Papagrigoriou A.

Full Professor, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece

Kalantonis P.

Full Professor, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece

Kilipiris F.

Full Professor, International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, Greece

Laloumis A.

PhD Candidate, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece

 

Abstract

Motivation is a process that mobilizes a human to achieve a goal related to the satisfaction of one’s needs. Motivation in a working place is the means to increase the quantity and quality of labor. The quality of the hotel product directly depends on the workforce employed. Employees in the food and beverage department of the hotel play an important role, because customers interact extensively with them. The theory of interest is a contemporary theory that will be analyzed in the present paper and has particular importance for this department of the hotel. We will examine known theories of motivation and we will analyse the theory of interest, as a proper method of personel motivation.

Key words.  Motivation, interest, labor, hotel.

 

Introduction

The hotel's course in the market depends on the decisions of the management. Businesses are not run by market forces. In times of crisis or prosperity, it is the responsibility of the managers to choose the appropriate strategy so that the business prospers. The main cause of any business result is the human factor. Hotels known for their quality attract highly skilled employees, and develop methods of motivating them, in order to ensure their excellent performance.

Food and Beverages, or F&B, is the department that aims to meet the nutritional needs of the hotel's customers. This department plays an important role in hotel businesses, because with the appropriate management it can prove to be very profitable. In any case, however, the products and services of F&B significantly affect the overall assessment of customers for the hotel.

The willingness, courtesy and good mood of employees in the F&B departments are important elements of the quality of its product. However, beyond the attentiveness of the employees, a starting point is also created for their human interaction. Often customers seek communication with employees, asking questions about the menu items or about the attractions of the area, while they often even ask about personal information, such as the origin and family status of the employees.

Motivating employees in F&B to provide quality services is of great importance for the overall efficiency of the hotel business.

Motivation is the increase in employee motivation to maximize the quantity and quality of the work they offer. Motivation is the cause of the individual's behavior and can decisively influence the efficiency of employees in a tourism business. Motivating employees does not aim at the power of their will, but at understanding their needs and the way they think and act. Motivation theories attempt to analyze the methods of dealing with employees so that they are qualitatively and quantitatively productive, giving importance to:

• their material and non-material remuneration
• the avoidance of biological and mental burdens in the workplace.

There are many theories for motivating human resources which we will present below and focus on a new approach with the theory of interest.

The motivation can be simply presented through figure 1 which indicates how the needs act as behavior motives towards specific targets. Those targets’ satisfaction leads to the behaviors repetition for further need’s satisfaction.

Figure 1. Operation of motivation

The reward gained for achieving a goal operates as a motive for a repeated behavior when needing to achieve that goal again. Several theories attempt to describe the motivation mechanism in order to increase the employees’ performance. Most of them search the way that an employee’s need satisfaction will maximize their efforts./ The following are the most important theories:

 

Abraham Maslow: The theory of needs’ hierarchy

There are theories[1] regarding the human needs and their role in behavior. One of the most successful was developed by Abraham Maslow (1943).

Maslow did not agree that human behavior is driven by a series of independent urges. He tried to discern continuity and congestion in the human behavior so he developed a theory which scrutinizes the human needs. Maslow declares that:

• Humans are motivated by their needs as they are perceived.
• Needs should not be examined individually.
• The hindrance of a need at any level leads that level as a major one.
• Needs are graded[2] in the following order:
• Physical needs: needs for food, water, shelter, sex.
• Safety needs: needs for safety and constanmcy.
• Love and belonging needs: needs for love, belonging, friendship.
• Esteem needs: needs for recognition, social status, self esteem and self respect.
• Self actualization: needs for self development, success and progress.

The physical needs are the prime human needs. As soon as the physical needs are satisfied the human turns to the next grade. Since a grade’s needs are satisfied they are not a motive anymore and the interest is set to the next grade.

