Leadership and its impact on organizationsManagers’ leadership styles have a crucial impact on the achievement of both individual and organizational performance in corporations (Bass, 1990a; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). This is attested to by the fact that numerous leadership researches have been conducted over the past two decades (Northouse, 1997). Nonetheless, even with the global acceptance and acknowledgement of the importance of leadership in the business context, research on leadership behavior rarely presents studies dedicated to region or country-specific entrepreneurship (e.g., Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998; Eggers & Leahy, 1995; Hunt & Handler, 1999).Moreover, while there has been progress in the study of managerial leadership behavior in various countries of the globe (Den Hartog, House, & Hanges, 1999; Kuchinke, 1999; Maczynski & Koopman, 2000), worldwide researches on leadership styles of entrepreneurs are wanting (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Gasparishvili, 1998). Lastly, while there have been several studies that have been undertaken on psychological and behavioral distinctions between entrepreneurs and managers within a Western setting (i.
e. the US) (e.g., Brockhaus, 1982; Brockhaus & Nord, 1979; March & Sharipo, 1987), there is a dearth of literature on the comparison of leadership styles of Western and non-Western entrepreneurs and managers.
Leadership Studies and AnalysisSince its introduction over twenty years ago, charismatic leadership has been strongly emphasized in the US management literature (Bass, 1985; House,1977; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). The benefits of charismatic or transformational leadership are thought to include broadening and elevating the interests of followers, generating awareness and acceptance among the followers of the purposes and mission of the group, and motivating followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of the group and the organization (Bass, 1985). Charismatic or transformational leaders articulate a realistic vision of the future that can be shared, stimulate subordinates intellectually, and pay attention to the differences among the subordinates. Tichy and Devanna (1990) highlight the transforming effect these leaders can have on organizations as well as on individuals.
By defining the need for change, creating new visions, and mobilizing commitment to these visions, leaders can ultimately transform organizations (Hartog et al., 1999).According to Bass (1985) the transformation of followers can be achieved by raising the awareness of the importance and value of desired outcomes, getting followers to transcend their own self-interests and altering or expanding followers’ needs. Bass (1985) defined the transactional leader as one who: recognizes what followers want to get from their work and tries to see that followers get what they desire if their performance warrants it; exchanges rewards for appropriate levels of effort; and responds to followers’ self-interests as long as they are getting the job done. Numerous research studies have been conducted in this area, and, collectively, the empirical findings demonstrate that leaders described as charismatic, transformational, or visionary have positive effects on their organizations and followers, with effect sizes ranging from .
35 to .50 for organizational performance effects, and from .40 to .80 for effects on follower satisfaction, commitment, and organizational identification (Fiol et al., 1999).Studies have been carried out in many different countries, and research in this area also shows that transformational leadership is closer to perceptions of ideal leadership than transactional leadership.
As Lord and Maher (1991) note, being perceived as a leader is a prerequisite for being able to go beyond a formal role in influencing others. They hold that leadership perceptions can be based on two alternative processes. First, leadership can be inferred from outcomes of salient events, and attribution is crucial in these inference-based processes (Lord ; Maher, 1991). For example, a successful business ‘turnaround’ is often quickly attributed to the high quality ‘leadership’ of top executives or the CEO (Hartog et al., 1999). Leadership can also be recognized based on the fit between an observed person’s characteristics with the perceivers’ implicit ideas of what ‘leaders’ are (Hartog et al., 1999).Cultural groups may vary in their conceptions of the most important characteristics of effective leadership.
As such, different leadership prototypes would be expected to occur naturally in societies that have differing cultural profiles[MSOffice1] (Bass, 1990a; Hofstede, 1993). Find an example from Bass. Historical research indicates that in some cultures, one might need to take strong decisive action in order to be seen as a leader, whereas in other cultures consultation may be a better approach. Additionally, the evaluation and meaning of many leader behaviors and characteristics may also strongly vary in different cultures. In a culture that endorses an authoritarian style, leader sensitivity might be interpreted as weak, whereas in cultures endorsing a more nurturing style, the same sensitivity is likely to prove essential for effective leadership (Hartog et al., 1999).
Research indicates that leadership exists in all societies and is essential to the functioning of organizations within societies (Wren, 1995). Because individuals have their own ideas about the nature of leaders and leadership, they develop idiosyncratic theories of leadership. As such, an individual’s implicit leadership theory refers to beliefs held about how leaders behave in general and what is expected of them. This type of attribution process provides a basis for social power and influence (Lord & Maher,1991). In recent years, decision-making models in business organizations have emerged as a significant factor in the determination of the organization’s success or failure.
Organizations require that individuals carry out job assignments dependably, make creative suggestions, and carry out self-training (Katz, 1958). However, the organization does not obtain all these behaviors simply through hiring the employee.Research has noted the distinction between membership and decision making behaviors required by organizations and the quite different sources of these behaviors.
In one such study, the motivation to acquire and keep organizational membership from productivity was distinguished (March & Simon, 1958). Membership motivation results from a favorable inducements-contributions balance. Employees must perceive a continuing favorable balance if they are to remain members. The motivation to perform represents a much more complex psychological contract between the individual and the organization involving perceived alternatives, perceived consequences of these alternatives, and individual goals (March & Simon, 1958).
Organizations have no choice but to provide membership motivation if they wish to remain organizations. Process or theories explain the operation of motivation, or the factors that influence an individual to choose one action rather than another. Process theories are subdivided into cognitive and non-cognitive approaches. Cognitive theories see behavior as involving some mental process. Non-cognitive theories see behavior as caused by environmental contingencies.
