and profits. Initially, the managers’ roles
focused on the acquisition of cheap raw materials to maximize profits. However, with the
business activities adopting a global perspective, human resources have become influential in
enterprise activities. In the modern business environment, the success of firms depends on the
efficiency of the workforce. In this respect, management focus has shifted from raw material
procurement to optimizing productive abilities of employees. The motivation of employees is
directly related to the success of enterprises. However, with enterprises differing significantly
in culture, operations, and financial capabilities, it is important for managers to utilize
motivation techniques which suit their organizations.
In this article, Guclu and Guney (2017) evaluate the effects of motivation techniques used by
managers in enhancing the productivity of the workforce. The success of managers depends
on how they interact with their employees. Managers are tasked with providing a conducive
working environment for the employees. As a result, the efficiency of employees is
influenced by the management practices. According to Guclu and Guney (2017), the current
dynamic business environment requires managers who are decisive, strong, and motivated.
These are the managers who can read and predict the changes in the market and incorporate
them into their organizational activities.
Specifically, the authors focus on the relationship between efficiency, motivation, and
management. Notably, these focal areas major on the integration between managers and
employees. The authors argue that management actions directly impact employees’ efficiency
and motivation. In this respect, they posit that managers must have comprehensive
knowledge of their employees' preferences, enterprise activities, and market environment.
Nevertheless, the authors insist that the ability of managers to effectively utilize the skills of
their employees affects enterprise efficiency. In fact, they insist that employees are one of the
key factors that affect efficiency. Consequently, Guclu and Guney (2017) advise managers to

3
use effective performance management measures aimed at enhancing employees’ motivation
to enhance efficiency.
The claims made by this article on the relationship between management and employees’
motivation are accurate. Managers are tasked with establishing the right motivation levels in
their workers (Olafsen et al., 2015). In achieving this, the managers must ensure that the
employees operate in an environment that satisfies their professional and personal needs. The
authors suggest that managers can use measures like punishment, reward, intimidation, and
competition to enhance workers’ motivation. However, they insist that managers should
apply these techniques in the right place and the right way for them to be effective. Moreover,
the article outlines several management behaviors that motivate employees. These behaviors
include respecting, appreciating, and mentoring workers.
The authors utilized a survey approach to address the study objectives. Precisely, they used
questionnaires to determine the opinions of employees on the effects of motivational tools
used by managers. The study was conducted on 229 individuals working in three medium
firms in the textile industry. The questionnaires captured the employees ‘personal information
and their opinions about the motivation tools used by the managers. The analysis of the
collected data was done based on three divisions which were the economic tool, psychosocial
tools, and organizational and managerial tools. In these three categories, impacts of
motivational techniques were assessed on the basis of gender, education status, age, monthly
income, employment status, years of service, and marital status.
This article outlines some of the vital factors that affect enterprise success. Notably, it points
out that the relationship between the managers and workers is key to the success of
organizations. The primary strong point of the article is its intensive use of motivational
theories to support its claim. In the article, the writers refer to motivational theories like the
Maslow theory of need hierarchy, and the Herzberg’s two-factor theory. According to Flick
(2014), theories enhance the authority of research. Moreover, it allows the researchers to
place their arguments in a specific context. The utilization of motivation theories in this
article indicates that the writer had sufficient knowledge on their study area.
Additionally, the authors explicitly elaborate on the factors that influence motivation and
efficiency. The introduction section of the article gives sufficient background information to
the readers on the multiple factors that influence efficiency. The move to elaborate on the
various factors within and outside the enterprise that affect efficiency allows the readers to