This is normal since the human first tends to find the basics for survival such as air, food, water and shelter. Since these needs are satisfied the human tends to secure this satisfaction in the future (safety needs). Having secured the basics in the reasonable future the human turns to the love needs to ensure his socialization since humans are social beings. Being a member of a society can only lead to the search for esteem, respect and power that are described in the fourth grade of needs. After a human has enough goods, feels safe, lives in harmony in an environment where he is respected, he can then turn to improve himself, create the perfect him and cover the self actualization needs.

Maslow’s theory leads to a specific thinking regarding how to use the needs as a motivation. The satisfaction of needs is the actual motive so developing a specific need, creates a motive for the desired satisfaction.

 

Frederick Herzberg: The two factor motivation theory

 Frederick Herzberg in 1959 conducted a research on two hundred employees in Pittsburg, with two questions referring to critical incidents that made them happy and incidents that made them sad in their work[3].  The findings’ analysis indicated three conclusions:

1. The employees were dissatisfied, when the following factors were poor:

• Wages

• Security

• Working conditions

• Social status

• The company’s policy

• Supervision quality

• Regulations

• Working relations

Herzberg indicated that those factors should be fully covered in order to keep an employee and improve his performance. Those factors are not motives to improve the working outcome but they are important in maintaining a healthy working environment which increases the labor’s fruitfulness.

 

2. On the other hand some other factors satisfy the employees and they are related to the employee and his work. These factors are:

• Happiness

• Recognition of the performance

• Achievements on the job

• Allocation of responsibilities

• Promotion
• Feeling important

Those factors are named «motivational» since according to Herzberg they function as motives for the increase of the employees’ performance.

 

Victor Vroom: The theory of expectation

According to Vroom[4] η the power of motivation depends on:

1. The degree of the employees’ belief that their increased effort will lead to increased performance,
2. The  degree of the increase of the performance will lead to increase in the reward and
3. The degree of those employees’ desire these rewards.

The employees try to offer higher quality and quantity of labor according to their expectation these efforts will lead to higher productivity, recognition from the enterprise and equivalent rewards

Based on that thinking Vroom developed a function top estimate the motivational power according which:

M= Fi (E x R)

Όπου   Υ = Motivation

            Π = Expectation

            Α = Rewared

Vroom determines the reward as internal ones (feeling of success, development, actualization) and the external such as wages, benefits and promotion.  

Each reward has its meaning for each employee and can be positive if there is offered a benefit or negative if it is to avoid a loss. Positive reward is a productivity bonus and negative is the avoidance of a penalty for late arrival. The positive reward improves the working conditions and the negative one prevents a loss maintaining the original reward state. As Vroom indicates the reward can be layered on levels, which lead from the first to the next etc. The first level reward such as a promotion can lead to the second level such as improved social status and then lead to a third level such as improved family relations.

In order to improve the performance the employees should work in a state of balance. Thus the enterprenual goals should match the social ideas and the operation should serve the enterprenual goals.

 

Stacy Adams: theory of equity

Stacy Adams indicated that the employees have a strong feeling of justice and they tend to treat their work positively when they are equitable, though they tend to treat their work negatively when they are inequitable. That is why they compare their performance and rewards with those of their colleagues.

As performance is noted the quantity and quality of the offered labor and the comparison can be made among colleagues of the same position (eg. waiters), or different positions and same level (eg. the manager and the executive chef). As a reward is noted anything provided by the company such as wages, bonus, parking, meals on duty, accommodation, mobile phone, car, status, promotion, and the social recognition

According to Adams, the employees estimate the level of their performance (P) and the reward (R) forming an index of equity (IE), where:

The next step is a comparison among one’s self index (s) with the colleagues’ index (c). There are three possible outcomes:

1. IEs= IEc
2. IEs > IEc
3. IEs < IEc

In the case where IEs = IEc, and the self index is equivalent with the colleagues index the employee feels equitable to his colleagues and feels being managed fairly so he does not mobilize himself to change the performance.

In case IEs ≠ IEc  the employee feels he is treated unfairly so he mobilizes to achieve equity.