The major cognitive theories are equity theory, goal-setting theory, and expectancy theory. All of them focus on perceptions of the outcomes that flow from behavior.Equity theory suggests that motivated behavior is a form of exchange in which individuals employ an internal balance sheet in determining what to do.
It predicts that people will choose the alternative they perceive as fair. The components of equity theory are inputs, outcomes, comparisons, and results. Inputs are the attributes the individual brings to the situation and the activities required. Outcomes are what the individual receives from the situation.
The comparisons are between the ratio of outcomes to inputs and some standard. Results are the behaviors and attitudes that flow from the comparison, but other standards of comparison, including oneself in a previous situation, seem equally probable (Adams, 1965[MSOffice2] ). Goals setting theories argue that employees set goals and that organizations can influence work behavior by influencing these goals. The major concepts in the theory are intentions, performance standards, goal acceptance, and the effort expended. These concepts are assumed to be the motivation. Participation in goal setting should increase commitment and acceptance. Individual goal setting should be more effective than group goals because it is the impact of goals on intentions that is important.
In goal-setting theory the crucial factor is the goal. Tests of the theory show that using goals leads to higher performance than situations without goals, and that difficult goals lead to better performance than easy ones (Mitchell, 1979). Although participation in goal setting may increase satisfaction, it does not always lead to higher performance.Expectancy theory supports the contention that people choose the behavior they believe will maximize their payoff. It states that people look at various actions and choose the one they believe is most likely to lead to the rewards they want the most. This theory has been tested extensively.
It has been found that expectancy theory can do an excellent job of predicting occupational choice and job satisfaction and a moderately good job of predicting effort on the job. Expectancy theory implies that the anticipation of rewards is important as well as the perceived contingency between the behaviors desired by the organization and the desired rewards. The theory also implies that since different people desire different rewards, organizations should try to match rewards with what employees want (Mitchell, 1980).The way in which the social environment is interpreted is strongly influenced by the cultural background of the perceiver. This implies that the attributes that are seen as characteristic or prototypical for leaders may also strongly vary in different cultures (Hartog, et al.
, 1999). Hunt, Boal and Sorenson (1990) propose that societal culture has an important impact on the development of superordinate category prototypes and implicit leadership theories. They hold that values and ideologies act as a determinant of culture specific superordinate prototypes, dependent on their strength.The research in this area mentions three elements attributable to the leadership styles of different cultures; a stress on market processes, a stress on the individual, and a focus on managers rather than rank and file employees[MSOffice3] . As a result there is a growing awareness of need for a better understanding of the way in which leadership is enacted in various cultures and a need for an empirically grounded theory to explain differential leader behavior and effectiveness across cultures (House, 1995). Culture profiles derived from Hofstede’s theoretical dimensions of cultures, yield many hypotheses regarding cross-cultural differences in leadership. Hofstede’s dimensions of culture are: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity-femininity, individualism-collectivism, and future orientation[MSOffice4] . High uncertainty avoidance cultures, with the resulting emphasis on rules, procedures and traditions may place demands on leaders not expected in low uncertainty avoidance cultures (Hartog et al.
, 1999).According to Hofstede, innovative behaviors may therefore be expected in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Cultures that are more masculine are probably more tolerant of strong, directive leaders than feminine cultures, where a preference for more consultative, considerate leaders appears likely (Hartog et al., 1999). Research indicates that preferences for a low power distance in societies could result in other desired leader attributes than a preference for high power distance (Hartog et al.
, 1999). Other research indicates that managers in high power distance countries report more use of rules and procedures than do managers from low power distance countries. The most cited study, by Gerstner and Day (1994) focused on cross-cultural comparisons of leadership prototypes.
In this study, respondents completed a questionnaire asking them to assign prototypically ratings to 59 leadership attributes. Comparing the ratings from a sample of American students (n=35) to small samples (n= between 10 and 22) of foreign students from 7 countries, they found that the traits considered to be most, moderately or least characteristic of business leaders varied by respondents country or culture of origin. However, this study has several limitations; small sample sizes, student samples, only foreign students currently in the US to represent other cultures in the sample, and employing a not cross-culturally validated English-language trait-rating instrument (Hartog et al., 1999). Despite these limitations, presenting conservative biases, reliable differences in leadership perceptions of members of various countries were found.
Leveraging on Leadership Employee Motivation: Organizational Applications of Motivational Theories for Increased Performance and ProductivityIntroductionGlobalization and technological advancements are transforming both the character of the workplace and the quality of employees, making the task of organizational survival and competing in the market place more challenging for companies and managers (Gagne ; Deci, 2005). A global business is one of a geocentric nature where company assets in other countries influence the firm’s position in one country. The members of the company board of directors should reflect the nationalities represented in the business.
This brings diversity and market knowledge into the organizational culture (Ayman, Kreicker, ; Masztal, 1994).This following account discusses motivation and how managers can use it for a better, more profitable, efficient workplace. It likewise explores the different theories, concepts, and practices managers can use to motivate employees. It then concludes with resolutions that managers may consider in the implementation of motivational programs and initiatives. Moreover, it points out the importance of considering culture and leadership in the design and implementation of such initiatives.
