Self-Actualization and Management Models - Essay Example

Self-Actualization and Management Models Table of Contents Introduction 3 2.Maslow’s “Self Actualization” 33.Maslow’s Eupsychian Management 4 4.Reconciling Maslows ideas with Mental Models 5 5.Implications for managers 6 6.Integration of Maslow’s Ideas into own style 7 7.The place of Maslow’s Ideas 9 8.Conditions for application of Maslow’s ideas 11 8.1.Inappropriateness of Maslow’s Ideas 11 8.2.Appropriateness of Maslow’s Ideas 12 9.Conclusion 12 10.References 14 1. Introduction Presently, the prevailing models of management are so diverse, with each proposing key theoretical foundations for a number of issues in the management practice such as motivation of employees, organizational performance, among other crucial aspects of the firm. A majority of these theoretical perspectives of management can be proven to espouse some relevance and validity both inside the working environment at the workplace and across different industries accordingly. Whereas Maslow’s series of assumptions are largely positive in nature, suggesting that people are inherently honest and that goodwill always overrides organizational behavior (Zemke, 1998), the rest of the models focus on results, metrics, profit and loss, or techniques for cultivating responses and behaviors among employees. This paper examines the manner in which the present disharmony between existing mental models in management practice and Maslows ideas (self-actualization and Eupsychian management) can be resolved. Similarly, this paper attempts to formulate a theoretical framework that can be followed in integrating Maslow’s ideas into a personal management style and the manner in which these ideas can be utilized, particularly in light of the prevailing theorists and the variety of human variance and capability. Finally, this paper will highlight the specific conditions under which Maslow’s ideas should be avoided in management as well as the conditions under which these ideas should be deployed. 2. Maslow’s “Self Actualization” The concept of “Self-actualization,” popularized by Abraham Maslow’s most influential Hierarchy of needs theory, refers to the highest possible stage of psychological development that can only be reached when and after the lower basic and mental needs of an individual have already been met or fulfilled (Hagerty, 1999). Maslow theorizes that individuals have a set of motivation systems that are not tied to rewards or unconscious desires; in that sense, individuals’ motivation to achieve certain needs is intrinsic, and they only seek to fulfill a higher need in their hierarchy of needs after a lower need has been fulfilled. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs identifies two main types of needs, the basic/deficiency needs including psychological, safety, affection, and esteem needs, as well as the growth need, which is essentially self-actualization (Rouse, 2004). If the deficiency needs are unmet, they naturally motivate individuals and the longer they are delayed, the more an individual is motivated; until all these are satisfied, individuals cannot reach their self-actualization. In Maslow’s view, individuals always naturally desire and are capable of moving up the hierarchy towards the level of self-actualization, but progress to this level is often interrupted by constraints in the environment that occasionally inhibit the fulfillment of lower order needs. 3. Maslow’s Eupsychian Management Eupsychian management, according to Maslow, refers to the “ideal management,” that which takes into account the constantly shifting sources of motivation for the different individuals at the workplace (Maslow, Abraham H. 1965); the Eupsychian management model is based on the premise that individuals’ sources of motivation change as they move away from basic needs towards self-actualization. For instance, whereas an individual may be highly motivated by a well-paying job at the onset of work, as time goes by things like creativity, independence, or finding meaning in the job one does may be greater sources of motivation than how much they are paid. In that respect, the ideal management or “Eupsychian management pays attention to the ever-shifting nature of the sources of motivation for different employees as they progress up the hierarchy of needs by organizing the work environment in such a way that matches the unique needs of different people at the work place. 4. Reconciling Maslows ideas with Mental Models Mental models often denotes the beliefs, ideas, perceptions, understandings or assumptions that individuals form, either consciously or unconsciously, from their experiences, which after being formed become the lenses through which individuals view and interpret the world they live in. Mental models actively shape individual’s perspectives thereby determining their attitudes, actions, outcomes, as well as relationships with others (Banks & Millward, 2000); mental models range from simple generalizations like “people are untrustworthy” to complex theories. In the organizational context, the prevailing mental models of management often determine organizational behavior; in most cases, management may fail to translate many innovative ideas into meaningful strategic actions simply because they do not fit in with the prevailing mental modes of the management, which are greatly at odds with reality (Drucker, 1998). In practice, a manager who believes that employee performance is determined by the level of employee satisfaction will work towards enhancing working conditions to make sure that employees are satisfied with working for the organization. The present mental models in management practice can be related to Maslows idea of self-actualization and eupsychian management by first reexamining, and altering management attitudes and behavior accordingly. Evidently, the complex and dynamic global business environment today consequently renders the prevailing mental models of management irrelevant, thereby necessitating the need for managers to evaluate, test, and improve their mind frames constantly in order to transform the manner in which they perceive the business environment in which they operate for organizational success accordingly (Rousseau, 1997). 