In the case where IEs > IEc, the employee’s index is lower than the colleagues’ index and the employee feels anxious and insecure and tries to improve those feelings by increasing his efforts for performance or changing his perception about that situation.

In the case where IEc < IEc, the employee’s index is higher than the colleagues’ index and the employee feels inequitable. There are two possible reactions, either to decrease his efforts and performance or claim higher rewards. In case that none of these are fruitful the employee will change his internal balance and his perception of his work. If the inequity is strong the employee may increase the absences or even leave.

According to the theory of equity the employees do compare their rewards with the rewards of their colleagues. Thus the enterprise should track the employees’ performance and adopt a just reward system.

 

B. Skinner: The reinforcement theory

Skinner refers to «reinforcement» meaning the impact that follows a specific behavior. The reinforcement can be positive when the impact is positive or negative when the impact is negative.

As Skinner indicated the negative and positive impact of each behavior can lead the employees to repeat or avoid that behavior. That means:

• A positively reinforced behavior  (with positive impact), leads the employee to repeat it
• A negatively reinforced behavior leads the employee to avoid it

 

Gradually, the employee learns to repeat or avoid specific behaviors according to the previous reinforcement. That leads to the conclusion that the employee’s behavior is dependant to the management’s confrontation.

The positive reinforcement is adjusted to rewards. There are regular rewards that are given at regular intervals or non regular rewards. The non regular rewards havew the stronger motivating power..

 

The theory of interest

The hotel employee can offer his labor efforts in several levels of quality and quantity. The degree of his performance is based on two factors. What the employee is able and what he is willing to offer. In other words the factors are the employee’s abilities and interest about his work.

Figure 2.  Basic factors that impact upon the employee’s performance

The employee’s capabilities are determined by his physical, mental and spiritual characteristics. A person inputting all of those characteristics, enthusiasm and devotion can display a remarkable performance. In this case the employee confronts the enterprise as his own and acts accordingly in any given situation. This employee, suggests concepts, takes initiatives, executes a task in the best possible way, he is kind, voluntary and positive towards the customers, cooperative with his colleagues and does his best to improve the operational efficiency.

The employee’s capabilities should cover three fields:

• Technical capabilities and knowledge related to their profession.
• Human capabilities related to communicating with humans.
• Mental capabilities, such as swift perspective, organizing manners and combining details. The employees should be able to view their work as a total and overcome any problems before they are noted by an external person.

 

The employee’s interest is related to the expected reward. The benefit may be an avoidance of damage. Being employed in a position of interest is a benefit as much as not being fired from a position of interest. The reward may be material or non material.

As material rewards are the ones offered in money or any other material benefit. The direct material rewards are the wages earned, bonuses and paid holidays. Indirect material rewards are insurance benefits, a mobile phone or a car.

The non material reward is any reason for which the employee fells satisfied for his effort or any reason that does not cause damage. The non material reward refers to the way the company affronts the employee or even the working conditions.

Figure 3.  The wider meaning of reward

The material reward plays a key role in the sum of the employee’s quid pro quo. The employee tends to lose faith in the management if the reward is solely non material. In this case the company recognizes the employee’s efforts, hence the employee is dissatisfied. The employee receives the message that his effort has produced profits for the company and thus he should get a payrise. 

Each employee reacts in a specific way. Their character, personality and financial status determine their reaction to a reward system. For instance an employee may be interested in a mobile phone granted by the company but another person may not. The first person will demonstrate some interest in his work though the second will demonstrate disregard

The HRM policy will determine the total of the material and non material reward in an enterprise. This reward system can play a significant role in the labor efficiency as can be seen on figure 4. 

Figure 4 Basic factors affecting the labor efficiency

Since the enterprise attempts to achieve high performance from the employees, there will be a number of problems that are related to the employees’ professional experiences. The employees tend to be reluctant till negative towards the managerial intentions and it takes time for them to be convinced. It is often that employees try to receive the highest reward for the minimum of effort. Some cases the employees perceive that the company is dependent on them and that is shown through a scheme of high rewards. Thus the reward system should be tightly fastened to the employees’ performance.