As the workplace structure and workers themselves change, management faces the problem of how to motivate employees (Gerstner, 2002). Gerstner (2002) states, “How do you pull the levers of motivation to change the attitudes, behavior, and thinking of a population? Of course, different people are motivated by different things, some by money, some by advancement, and some by recognition” (p. 203). Effectively changing the attitudes, behavior, and thinking of workers demands that a manager knows what levers of motivation to pull in the first place.The following paragraphs focus on how organizations can concretely apply motivational theories to ensure that their employees are constantly highly motivated and productive.
The various motivational theories are presented in the subsequent section, with their respective applications to the industrial / organizational setting.Theories, Concepts, and PracticesMuch research has been done to identify proven theories and methods that managers can use to motivate their employees (Gagne ; Deci, 2005). All executives should provide motivation and direction to management levels according to business goals, mission, and vision.Companies have many challenges including global competition, economic dislocation, and corporate downsizing (Jusela, 1994). These challenges call for executives to assess and advance in improving performance and individual development in a global competitive environment (Porras ; Silvers, 1991). These transitions come from the challenging situations managers confront. It requires the development of new concepts and ideas.
Because of their experiences, global managers learn and adapt (Spreitzer, Mcall, ; Mahoney, 1997). Management encounters a variety of situations where motivating others is necessary.When referring to Abraham Maslow’s need-hierarchy theory, people are motivated by satisfying five levels of human needs: (1) Physiological (hunger and thirst); (2) safety (bodily); (3) social (friendship and affiliation); (4) esteem (for oneself and others); and (5) self-actualization (growth and realization of potential) (Chapman, 2004a).Basic biological needs. Maslow thought that an individual first seeks to satisfy basic biological needs for food, air, water, and shelter.
An individual who does not have a job, is homeless, and is on the verge of starvation will be satisfied with any job as long as it provides for these basic needs. When asked how well they enjoy their job, people at this level might reply, “I can’t complain, it pays the bills.”Safety needs. After the basic biological needs have been met, a job that merely provides food and shelter will no longer be satisfying. Employees then become concerned about meeting their safety needs. That is, they may work in an unsafe coal mine to earn money to ensure their family’s survival, but once their family has food and shelter, they will remain satisfied with their jobs only if their workplace is safe.
Safety needs have been explained to include psychological as well as physical safety. Psychological safety – often referred to as job security – can certainly affect job satisfaction. For example, public sector employees often list job security as a main benefit to their jobs – a benefit so strong that they will stay in lower paying public sector jobs rather than take higher paying, yet less secure, jobs in the private sector.Social needs.
Once these first two need levels have been met, employees will remain satisfied with their jobs only when their social needs have been met. Social needs involve working with others, developing friendships, and feeling needed. Organizations attempt to satisfy their employees’ social needs in a variety of ways.
Company cafeterias provide workers the place and opportunity to socialize and meet other employees, company picnics allow families to meet one another, and company sports programs such as bowling teams and softball games provide opportunities for employees to play together in a neutral environment.Ego needs. When social needs have been satisfied, employees concentrate next on meeting their ego needs. These are needs for recognition and success, and an organization can help to satisfy them through praise, salary increases, and publicity.
Ego needs can be satisfied in many ways. For example, many organizations use furniture to help satisfy ego needs. The higher the employee’s position, the better his office furniture.Self-actualization needs. Even when employees have friends, have earned awards, and are making a relatively high salary, they may not be completely satisfied with their jobs because their self-actualization needs may have not been satisfied yet.
These needs are the fifth and final level of Maslow’s needs hierarchy. Self-actualization may be best defined by the US Army’s recruiting slogan, “be the best that you can be.” An employee striving for self-actualization wants to reach her potential in every task. Thus, employees who have worked within the same machine for 20 years may become dissatisfied with their jobs. They have accomplished all that they can with that particular machine and now search for a new challenge.
If none is available, they may become dissatisfied.Needs TheoriesBecause of the technical problems with Maslow’s hierarchy, Aldefer (1972) developed a needs theory that only has three levels. The three levels are existence, relatedness, and growth – hence the name ERG theory. Research by Wanous and Zwany (1977) supported Aldefer’s proposed number of levels.
Other than the number of levels, the major difference between Maslow’s theory and ERG theory is that Aldefer suggested that a person can skip levels. By allowing such movement, Aldefer removed one of the biggest problems with Maslow’s theory.Still another needs theory, which reduces the number of needs to two, was developed by Herzberg (1966). He believed that job-related factors can de divided into two categories, motivators and hygiene factors – thus the name two-factor theory. Hygiene factors are those job-related elements that results from but do not involve the job itself. For example, pay and benefits are consequences of work but do not involve the work itself.
Similarly, making new friends may result from going to work, but it is also not directly involved with the tasks and duties of the job.Motivators are job elements that do concern actual tasks and duties. Examples of motivators would be the level of job responsibility, the amount of job control, and the interest that the work holds for the employee. Herzberg believed that hygiene factors are necessary but not sufficient for job satisfaction and motivation. That is, if a hygiene factors is not present at an adequate level (e.g. the pay is too low), the employee will be dissatisfied.
But if all hygiene factors are represented adequately, the employee’s level of satisfaction will only be neutral. Only the presence of both motivators and hygiene factors can bring job satisfaction and motivation. Herzberg’s theory is one of those theories that makes sense but has not received strong support from research. In general, researchers have criticized the theory because of the methods used to develop the two factors as well as the fact that few research studies have replicated the findings obtained by Herzberg and his colleagues (Hinrichis ; Mischkind, 1967; King, 1970).The final needs theory was developed by McClelland (1961) and suggests that differences between individuals stem from the relationship between a job and each employee’s level of job satisfaction or motivation. McClelland believed that employees differ in their needs for achievement, affiliation, and power.