4
make a connection between the article’s study problem and methodology selection. As Flick
(2014) points out, providing an elaborate background information capturing the key areas of
the research topic allow the audience to see the importance of the study. Furthermore, it
allows the researchers to establish knowledge gaps to address in their study. As a result, the
provision of an elaborate and precise background information makes the article informative
to the audience.
Another strong point of the article lies in its data analysis method. Particularly, the use of
statistical tools in data analysis enhances the validity and reliability of the study results.
Furthermore, the article separately scrutinizes the different factors that influence employees’
opinions on motivation tools used by managers. The articles’ findings on how employees’
psychological satisfaction influences motivation agrees with those by (Olafsen et al., 2015).
In their study, Olafsen et al. (2015) established those management activities aimed at
addressing the psychological needs of employees such as recognition, appreciation, and
freedom resulted in significant improvement in workers' motivation. However, the article’s
position that compensation has significant effects on employees' motivation is debatable.
According to Olafsen et al. (2015), compensation does affect the motivation of employees.
This view by Olafsen et al. (2015) conforms to the arguments of the major motivational
theories. For instance, the Maslow's motivational theory dismisses compensation a
fundamental factor in influencing motivation. Instead, it postulates that psychological factors
influence motivation.
Motivation is a complex concept that is affected by multiple factors. This article provides an
inclusive analysis of the various factors that affect employees’ motivation in a precise
manner. According to Zeb et al. (2014), modern studies have illustrated inabilities in
evaluating the various factors the affect employees' motivation. Unlike most studies, this
article amends this mistake by incorporating the various forces that influence motivation.
Importantly, the article also provides how these forces relate to each other to influence
performance management in organizations. These steps adequately lay the foundation for the
authors to have a multidimensional approach to addressing the study hypothesis.
Despite the article illustrating strengths in its background information, use of motivational
theories and data analysis, it also has several weaknesses. Firstly, the article demonstrates
insufficient connection between the motivational theories and research findings. In particular,
the article lacks a discussion section which is essential for connecting research finding to the

5
literature reviewed. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain the implications of this study and its
contribution to the field of management. Although the authors refer to the motivational
theories in the article’s introduction section, they fail to illustrate how their study findings
agree or differ with these theories.
Additionally, the article does not explain how the study sample was selected. Instead, the
authors only indicate that they utilized 229 respondents. For instance, the authors could have
mentioned that they used random sampling to obtain their sample from the study population.
This inability questions the validity of the study results. Moreover, the research methodology
shows discrepancies with the article’s hypothesis. The article hypothesis was to evaluate the
effectiveness of motivational techniques used by managers to increase the productivity of
their workers. In this respect, all the study respondents were supposed to be employees not in
managerial positions. However, out of the 229 respondents used, the authors state that 46
were managers. The inclusion of managers in this study raises questions on the rationality of
the research methodology. Based on the hypothesis, this study had two variables which were
employees and motivation techniques used. Since the managers are the individuals who
implement these motivational techniques, they were not supposed to be part of the study
population.
The article also lacks an in-depth analysis of the statistical findings. In fact, the study is more
descriptive than analytical. The first section of the article covering the introduction is very
informative and precise. However, the authors seem to neglect the vital areas of
methodology, discussion, and recommendation. Without a detailed explanation of the
statistics, this article lacks objectivity. Objective studies exhibit precise relationships between
the literature reviewed, methodology and its conclusions (Flick, 2014). In this respect, the
authors should have explained to the audience the meaning of the numbers in the analysis
section and their implications to the study hypothesis and management.
Conclusively, this article provides insightful information on the how management actions
affect employees’ motivation. Its introduction section provides the key forces that influence
the motivation and efficiency of employees using relevant motivational theories. Moreover,
in its methodology section, it evaluates the various factors affecting motivation
independently. However, the article fails to connect these motivational theories to its
hypotheses and results sufficiently. Furthermore, it lacks a discussion section for its result
which is vital for providing the implications of the research findings to the audience. In spite

6
of these flaws, the article provides an excellent foundation for understanding how managers
influence workforce motivation and efficiency.

7
Reference List
Flick, U., 2014. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 5th ed. London: SAGE.
Guclu, H. & Guney, S., 2017. The Effects of the Motivation Techniques Used by managers to
Increase the productivity of their Workers and An Application. Bussiness Management
Dynamics, 6(7), pp. 1-18.
Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H., Forest, J. & Deci, E. L., 2015. Show them the money? The role
of pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self‐determination theory model of intrinsic
work motivation. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 56(4), pp. 447-457.
Zeb, A., Rehman, S., Saeed, G. & Ullah, H. A., 2014. Study of the Relationship between
Reward and Recognition and employees Job Satisfaction: A Literature Review. Abasyn
Journal Of Social Sciences, 7(2), pp. 278-291.