Research on the motivations and disincentives of modern executives

Companies must become more flexible to meet the evolving needs of their human resources, while modern executives increasingly seek recognition through their work. These are two of the key conclusions of the annual survey “Motivation Matters”, conducted for the second consecutive year in Great Britain, by the Chartered Management Institute, with the support of Adecco (https://motivationmatters.co.uk/).

According to the survey, in which 1,864 executives took part, employees, although they feel disappointed with their employers, manage to maintain high levels of motivation in the workplace, a positive attitude towards demanding hours and a strong desire for personal professional development.

The “Motivation Matters 2005” survey, the latest results of which were announced in December 2005, expands on the findings of the 2004 survey, providing a more complete picture of the factors that shape and influence motivation, professional development, and the balance between career and personal life of modern executives. The main conclusions of the survey concern:

• Motivation and productivity: 55% of executives surveyed state that they feel “simply motivated” or even “highly motivated” at work from the beginning of the week, not succumbing to the so-called “Monday blues” syndrome. A very small percentage (3% of those who declare themselves "highly motivated") report that the lack of motivation in their workplace has a counterproductive effect, affecting 20% ​​of their time.

• Demanding hours - Greater flexibility: Modern executives want to give their best and contribute to their company, choosing, however, more rational ways of working and a flexible schedule and not necessarily more working hours. According to the survey, while long working hours are a daily phenomenon for the majority of modern managers - 35% of those surveyed state that their hours are overloaded - 25% (compared to 17% in the corresponding survey in 2004) claim that they are able to increase their efficiency.

• Corporate values: The importance that employees attribute to corporate values ​​is interesting. A large percentage of respondents express the opinion that the sense of accomplishment (64%) and the achievement of goals (53%) through their work is a very important motivator. It is noteworthy that only 11% of managers who participated in the survey state that reward systems and benefits linked to performance are important motivators in their workplace. • Ambitions and career development: According to the survey, 1/4 of executives hope to remain in their current position for the next three years. This stability reflects the results of other surveys from the executive market, which show that the average time spent in a job is gradually increasing and that professional ambitions are now longer-term. At the same time, the more ambitious nature of younger executives also becomes apparent: approximately 60% of managers under 40 say they are looking for a promotion within the next three years, while only 1/3 believe they will stay at the same company to earn/claim it.

• Barriers to career development: 38% of executives surveyed express the opinion that a flat corporate structure and the resulting lack of promotion opportunities are the most important barriers to their career development.

• Education and training: According to the survey, 40% of managers have chosen their employer because of the development opportunities it offers. However, 41% claim that their employer does not have a specific budget for employee education and training, 23% are dissatisfied with the training opportunities provided to them and 74% believe that their employer should be the main supporter/financier of their professional education and development.

• New forms of flexible working: Although the managers surveyed say they feel motivated enough to meet the demanding schedule, one in three feel that their free time has been cut short due to professional obligations. At the same time, many executives report that while the use of temporary staff and part-time work are now common, other flexible forms of work, such as the "compressed week" (fewer working days per week, but more hours per day - compressed week) 31%, the system of distributing working hours within the year (distributing working hours in such a way that during periods of workload the staff works more, while in

TABLE 1: CORPORATE VALUES THAT MOTIVATE PER HIERARCHICAL LEVEL OF EXECUTIVES

 