Employees who have a strong need for achievement desire jobs that are challenging and over which they have some control, whereas employees who have minimal achievement needs are more satisfied when jobs involve little challenge and have high probability of success. In contrast, employees who have a strong need for affiliation prefer working with and helping other people. These types of employees are found more often in people-oriented service jobs than in management or administration (Smither ; Lindgren, 1978). Finally, employees who have a strong need for power have a desire to influence others rather than simply be successful. Research has shown that employees who have a strong need for power and achievement make the best managers (McClelland ; Burnham, 1976; Stahl, 1983) and that employees who are motivated most by their affiliation needs will probably make the worst managers.
Social learning theory postulates that employees observe the levels of motivation and satisfaction of other employees and model those levels. Thus, if an organization’s older employees work hard and talk positively about their jobs and their employer, new employees will model this behavior and be both productive and satisfied. The reverse is also true: if veteran employees work slowly and complain about their jobs, so will new employees.To test this theory, Weiss ; Shaw (1979) had subjects training videos in which assembly line workers made either positive or negative comments about their jobs.
After viewing a videotape, each subject was given the opportunity to perform the job. The study found that those subjects who had seen the positive tape enjoyed the task more than did subjects who viewed the negative tape.According to Adam’s equity theory, what workers put into their work (inputs) is fairly balanced with what they expect to get out of it (outputs). Motivation will get the most out of employees inputs like personal effort and hard work by making the employees see it balanced by outputs (salary, benefits, and intangibles like praise and achievement) (Chapman, 2004b).Inputs are personal elements that we out into our jobs.
Obvious elements are time, effort, education, and experience. Less obvious elements include money spent on child care and distance driven to work.Outputs are those elements that we receive from our jobs. A list of obvious outputs includes pay, benefits, challenge, and responsibility. Less obvious outputs are benefits such as friends and office furnishings.According to this theory, employees subconsciously list all their outputs and inputs and then compute an input/output ratio by dividing output value by input value. By itself, this ration is not especially useful.
But employees then compute the input/output ratios for other employees and to previous work experiences and then compare them to their own. If their ratios are lower than those of others, they become dissatisfied and thus are more motivated to make the ratios equal in one or more ways.Research on equity has recently expanded into what researchers call distributive justice and procedural justice. Distributive justice is the perceived fairness of the actual decisions made in an organization, whereas procedural justice is the perceived fairness of the methods used to arrive at the decision. As one would expect, employees who believe that decisions were not made fairly are less satisfied with their jobs (Lowe ; Vodanovich, 1995). To increase perceptions of procedural justice, organizations should be open about how decisions will be made, take time to develop fair procedures, and provide feedback to employees who might not be happy with decisions that are made (Jordan, 1997).
From equity theory, we conclude that employees who perceive they are being treated fairly will be more satisfied with their jobs than employees who do not perceive such fairness. The same holds true for motivation: employees who feel that they are not being treated fairly will feel less motivated than those who uphold such a feeling.In an interesting study, O’Reilly and Puffer (1989) found that employees’ motivation increased when co-workers received appropriate sanctions for their behavior. That is, when a high performing group member was rewarded or a poor performing group member was punished, the satisfaction of the group increased.The degree of inequity that an employee feels when underpaid appears to be a function of whether the employee chose actions that resulted in underpayment (Cropanzano ; Folger, 1989).
That is, if an employee chooses to work harder than others who are paid the same, he will not feel cheated, but if he is pressured into working harder for the same pay, he will be unhappy.Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory refers to three factors: (1) valence (value placed on the expected reward), (2) expectancy (belief that efforts are linked to performance), and (3) instrumentality (belief) that performance is related to rewards (Gagne ; Deci, 2005). Porter and Lawler built on Vroom’s theory by proposing a model of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. People are extrinsically motivated if they do something they find interesting and from which they derive satisfaction. Also people are extrinsically motivated if they do the activity because they are satisfied with the tangible or verbal rewards attached (Gagne ; Deci, 2005).All these theories may be said to be based on Skinner’s reinforcement theory, which refers to behavior being shaped, changed or maintained though the use of positive and negative reinforcement (Kearsley, 2005). This implies that a person can behave in a certain way through the use of motivational levers.
What motivates a manager (upholding the company’s prestige) may not be the same lever that motivates an employee (who may be working just to pay the mortgage). The manager’s job is to know which sets of levers will work for each employee (Gerstner, 2002).Motivation can be used to improve employee performance and productivity. Employees can be motivated to do their work better, that is, improving their work performance, and working more effectively to improve their productivity. One way is to share information (like profit and loss or quality of service) on how the employees’ department is doing in comparison with others in or out of the company (Bruce ; Pepitone, 1999).Getting employees warmed up is good, but it is not enough. After getting them initially motivated, the manager has to help each one establish and achieve higher goals. Motivation can be a useful tool in goal setting by pointing out targets that will bring employees out of their comfort zones (Hiam, 1999).
With goal setting, each employee is given a goal, which might be a particular quality level, a certain quantity of output, or a combination of the two. For goal setting to be most successful, the goals themselves should possess certain qualities. First, they should be concrete and specific (Locke, 1969). Setting more specific subgoals can also improve performance (Klawsky, 1990). Second, a properly set goal is high but reasonable (Locke ; Latham, 1990).Motivation is a useful tool, not only when setting higher work performance goals, but in assessing the success or failure of employee efforts.