5. Implications for managers Maslow’s theory of eupsychian management has great implications for practicing managers today; generally, this theory plays a significant role in inspiring managers to create more humanized workplaces even in the face of the constantly shifting nature of the global business environment (Jerome, 2013). Evidently, practicing managers are tasked with the responsibility of establishing varying personnel policies that are suitable for all the different people in different situations for them to be motivated to be effective and efficient rather than assuming the one size-fits-all model of organizational motivation. Since different people have different needs at the workplace, it naturally implies that their sources of motivation will naturally vary significantly and whereas one strategy of motivation may work very well with some employees, it may not necessarily work with the rest. This implies that practicing managers must recognize and acknowledge the fact that as individuals move up the hierarchy of needs from basic needs towards the highest level of self-actualization, their needs keep shifting progressively, and so does their respective sources of motivation. In other words, matching organizational motivation strategies to the unique and varied nature of its workforce is inevitably the most effective way that practicing managers can achieve enhanced organizational performance. Nonetheless, practicing managers must examine their mental models, which if static, might hinder the translation of innovative ideas at the workplace into meaningful actions, thereby constraining organizational performance accordingly. Practicing managers need to undertake the discipline of mental models management, which entails the constant tracking, testing, and improvement of the mind frames or internal images that influence the manner in which individuals perceive their environment. The constantly shifting global business environment makes it imperative that managers too adapt to the new trends in the most effective manner possible for them to beat competition while ensuring organizational profitability as well as survival in the long term. In that case, practicing managers need to move away from the status-quo or familiar way of doing things to embrace new, innovative, and revolutionary business ideas that can transform their organizations into high performance organizations. In order to transform their organizations, practicing managers need to transform the manner in which they perceive the business environment in which they operate first, by monitoring, testing, and shifting their mental models accordingly. Clearly, Maslow’s theory of eupsychian management and ideas of self-actualization have greater implications for practicing managers especially today, due to the rapid changes taking place in the global business environment, fast rendering conventional mental models irrelevant. 6. Integration of Maslow’s Ideas into own style The first step in integrating Maslow’s ideas into a personal management style is to establish the different sources of motivation for all the people that make up the uniquely diverse workforce population that is found at the workplace (Ugah & Arua, 2011). Maslow’s ideas make it evident that people are satisfied as long as they are engaged in something that they consider being important to them at that particular time; in that case, individuals need motivation for them to be actively engaged and dedicated to their tasks at the workplace. Understanding the intricate dynamics of organizational motivation for the diverse employee population will greatly enhance organizational behavior, thereby achieving the intended outcomes of enhanced worker motivation and performance accordingly (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010). The core of personnel policies in the personal management style will be the recognition of the varying needs of the workforce, through the establishment of a composite organizational motivation strategy to cater for everybody. Firstly, the work design will be flexible enough to allow the employees amble rest periods or breaks from work alongside attractive pay packages that are commensurate to the work done, to ensure that employees meet their physiological needs. After the physiological needs have been fulfilled, employees’ safety needs will be satiated through provision of both workplace safety in addition to emotional safety in form of health insurance and retirement benefits. The leadership will then embark on ensuring that employees’ social needs such as the need for social interaction at the workplace are fulfilled through the incorporation of social events into the corporate culture; similarly, the introduction of project teams to complete tasks will create a sense of belonging and participation among the employees thereby fulfilling their social needs accordingly. The leadership will ensure that all employees are acknowledged and respected to make them feel valued by the organization thereby