Value-Motivation	Total Respondents (%)	Director (%)	Senior Manager (%)	Middle Manager (%)	Junior Manager (%)
Sense of purpose through work	63,7	64,9	66	62,2	56,8
Sense of achieving goals through work	53,4	55	54,3	51,1	50,3
Contribution to the development and advancement of colleagues	31	32	33,2	26,9	31,4
Responsibility within the team	26	22,9	27,5	29,1	28,4
Providing opportunities for proposing and developing new business practice models/systems	20	24,5	20,7	16,7	9,5
Contribution to society	19	20,5	16,3	18,9	18,3
Approval and recognition from my supervisor	15,6	8,2	16,8	22	25,4
Providing constructive guidance/information	14,1	12	13,5	16,7	19,5
Prestige among my colleagues	11,3	10,6	12,6	13,1	7,7
Benefits-rewards based on efficiency	11	13,6	11	8,5	8,3
Competition with other companies in the industry	8,3	15,1	5,1	4,4	3
Competition with others within the company	0,8	0,4	0,2	1,9	1

SOURCE: NAFTEMBORIKI (http://www.e-forologia.gr)

Conclusions

Fundamental motive to the human behavior is the interest, which is presented as a constant and positive mood for specific activities. The interest’s analysis can reveal when the interest is externalized the cognitive, emotional and volitional functions participate in that process . The interest is found where there is a potential benefit.

 

 

Βιβλιογραφία

Anastasiou, Anastasios. “Spiritual Culture in Relation to Personnel Leadership.” Administrative Information, Issue 13, January 1999, pp. 114–125.

Anastasiou, Anastasios. “Organization and Organizational Environment: A Model of Integration.” Administrative Information, Issue 17, May 2000, pp. 91–111.

Georgas, D. Social Psychology. Athens, 1990.

Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence. Ellinika Grammata, Athens, 1995.

Jung, C. G. Man and His Soul. Epikouros, 1974.

Kostaridou, Eukleidis A. Motivational Psychology. Ellinika Grammata, 1999.

Lienhardt, G. Social Anthropology. Gutenberg, Athens, 1985.

Kostaridou, Anastasia – Eukleidis. Cognitive Psychology. Art of Text, Thessaloniki.

Laloumis, D., & Roupas, V. Human Resource Management in Tourism Enterprises. Interbooks, Athens, 1997.

Papageorgiou, G. K. Psychology. Psychotechniki, Heraklion, Crete, 1985.

Papadopoulos, N. Psychology. Athens, 1997.

Papanoutsos, E. Psychology. Athens, 1972.

Papastamou, Stamos. Contemporary Research in Social Psychology. Odysseas, Athens.

Sarris, Neoklis. Introduction to Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy, and Psychodrama. Grammi, Athens, 1985.

Sarris, Neoklis. Introduction to Sociology. Athens, 1971.

Sarris, Neoklis. “Psychosociology of Cinema.” Psychology (journal), Vol. 1, pp. 71–107.

Stafford, N., & Clark. What Freud Really Said. Glaros, Athens, 1980.

Arkes, H., & Garske, J. Psychological Theories of Motivation. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, California, 1977.

Arkin, R. M., Appelman, A. J., & Burger, J. M. “Social Anxiety, Self-Presentation, and Self-Serving Bias in Causal Attribution.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 38, 1980.

Atkinson, J. W. “Motivational Determinants of Risk-Taking Behavior.” Psychological Review, Vol. 64, 1957.

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. “Effort: The Double-Edged Sword in School Achievement.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971.

Crespi, L. P. “Quantitative Variation of Incentive and Performance in the White Rat.” American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 55, 1942.

Deci, E. L. “Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971.

Evans, P. Motivation. Methuen, London, 1975.

Eysenck, H. J. The Biological Basis of Personality. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 1967.

Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Row, Peterson, Evanston, 1957.

Festinger, L. Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance. Stanford University Press, 1964.

Freud, S. “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes.” 1915.

Geen, R. G. Human Motivation: A Social Psychological Approach. Brooks/Cole, 1995.

Gray, J. A. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. Oxford University Press, 1982.

Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. Introduction to Theories of Personality. Wiley, New York, 1985.

Hebb, D. O. “Drives and the Central Nervous System.” Psychological Review, Vol. 62, 1955.

Heckhausen, H. Motivation and Action. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.