Through the use of positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, managers can sustain organizational morale and help employees overcome falling enthusiasm or a lack of personal ambition (Heller, 1998).Providing feedback. To increase the effectiveness of goal setting, feedback should be provided to the employee on his progress in reaching his goal (Locke, 1969). Feedback can include verbally telling an employee how he is doing, placing a chart on a wall, or displaying a certain color of light when the employee’s work pace will result in goal attainment and a different color of light when the pace is too slow to reach the goal. Feedback increases performance best when it is positive and informational rather than negative and controlling.
An excellent example of the use of feedback comes from Domino’s Pizza. Each month, the average delivery and service times for each store are printed in “box scores” in the Pepperoni Press, the company’s newsletter (Feuer, 1987a). These box scores provide each store with feedback on how it compares with other stores. This feedback is one reason why Domino’s is the world’s fastest growing fastfood outlet. Rewarding excellent performance. Another set of theories hypothesizes that workers are motivated when they are rewarded for their behavior. As a result, organizations offer incentives for a wide variety of employee behaviors, including working overtime or on weekends, making suggestions, referring applicants, staying with the company (length of service awards), coming to work (attendance bonuses), not getting into accidents, and performing at a high level (Henderson, 1997).Operant conditioning.
Perhaps the most influential behavioral theory is operant conditioning, whose principles state that an employee will continue to do those behaviors for which he is reinforced. Thus, if employees are rewarded for not making errors, they are more likely to produce high quality work. If employees are rewarded for the amount of work done, they will place less emphasis on quality and try to increase their quantity.Obviously, it is important to reward employees for productive work behavior. But different employees like different types of rewards, which is why supervisors should have access to and be trained to administer different types of reinforcers. For example, some employees can be rewarded with praise, others with interesting work, and still others with money (Filipczak, 1993). In fact, a meta-analysis by Stajkovic and Luthans (1997) found that financial, nonfinancial, and social rewards all resulted in increased levels of performance. As a result, many organizations are offering travel awards rather than financial rewards (Poe, 1997).
For example, every executive at McDonald’s is allowed to nominate high performing employees for a chance to spend a week in one of the company’s condos in Hawaii, Florida, and Lake Tahoe, Nevada. At Motorola, managers can nominate employees for travel awards.The use of money to motivate better worker performance has again become popular (Schuster ; Zingheim, 1992). A compensation plan should always include base pay and a benefit package to provide employees with security, salary adjustments to cover such conditions as undesirable shifts and geographic areas which high costs of living, and variable pay to provide an incentive to perform better. Though incentive systems often result in higher levels of performance, when designed poorly, they can result in such negative outcomes as increased stress, decreased health, and decreased safety (Schleifer ; Amick, 1989; Scheifer ; Okogbaa, 1990). Incentive pay can be given for either individual performance of group performance.Boosting self-confidence is one of the best ways to maintain high levels of motivation in employees (Bruce ; Pepitone, 1999).
Therefore, a manager who believes in his/her employees can sustain higher levels of motivation. Not believing in employees can be fatal for the organization and the career of a manager.Increasing Employees’ Self-esteemSelf-esteem workshops. To increase self-esteem. Employees who can attend workshops or sensitivity groups in which they are given insights into their strengths.
It is thought that these insights raise self-esteem by showing the employee that he has several strengths and is a good person. For example, in a self-esteem training program called The Enchanted Self (Holstein, 1997), employees try to increase their self-esteem by learning how to think positively, discovering their positive qualities that may have gone unnoticed, and sharing their positive qualities with others.Outdoor experiential training is another approach to increasing self-esteem (Clements, Wagner, ; Roland, 1995). In training such as Outward Bound or the “ropes course”, participants learn that they are emotionally and physically strong enough to be successful and meet challenges.Experience with success.
With this approach, an employee is given a task so easy that he will almost certainly succeed. It is thought that this success increases self-esteem, which should increase performance, then further increase self-esteem, then further increase performance, and so on. This method is based loosely on the principle of self-fulfilling prophecy, which states that an individual will perform as well or as poorly as he expects to perform. In other words, if he believes he is intelligent, he should do well on tests.
If he believes he is dumb, he should do poorly. So if an employee believes he will always fail, the only way to break the vicious cycle is to ensure that he performs well on a task.Need for achievement. Employees who have a strong need for achievement desire and are motivated by jobs that are challenging and over which they have some control, whereas employees who have minimal achievement needs are more satisfied when their work involves little challenge. Employees who have a high need for achievement ate not risk takers and tend to set goals that are challenging enough to be interesting but low enough to be attainable. Employees with a high need for achievement need recognition and want their achievements to be noticed.
Individual differences theories postulate that some employees are more predisposed to being motivated than others. Such things as genetics and affectivity are involved in the extent to which some people tend to always be satisfied with their jobs and others always dissatisfied. However, rather than genetics and affectivity, self-esteem, need for achievement, and intrinsic motivation tendency are the individual differences most related to work motivationIt is a scientifically proven fact that men and women are different from each other (Ridley, 1999). They also differ in their motivational styles.
