The literature concerning motivation and leadership is both confusing and conflicting. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt to present an overview of these concepts and how they are interrelated. The focus will be on those theories that seem to be logical on an intuitive basis and have benerally been accepted as having common sense validity.
Motivation can be viewed as an inner-state of an individual which causes him to make an effort to attain a desired goal. The individual has reasons for his behavior and these reasons make sense to him. The reasons of behavior are unsatisfied needs and the end result is need satisfaction, with behavior being the means by which needs are satisfied.
Three theories of motivation that are widely accepted are:
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory.
Herzberg’s Motivation-Maintenance theory.
Vroom’s Expectancy theory.
Maslow has suggested that man has five levels of needs arranged in a hierarchy of importance. Behavior is determined by the complete set of needs. As the needs at one level become reasonably well satisfied, the unsatisfied nature of the higher level needs begins to be felt. However, the major determinants of behavior are the needs at the lowest level in the hierarchy that are not presently substantially satisfied.
The hierarchy of needs is:
The physiological, safety and social needs are classified as lower order needs; esteem and selfactualization are classified as higher order needs. Lower order needs are satisfied externally to the individual, as for example, by compensation and working conditions. The higher order needs, on the other hand, are satisfied internally to the individual; they are concerned with his mental well being. In periods of individual economic prosperity, behavior is primarily determined by the unsatisfied high order needs and thus, at that time, a manager’s success in motivation of his employees depends upon his ability to establish work situations which contribute to the satisfaction of his employees higher order needs.
Herzberg has challenged the belief that the opposite of job satisfaction is job dissatisfaction. He suggests that the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction and the opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction. Herzberg’s theory is that certain aspects of the work situation are related to job satisfaction while other aspects are related to job dissatisfaction, and these job aspects are different and unique to each. Job aspects, which are related to the dissatisfying nature of the work situation, are labeled maintenance factors and include company policy, supervision, interpersonal relations, working conditions and compensation. The factors of achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth, advancement and the work itself are related to the satisfying aspects of the work situation and are labeled motivational factors.
Herzberg concludes that many managers mistakeningly attempt to motivate their employees by committing resources to the maintenance aspects of work. While this is beneficial to the employees, it only succeeds in reducing job dissatisfaction, resulting in employees that are not dissatisfied but also not motivated. According to Herzberg, the key to motivation lies in providing the employee with a meaningful work experience, one which fully utilizes the skills and abilities of the individual and provides a feeling of accomplishment and self-worth. To motivate an employee, the manager needs to increase the employee’s autonomy and allow for a significant degree of self-management.
Vroom’s theory is based upon the belief that there is no universal method for the motivation of people. A person’s motivation to produce depends on his personal goals and his belief that performance of a task is a means of attaining these goals. Productivity is the means of goal attainment; if the employee believes high productivity is a means to achieving his personal goals, he will tend to be a highly productive worker.
According to Vroom, the managers task is to create a linkage between effort and performance, between performance and organizational rewards, and between organizational rewards and individual-goal attainment. In order to establish this linkage, the manager must first determine what goals each employee is seeking to satisfy, for rewards need to be individualized.
From the brief review of these theories of motivation, it becomes clear that there is no simple solution to motivational problems. Motivation is tied to the individual’s being able to satisfy his own goals. The motivation of an individual to be a productive worker depends upon what he has already attained and what he is seeking to attain. In order for an individual to be motivated, his assigned task must fully utilize his skills and abilities and provide a feeling of accomplishment. The effort put forth by the individual toward the accomplishment of the organization’s goals depends upon his belief that the resulting organizational rewards will satisfy his personal goals.
Leadership is the process whereby one individual exerts his influence over others to cause them to willingly act iņ a desired manner. The managers task is to provide leadership for his subordinates so that their efforts are directed towards the successful attainment of organizational goals.
Leadership style refers to the manner in which a manager relates to his subordinates. Many different labels have been used to categorize leadership styles. However, most classification schemes fall into two categories: employee-centered and job-centered.
The employee-centered leadership style is associated with actions directed toward maintaining good interpersonal relationships between the manager and his subordinates. The manager-subordinate relationship is characterized by mutual trust, a high regard for subordinate’s feelings and respect for their ideas. The job-centered leadership style is that whereby the manager’s actions are concerned primarily with task accomplishment. This type of leader structures the jobs of his subordinates, closely supervises to see that assigned tasks are performed in the prescribed manner and relies heavily on his authority to get the job done.
Job-centered leaderş can produce impressive short-run results in terms of output, but unfortunately, they also tend to produce high rates of absenteeism, grievances and turnover. On the other hand, employee-centered leaders tend to have highly satisfied subordinates with lower rates of absenteeism, grievances, and turnover which may or may not result in greater productivity. Of the two styles, job-centeredness is more clearly associated with higher quality output.
A median position between employee-centered and job-centered seems to more closely approach an ideal. I will label this middle position as team orientation.
The team orientation manager has a high concern for both production and people. His emphasis is on building effective work groups with high performance goals. In team leadership, the manager’s responsibility is to see that sound decisions are made, not necessarily to make them himself. Concerning work methods, the manager gives his subordinates some freedom in deciding how best to accomplish their assigned tasks. The work need not be done in a specified manner solely because that’s the way it has always been done. As much as is possible, the subordinates assigned tasks are designed to provide them a meaningful work experience. In response, the subordinates are expected to use safe and efficient work methods and direct their efforts toward the accomplishment of the organizations goals.
A major difficulty with a team oriented leadership style is that there is no prescribed best way to guide the manager in exercising his managerial duties. For instance, when the manager is faced with a particular decision, should he make the decision himself or delegate the authority to make the decision to his subordinates? The evidence to date does not indicate that one alternative is always superior to the other. One important consideration is the expectations of the subordinates themselves. If the manager’s subordinates expect and desire to be involved in a decision, the manager who goes ahead and makes the decision himself will most likely damage the morale of his subordinates. Future cooperation may also become more difficult. But employee participation is not always best or advisable. Time-pressure may not allow for subordinate participation in the decision; at times they may lack the knowledge necessary if their participation is to produce a sound decision. Hence, at times the manager will have to make the decision even though his subordinates desire to be involved.
Koontz and O’Donnell have expressed a basic principle of leadership which I believe comes closest to indicating how a team-oriented leader should manage. This principle is: “Since people tend to follow those in whom they see a means of satisfying their own personal goals, the more managers understand what motivates their particular subordinates, how these motivations operate, and the more they reflect this understanding in carrying out their managerial actions, the more effective leaders they are likely to be.”
The basic principle of leadership combines motivational considerations with managerial action. It points out that the responsibility for motivation falls to the manager. If the manager relies strictly upon his authority to obtain subordinate effort, his subordinates will very likely work at about 60% to 70% of their capacity. If, on the other hand, the manager adheres to the basic principle of leadership, he will create an opportunity for a 100% effort by making it possible for his subordinates to be motivated in their work. Regardless of the particular situation, the manager has created an environment in which his subordinates are more able to satisfy their own needs while at the same time working toward the accomplishment of the goals of the organization.
I hope this brief overview of selected theories of motivation and leadership has provided you with some insights that will be useful in the day to day operations of your business.
Footnotes
↵1 Presented at the annual conference of The International Society of Arboriculture in St. Louis, Missouri in August 1976.
- © 1977, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
References
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.