remain dedicated and committed to it in the long term. The workforce is clearly the most crucial asset to any organization and the only way to retain a team of highly talented and effective employees who are committed to the firm is to keep them engaged in tasks and to welcome their contribution to the business. By listening to the employees’ opinions and contributions to the business, leadership will be fulfilling their esteem needs by making them feel respected and highly valued by the organization, which they work for, thereby becoming highly motivated, and committed to it accordingly. In this respect, the leadership will go beyond monetary rewards of performance to recognize outstanding individual performance by friendly verbal praises since they are often powerful and self-gratifying gestures of appreciation that go a long way in meeting the advanced esteem needs. Finally, having fulfilled all the deficiency needs of the workforce, leadership will now focus on ensuring that employees have access to growth opportunities to achieve their optimum potential in life towards their own self-actualization accordingly. to that end, leadership will ensure all the employees get challenging yet meaningful goals through which they can push themselves harder while achieving their full potential and becoming the best they could ever be at their work. 7. The place of Maslow’s Ideas There is evidence of many more theorists and theories of motivation besides Maslow and his self-actualization and Eupsychian management approach—the prevailing theories of motivation fall into two major groups, content theories, and process theories. On one hand, content theories including Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory, McClelland’s Needs theory, as well as Herzberg’s Two-factor theory focus on individual needs and the multiple factors that either encourage or discourage behavior within an individual (Riley, Shannon 2005). On the other hand, process theories including Vroom’s Expectancy Theory as well as Adam’s Equity Theory are much more complex, and focus on the thinking process of individuals, trying to explain the “how” and “why” of motivation. All these theories can be proven to a remarkable extent to yield some relevance as well as validity not only within the work environment itself, but also across different industries in the highly complex and dynamic global business environment. In most cases, the people that work for organizations differ on so many levels, starting with their individual personalities, needs, as well as capability at the workplace, and this makes motivation a challenging task that all organizations must engage in to bolster performance of their workforces (Manzoor, Q. 2012). In light of the many other theorists and their varied contributions as well as the wide variety of human variance and capability, Maslow’s ideas can be utilized effectively by establishing a composite personnel motivation strategy that takes care of the varied workforce needs concurrently. Effective managers should be able to identify the complex dynamics in needs of their workforce and strive to meet all of them, to ensure that all the employees are well motivated in their work situations. Nonetheless, managers should always remember that not all the needs are equal, since some needs that the employees have are more pressing and more important than the rest at a given time depending on their level of operation in the five-tier hierarchy of needs. In that case, managers must strive to meet all the lower level needs before the higher level needs can serve as motivators since when the lower needs have been satisfied completely then their impact on behavior diminishes. Managers must acknowledge that besides their capability, individuals always naturally desire to move up the hierarchy towards the level of self-actualization, but progress to this level can only be done after the satisfaction of lower needs. Probably the most important thing for managers to remember is that individual’ sources of motivation change as they move away from basic needs to self-actualization; in that respect, practicing managers can utilize Maslow’s “Eupsychian management ideas effectively by paying attention to the ever-shifting nature of the sources of motivation for different employees as they progress up the hierarchy of needs. Ultimately, organizing the work environment in such a way that matches the unique needs of different people at the work place will most likely yield more motivation for the different types of people found at the workplace thereby enhancing organizational performance effectively. 8. Conditions for application of Maslow’s ideas 8.1. Inappropriateness of Maslow’s Ideas Maslow’s management ideas should be avoided entirely in very large multinational organizational workplaces since the unique and diverse cultural as well as individual differences in their workforce populations are so broad to be catered for even by the most comprehensive motivation scheme. In other words, the fact that Maslow’s theory assumes that people often experience needs in the same order irrespective of their cultural and individual orientations is largely limiting its effective application in these multinational organizations. Evidently, large organizations comprise of different cultures and a unique workplace diversity that may largely impinge on any attempt to try to classify employees based on their needs, especially given that different societies value different things in life more than they do others. For instance, in collectivist societies, social needs may be taken more seriously than physiological ones since the