While men find it easier to motivate using the basic needs and tangible rewards, women may be better at using higher levels of needs and intangible factors (Gerstner, 2002). All good managers, regardless of gender, should combine their abilities to motivate using all the tools available (Sachs, 1995).Individual differences theory postulates that some variability in job satisfaction is due to an individual’s personal tendency across situations to enjoy what she does. Thus, certain types of people will generally be satisfied and motivated regardless of the type of job they hold (Weaver, 1978).
The idea also makes intuitive sense. We all know that people who constantly complain and whine about every job they have, and we also know people who are motivated and enthusiastic about every job or task.For this theory to be true, it is essential that job satisfaction be consistent across time and situations. Research seems to support this notion.
As a demonstration that job satisfaction is fairly consistent across time, significant correlations were found by Staw and Ross (1985) between the job satisfaction levels of employees in 1969 and in 1971 (r=.33), by Judge and Watanabe (1994) between job satisfaction levels of employees in 1972 and 1977 (r=.37), by Steel and Rentsch (1997) between measures of job satisfaction taken ten years apart (r=.37), and by Staw, Bell, and Clausen (1986) between adolescent and adult levels of satisfaction.Genetic predispositions. An interesting and controversial set of studies (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal ; Abraham, 1989; Keller, Bouchard, Arvey, Segal, ; Dawis, 1992) suggested that job satisfaction not only may be fairly stable across jobs but may also be genetically predetermined. Arvey et al.
arrived at this conclusion by comparing the levels of job satisfaction of 34 sets of identical twins who were separated from each other at an early age. If job satisfaction is purely environmental, there should be no significant correlation between levels of job satisfaction for identical twins who were raised in different environments and who are now working at different types of jobs. But if identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction despite their being reared apart and despite working in dissimilar jobs, then a genetic predisposition for job satisfaction is likely.On the basis of their analysis Arvey et al found that approximately 30% of job satisfaction appears to be explainable by genetic factors. Thus, one way to increase the overall level of job satisfaction in an organization would be to hire only those applicants who show high levels of overall job and life satisfaction. Because these findings are controversial and have received some criticism (Cropanzano ; James, 1990), more research is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn.
Core self-evaluations. Whether the consistency in job satisfaction is due to genetic or environmental factors, there appears to be a series of personality variables that are related to job satisfaction. That is, certain types of personalities are associated with the tendency to be satisfied or dissatisfied with one’s job. Judge et al. (1998) have hypothesized that these personality variables are related and involve people’s outlook on life (affectivity), view of their self-worth (self-esteem), ability to master their environment (self-efficacy), and ability to control their environment (external vs. internal locus of control). People prone to be satisfied with their jobs have high self-esteem, high self-efficacy, high positive affectivity, and an internal locus of control. Research supporting this view has come from Judge et al.
(1998), who found a significant correlation between a combination of these four variables and job satisfaction (r=.41), and from Garske (1990), who found that employees with high self-esteem are more satisfied with their jobs than are employees low in self-esteem. Results consistent with the core evaluation theory were reported by Dubin and Champoux (1977), who found that some people are happier in their jobs than people without this focus.
Life satisfaction. Judge et al. (1998), Judge and Watanabe (1993), and Tait et al. (1989) have theorized not only that job satisfaction is consistent across time but that the extent to which a person is satisfied with all aspects of her life (e.g. marriage, friends, job, family, geographic location) is as well. Furthermore, people who are satisfied with their jobs tend to be satisfied with life. These researchers found support for their theory, as their data indicate that job satisfaction is significantly correlated with life satisfaction.
Thus, people happy in life tend to be happy in their jobs and vice versa.ResolutionsMotivating workers well in these times of change demands a balanced combination of emotional and intellectual levers. Any manager should learn to use and combine as many needs, factors, modes of reinforcement, and outputs into their message as may be necessary to motivate their employees (Ridley, 1999). A manager can become a good motivator by knowing two things well: first, which tool or level of motivation will work for each and every employee, and second, how to motivate and communicate effectively with the use of positive reinforcement (Accel Team, 2005). Management practices which can serve as effective reinforcers include self-esteem work shops, flexible work arrangements, customized benefits packages, individual and team performance-based reward systems, among others. Each of these was discussed individually in the course of the paper.
Each employee is different thus their motivating factors vary from one and other (Ridley, 1999). The manager’s task should be to locate motivational factors of each individual or group in order to develop a motivational environment. This will assist the manager in creating a better working environment enhancing productivity and job satisfaction (Gerstner, 2002).Leaders and managers are the ones that provide motivation and vision to any organizational undertaking. The person should posses the capabilities, abilities, and skills of a leader in order to create a motivating, working environment (Gregersen et al.
1998). Only in having such effective and motivational leadership can the organization be assured of a healthy, sustainable, and committed workforce.Membership motivation results from a favorable inducements-contributions balance. Employees must perceive a continuing favorable balance if they are to remain members. The motivation to perform represents a much more complex psychological contract between the individual and the organization involving perceived alternatives, perceived consequences of these alternatives, and individual goals (March ; Sharipo, 1987). Organizations have no choice but to provide membership motivation if they wish to remain organizations.
