Motivational Process at Coca-Cola

Herzberg, in his motivation theory, connected motivation at the workplace with job satisfaction and since then the two have become inseparable. Motivation may be defined as that which makes us to do things especially as a result of satisfaction of our physical needs, which vary from one person to another, which inspire us to complete tasks. Dependent on our motivation is the amount of effort exerted on the job and the subsequent output otherwise known as performance. It is a pity that some organizations today do not realize the effect of motivation on .
performance. It is common knowledge that motivation positively impacts on the performance of an employee and this is why it is important to learn and understand the factors that determine or influence positive motivation in the work place. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the management and leadership of an organization to initiate and sustain positive motivation amongst the organization’s workforce as a strategy to attain the goals of the organization (Bizhelp24, 2008).
The theory of motivation utilized within the company embraces the Clayton Alderfer’s ERG theory in which three elements are entailed. The elements include: existence needs, relatedness needs and growth needs. The existence needs are those that have a physiological impact on the employees including the material wellbeing of the employees within the company. It is common knowledge that when the employees are satisfied with what they are earning there exists some kind of stability which creates harmony in the company.

Besides material needs, which essentially causes physiological satisfaction of the employees, there should also be a potential for growth which is only possible if the employees are satisfied. Coca Cola reckons the need to for employees to be satisfied and this is why it has laid down special programs that aid in this process. For instance, Coca Cola conducts both cultural awareness programs and employee forums which provide not only professional growth but also growth at the personal level of the employees.
Further, the company motivates their employees with both attractive incentives and occupational opportunities for growth. The motivation in this senses focuses on the human part of the organization in which each individual is handled personally without any generalization. Individual cases are studied and promotional opportunities presented according to the company’s experience with a particular employee (Russell, 1985). Organizational Structure at Coca Cola
Organizational structure may be construed to mean the hierarchical notion of subordination of units or entities within an organization which not only contribute but also collaborate to achieve common organizational goals, aims or objectives. In this sense, then organization are seen to be a cluster of entities which relate according to a structure set out in a number of styles which are dependent on the objectives and ambience of an organization and the structure set this way determines not only the operations but also the performance of an organization.
The structure is mostly set out in a more of objective process as opposed to the subjectivity. Further, organizational structure aids in the allocation of express responsibilities and functions to various entities (often identified as branches, departments, work groups or even individual people) within the organization (Madura, 2000). Doug Daft took over from Doug Ivester as the chairman and CEO of the Coca Cola Company the organizational structure changed entirely from the centralized to a more decentralizes organizational structure which exists up to date.
Daft, with his newly introduced decentralized organizational structure gave the employees the authority to concentrate on the most important activities of the company. This structure has been seen to be specifically successful because of a number of reasons some of which are highlighted below: • Everyone manages his/her work part all parts of which form an interconnected system,
• With decentralized organizational structure, people are trusted and responsibly treated as not only caring but also committed adults which make them to behave out exactly the same way they are treated. • A compilation of small self-managed groups or units are more flexible and quick to respond to threats and at opportunity capitalization. • Decentralized organizational structure comes with a relatively higher lever of commitment, Ownership, passion and energy among the employees thus giving the company a competitive edge in the market.
This explains the success of Coca Cola. • Decentralized organizational structure shifts everyone’s focus from the internal bureaucracy’s needs to customer or partners’ needs satisfaction. • Decentralized organizational structure reforms the bureaucratic committees in centralized structure into positive entrepreneurial teams. • As opposed to Centralized structure, decentralized organizational structure makes clear feedback loops which are not only shorter but closer to the organization’s customers and markets.
A decentralized organizational structure, first, is more of a respecter of both personalities and functionalities as opposed to centralized or bureaucratic structure which is more oriented to functionality. Secondly, the decentralized organizational structure is more objective thus more in agreement with the modernist’s perspective of organizational theory as opposed to the subjective over centralized or bureaucratic structure which is very much in sync with the symbolic-interpretivism ideals.
Bureaucratic structure proponents continue to hold on to it and detest change to decentralization because the personally feel that things have to continue to be done the way they have been since they have been so far working out for them and this makes the proponents or supporters of decentralized organizational structure myopic to the possibility of better performance of decentralized structure (Morgan, 1993).
The continued resistance to the shift to decentralization is motivated more by the subjectivity of the organization’s leadership than otherwise. Objective leadership, just as that in Coca Cola, realizes when change is imminent and this explains why their shift from centralized structure overseen by Doug Ivester to a decentralized one overseen by Doug Daft was bereft of incidences of resistance to the change (Business Week, 2006).