active engagement in the collective group life guarantees satisfaction of these physiological needs. In these societies basically, none of the needs are possible without social connection as well as collaboration since individuals become increasingly reliant on each other as society becomes progressively complex, more interconnected and specialized. In that case, in collective societies, social connection is a much more pressing need and more so, a prerequisite for both physical and emotional survival; furthermore, needs are not hierarchical as naively conceptualized by Maslow. Instead, needs are heavily anchored on individuals’ capability to establish and maintain meaningful social connections with each other in the society, and belonging to a certain community gives individuals a sense of security and agency, which makes them happy and satisfied. 8.2. Appropriateness of Maslow’s Ideas Maslow’s ideas are most effective in smaller regional organizations that are more likely to have a nearly localized and uniform workforce population, whose needs are easily identifiable and are not so uniquely varied. The most crucial aspect in the application of Maslow’s ideas is inevitably the difficulty of identifying the specific needs that contribute to the motivation of each of the employees in a diverse workforce population. In most cases, it has been found that the needs of employees are bound to vary greatly depending on the level of the individual, the size of the organization, as well as the geographical location of the company itself (Wachter, 2003). In view of these constraints, it appears that the only time when Maslow’s ideas can be effective is when the workforce population is relatively smaller and not so differentiated to enable the easy location of workforce needs. In a smaller workforce population, it becomes easier for the management to pinpoint the different sources of motivation for each employee thereby initiating a composite personnel motivation strategy that will cater for the needs of each individual at the workforce rather than simply adopting a one size-fits-all approach. By appealing to a workforce’s lower end needs, the organization automatically diminishes their impact on behavior, which necessitates the need to shift focus to higher end needs; that way, the organization is able to keep everybody happy and satisfied at the same time. 9. Conclusion Ultimately, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory and Eupsychian management are still inspirational to management and relative in today’s business organizations that constantly seek to obtain better results and to push for higher operational performance in order to beat competition in the highly complex and dynamic global environment. Clearly, different individuals at the workplace will inevitably have varying needs at different times depending on their level in the hierarchy of needs; thus, organizations should focus on the shifting nature of sources of motivation for their different employees by developing composite personnel motivation strategies that cater for the needs of all the people. Nonetheless, the effective utilization of Maslow’s ideas remains problematic in practice, particularly given that the needs that contribute to employee motivation at the workplace vary so greatly depending on the level of the different individuals, the size of the organization, as well as the geographic location of the firm in the globalized market economy. In that respect, Maslow’s ideas should be avoided in very large multinational organizational workplaces since the unique and diverse cultural as well as individual differences in their workforce populations are so broad to be catered for effectively by any personnel motivation scheme, however comprehensive it may be. Maslow’s ideas are most effective in smaller regional organizations that are more likely to have a nearly localized and uniform workforce population, whose needs are easily identifiable and are not so uniquely varied. 10. References Manzoor, Q. (2012). Impact of employees motivation on organizational effectiveness. Business Management and Strategy,3(1), 1-12. Maslow, Abraham H. (1965). Eupsychian Management: A Journal. Illinois: Richard.Irwin, Inc. and the Dorsey Press. Riley, S. (2005). Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of Motivation Applied to the Motivational Techniques within Financial Institutions. Senior Honors Theses. Paper 119. Jerome Nyameh. (2013). Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory: Impacts and implications on organizational culture, human resource and employee’s performance. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(3): 2319 – 8028. Rouse, G.K. (2004). Beyond Maslows hierarchy of needs: What do people strive for? Performance Improvement, 43(10), 27-31.  Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710-718. Hagerty, M. R. (1999). Testing Maslows hierarchy of needs: National quality-of-life across time. Social Indicators Research, 46(3), 249-271. Ugah, A. D., & Arua, U. (2011). Expectancy theory, Maslows hierarchy of needs, and cataloguing departments. Library Philosophy and Practice, , 1-4.  Wachter, K. (2003). Rethinking Maslows needs. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 95(2), 68-69.  Banks, A. P., & Millward, L. J. (2000). Running shared mental models as a distributed cognitive process. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 513-31. Zemke, R. (1998). Maslow for a new millennium. Training, 35(12), 54-58.  Drucker, P. F. (1998). Managements new paradigms. Forbes, 162, 152-177.  Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 515-46.  Read More