Culture is a very critical factor to consider when drafting motivational programs or initiatives for employees and in judging which style of leadership is most apt. This is particularly true for organizations which intend to go global and who are bent on sending expatriates to their satellite offices offhshore. The research in this area mentions three elements attributable to the leadership styles of different cultures; a stress on market processes, a stress on the individual, and a focus on managers rather than rank and file employees[MSOffice5] . As a result there is a growing awareness of need for a better understanding of the way in which leadership is enacted in various cultures and a need for an empirically grounded theory to explain differential leader behavior and effectiveness across cultures (House, 1995). Culture profiles derived from Hofstede’s theoretical dimensions of cultures, yield many hypotheses regarding cross-cultural differences in leadership. Hofstede’s dimensions of culture are: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity-femininity, individualism-collectivism, and future orientation[MSOffice6] . High uncertainty avoidance cultures, with the resulting emphasis on rules, procedures and traditions may place demands on leaders not expected in low uncertainty avoidance cultures (Hartog et al.
, 1999).Research indicates that leadership exists in all societies and is essential to the functioning of organizations within societies (Weathersby, 1998). Because individuals have their own ideas about the nature of leaders and leadership, they develop idiosyncratic theories of leadership. As such, an individual’s implicit leadership theory refers to beliefs held about how leaders behave in general and what is expected of them. This type of attribution process provides a basis for social power and influence (Weathersby, 1998). In recent years, decision-making models in business organizations have emerged as a significant factor in the determination of the organization’s success or failure. Organizations require that individuals carry out job assignments dependably, make creative suggestions, and carry out self-training (Katz, 1958).
However, the organization does not obtain all these behaviors simply through hiring the employee. The right or optimal match between leadership style and motivational programs will thus lead to sustenance, if not an increase in employee’s productivity. In these times of cutthroat competition and dynamism across industries, leaders and HR practitioners ought to look more profoundly into the implications of motivational theories, and attempt to draft programs that leverage on these.
Ultimately, a highly motivated and empowered workforce is the most certain way of putting in more into the firm’s coffers.;;ReferencesAccel Team. (2005). Employee motivation in the workplace. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from http://www.accel-team.
com/motivation/index.html;Adams, J.S. (1965).
Inequity in social change. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
267-299). New York: Academic Press.;Aldefer, C.P.
(1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R.
N., ; Gasparishvili, A. T. (1998). Leadership styles and management practices of Russian entrepreneurs: Implications for transferability of Western HRD interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(2), 145-156.
Arvey, R.D., Bouchard, T.J.
, Segal, N.L., ; Abraham, L.M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192.Asel, P.
(2003). International Entrepreneurship Course Description. Retrieved June 6, 2005 from http://icp.gmu.
edu/course/syllabi/03fa/ITRN769-001.pdf.Ayman, R., Kreicker, N.
A., ; Masztal, J. J. (1994 Winter). Defining global leadership in business environments.
Consulting Psychology Journal, 46(1), 64-77.Bass, B. (1990). Bass ; Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: theory, research and managerial applications.
New York: The Free Press.Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A.
(1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 43-54.Brockhaus, R.
H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur.
In Kent, C. A., Sexton, D. L.
& Vesper, K. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp.
39-55). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Brockhaus, R., & Nord, W.
R. (1979). An exploration of factors affecting entrepreneurial decision: personal characteristics versus environmental conditions. Proceedings of the Academy of Management (pp. 364-368).Bruce, A.
, & Pepitone, J. (1999). Motivating employees. New York: McGraw Hill. Chapman, A. (2004a). Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Retrieved October 19, 2005, from http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.
htm Chapman, A. (2004b). Adams’ equity theory. Retrieved October 19, 2005, from http://www.businessballs.
com/adamsequitytheory.htmChapman, A. (2004c).
Frederick Herzberg’s motivational theory. Retrieved October 19, 2005, from http://www.businessballs.com/herzberg.htm Clements, C., Wagner, R.
J., & Roland, C.C. (1995). The ins and outs of experiential training. Training: Development, 48(2), 52-56. Cox, D.
(2001 August). Ten leadership characteristics. Innovative Leader, 10(8). Cropanzano, R. & Folger, R. (1989).
Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 293-299. Cropanzano, R. & James, K. (1990). Some methodological considerations of work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 433-439.
Dubin, R. & Champoux, J.E. (1977). Central life theory and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 366-377.Eggers, J.
H. & Leahy, K. T. (1995). Entrepreneurial leadership.
Business Quarterly. 59, 71-76.Emmerich, R.
(2005). Follow the ten commandments of employee motivation. Des Moines Business Record. 23(20), 26-27. Feuer, D. (1987a). Domino’s Pizza: Training for fast times.
Training, 24, 25-30. Filipszak, B. (1993). Why no one likes your incentive program. Training, 30(5), 19-25.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005a).
Self-determination theory and work motivation. Retrieved October 24, 2005, from http:// www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/publications/documents/2005_GagneDeci_JOB_SDTtheory.pdf Garske, G.G. (1990). The relationship of self-esteem to levels of job satisfaction of vocational rehabilitation professionals. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 27(2), 19-22. Gerstner, L. V. Jr. (2002). Who says elephants can’t dance? New York: HarperCollins. Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 21-32. Hartog, D., House, R., Hanges, P. Dorfman, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, A. (1999). Emics and etics of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Retrieved June 3, 2005 from http://jonescenter.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1999/wp99-02.pdf. Heller, R. (1998). Essential managers: Motivating people. (1st American ed.) New York: DK. Henderson, R.I. (1997). Compensation management: Rewarding performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World. Hiam, A. (1999). Streetwise motivating and rewarding employees. Holbrook, MA: Adams. Hinrichis, J.R. & Mischkind, L.A. (1967). Empirical and theoretical limitations of the two-factor hypothesis of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 191-200. Holstein, B.B. (1997). The enchanted self. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in 2111 century: A speculative inquiry. In Howard, A. (Ed.), The changing nature of work. San Francisco Jossey-Bass.Hunt, J. M., & Handler, W. C. (1999). The practices of effective family firm leaders. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 135-151.Jordan, K. (1997). Play fair and square when hiring from within. HR Magazine, 42(1), 49-51. Judge, T.A. & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 939-948. Judge, T.A. & Watanabe, S. (1994). Individual differences in the nature of the relationship between life and job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 101-107. Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C., & Kluger, A.N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34. Jusela, G. E. (1994). Meeting the global competitive challenge: Building systems that learn on a large scale. Boston, MA: Irwin Katz, D. (1958). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, pp. 131-146. Kearsley, G. (2005). Operant conditioning. Retrieved October 29, 2005, from http://tip.psychology.org/skinner.html Keller, L.M., Bouchard, T.J., Arvey, R.D., Segal, N.L., & Dawis, R.V. (1992). Work values: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 79-88. King, N. (1970). Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 18-31. Klawsky, J.D. (1990). The effect of subgoals on commitment and task performance. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Graduate Conference in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. Knoop, R. (1994). The relationship between importance and achievement of work values and job satisfaction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1), 595-605. Lawler, E.E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336. Lowe, R.H. & Vodanovich, S.J. (1995). A field study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction and organization commitment. Journal of Business Psychology, 10(1), 99-114.Maczynski, J. & Koopman, P. (2000). Culture and leadership profiles in Europe: some results from the GLOBE study. In Koslowsky, M. & Stashevsky, S. (Eds.), Work values and organizational behavior toward the new millennium. Proceedings of the Bi-annual Conference of the ISSWOV (pp. 385-391).March, J. G., & Sharipo, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33, 1404-1410.Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McClelland, D.C. & Burnham, D.H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 54(2), 102-104. McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Micklethwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (2000). A future perfect. The challenge and hidden promise of globalization. New York: Crown.Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. (3rd ed.) Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California. O’Reilly, C.A. & Puffer, S.M. (1989). The impact of rewards and punishments in a social context: A laboratory and field experiment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(1), 41-53.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.Poe, A.C. (1997). Productivity via paradise. HR Magazine, 42(10), 91-94.;Porras, J. I. ; Silvers, R. C. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42.;Rice, R.W., Gentle, D.A., ; McFarlin, D.B. (1991). Facet importance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 31-39.;Ridley, M. (1999). Genome, the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters. New York: HarperCollins.;Sachs, M. (1995). Men and women communication styles. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5280.html;Scheifer, L.M. ; Amick, B.C. (1989). System response time and method of pay: Stress effects in computer-based tasks. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 1(1), 23-39.;Scheifer, L.M. ; Okogbaa, O.G. (1990). System response time and method of pay: Cardiovascular stress effects in computer-based tasks. Ergonomics, 33(12), 1495-1509.;Schuster, J.R. ; Zingheim, P.K. (1992). The new pay. New York: Lexington Books.;Silin, R. (1976). Leadership and values. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.;Smither, R. ; Lindgren, H.C. (1978). Salary, age, sex, and need for achievement in bank employees. Psychological Reports, 42, 334.;Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W. ; Mahoney, J. D. (1997 February). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1).;Stahl, M.J. (1983). Achievement, power, and managerial motivation: Selecting managerial talent with the job choice exercise. Personnel Psychology, 36, 775-789.;Stajkovic, A.D. ; Luthans, F. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of organizational behavior modification on task performance, 1975-95. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1122-1149.;Staw, B.M. ; Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480.;Staw, B.M., Bell, N.E., ; Clausen, J.A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-77.;Steel, R.P. ; Rentsch, J.R. (1997). The dispositional model of job attitudes revisited: Findings of a 10-year study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 873-879.;Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. London: Penguin.;Tait, M., Padgettt, M.Y., ; Baldwin, T.T. (1989). Job and life satisfaction: A reexamination of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as s function of the date of the study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 502-507.;Tam, S. (1987). The making of Chinese managers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Institute of Personnel Management 10th Anniversary Conference.Tichy, N. M., ; Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader. (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Wanous, J.P. ; Zwany, A. (1977). A cross-sectional test of need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 78-97.Weathersby, G. B. (1998). Leadership at every level. Management Review, 87(6), 5.Weathersby, G. B. (1998). Leadership at every level. Management Review, 87(6), 5.Weaver, C.N. (1978). Job satisfaction as a component of happiness among males and females. Personnel Psychology, 31, 831-840.;Weiss, H.M. ; Shaw, J.B. (1979). Social influences on judgments about tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 126-140.;Wigglesworth, D. (1987). Is OD basically Anglo-saxon? Some potentially controversial thoughts on applying OD in other cultures. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 3(2), 76-98.;Yoshihara, K. (1988). The rise of ersatz capitalism in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.;Yukl, G., ; Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In Dunette, M. ; Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 147-197). (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting;[MSOffice1]You might provide a direct quote here from for example Bass or someone else since this point is critical for the motivation of your thesis.[MSOffice2]This is useful, but it would be good if you could also link the discussion of motivation more to leadership behaviors[MSOffice3]I don’t totally follow you here. Please explain more. Why just these three factors?[MSOffice4]I would briefly define these dimensions here[MSOffice5]I don’t totally follow you here. Please explain more. Why just these three factors?[MSOffice6]I would briefly define these dimensions here