Motivation Calculus Theory by Charles Handy - Essay Example

? Background Charles Handy is regarded as world’s advanced management thinker in his Motivation Calculus Theory and management ideas on organization culture. In the organization culture, he explained an organization as a setup where human resource work for a common goal and thus employees and external parties for production of goods and services where this interaction is determined by the organization culture. The organization culture results from certain values and follows set guidelines and policies that differentiate one organization from the other. Thus, this help in smooth organizational functioning with employees working in coordination to ensure quality deliverables and achieve targets within given period. According to Charles Handy’s model, the culture can be in four categories i.e. person culture, power and authority, role culture, and task culture (Handy, 1976). The Charles Handy idea of organization culture fits in into the Quinn Competing Value Framework theory of 1988 developed to conduct a research for indicators of effective organization which has two variants, that of management and leadership. Quinn came up with comprehensive list of indicators that influence company success focusing dimensions with the first one relating external vs. external and the second was flexibility vs. control. The two dimensions created a quadrant grid with each quadrant representing one of the four major organization model of management i.e. human relation model, open system model, internal process model, and rational goal mode (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 2009). In the Competing Value Framework, the four models examine how effective management plays all the roles and simultaneously balance with the competing demands of other sets of expectation. Therefore, the two perspectives have a common goal of ensuring cohesion between organization stakeholders to realize a success in the organization objective. How Charles Handy ideas fit into Quinn Competing Value Framework Charles Handy organizational culture is discussed under the four categories of culture and depicts a correlation in objective to the Quinn Competing Value Framework expounded in the four models. Handy’s power model of culture assumes that organization power of an organization power remains in a few individuals within the organization and they have authority to decision making. Such people delegate duties and responsibilities to their subordinate who have limited or no option other than to strictly adore their superiors’ instructions. In such a culture, employees have restricted liberty to share their ideas or views on open forums and can follow instruction given to them (Amos & al, 2009). Similarly, the other hand, Quinn in his human relation model view managers as the source of authority and should ensure control and cohesion of the subordinates managing interpersonal conflicts. However, Quinn assumes the manager as a facilitator should encourage teamwork cooperating human resource and mentoring in approachable manner, taking them not as isolated individuals but engage them in the development of workforce through training, care, and empathy. The two theorists have an agreement in sense that, for success of an organization, there have to be a central source of authority to manage the human resource and the activities to achieve objectives. When Quinn in his Open System model view people should not be controlled but inspired, likewise Charles Handy in Task Culture agree people in an organization can deliberately work as a team with common interest to achieve their target. Open System Model take note on those organizations are established by people and exists in an environment in which it have to adapt to changes. The people forming the human resource should be responsible and read to grow in their different field to facilitate effectiveness in their work (Black, 2003). Quinn also asserts that the organization will depend on external support to acquire necessary resources for production. These processes lead to creativity and innovation when the workforce puts up their efforts to a common goal. On the other hand, in Task Culture organizations teams form to realize a common target or aim at solving critical problem. Individual with common specializations and interests come together and lay down strategies to implementing their plan (O’Neill, 1993). Generally, in such culture every member of the team has to accomplish equal tasks or contribute equally in the most innovative way. In his Person Culture, Handy claims that there are organizations where employees feel themselves more important than the organization and take a back seat in activities of a firm. These employees rely on extrinsic motivations of rewards and incentives but not intrinsic type of motivated where one has inspiration because one is interested with the work itself and by achieving success is ones satisfaction. Handy states that organization interest should be considered first and personal interests late. Employees should have set goals and every individual should work to achieve these targets for any success of the organization to be realized (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 2009). Quinn in Rational Goal model assumes organization are based on making profit and thus members are entitled to emphasize on rational action by planning and setting themselves goals that result to efficiency in production. Thus, responsibilities are clear to everyone in their positions, objectives are stipulated, and there is action that is monitored and evaluated to have control of action. Both theorists in the two models assume there have to be control of action and flexibility of authority to encourage cohesion and team work, which results to efficiency and effectiveness in production. The Role culture by Handy assumes that duties and responsibilities are delegated to employees in accordance to their educational qualifications, interests, and specialization in view of extracting the best out of the work. In this culture, every employee can best fit and accept willingly challenges with each individual accountable for some piece of work or the other and take ownership to the responsibility assigned. In addition, common to Quinn Internal Process Model based on Maslow hierarchy assume these hierarchies can function best if tasks and duties are well set and all the stakeholders well understand their field. The models well distributes power to the organization personnel and individuals have control of their own are of specialization and position. It is an effective way to assist management in there monitoring of activities and different specialization receive immediate attention thus documentation, measures and information are managed effectively (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 2009). The two theorists have a common view on specialization, decentralization of control in activities that will ensure stakeholders can define well the organization, and problems arising are easily resolved since it is easy for each department to identify the root cause of such teething troubles in a company. Discussion Constructive cultures create a healthy communication link between employees and management and encourage people work as a team rather than individuals. in work environments where some positions involve complex work the Charles Handy idea of organization culture is efficient. When individuals complete tasks successfully, with courage, skill, and effort, they pursue a excellence standard by exploring alternative ways before acting. Organizations attain high quality products and services on challenging projects when they set challenging and realistic goals and have personal efforts thus achieving success. This idea also explores self- actualizing where one realizes and fulfills individual full potential (Smart & St. John, 1996). It ensures individuals think for oneself and simple tasks are effectively done thus leading to people desire to learn and experiment things, with high creativity and realistic thinking and thus balance concern for people and the organization activities. Charles handy encourages humanistic-encouragement to helping others grow and develop in their fields and specialization, which would her and organization attain quality ensuring effectiveness and efficiency. It is a way of reducing and mitigating risks among work force and enhances their sustainability and satisfaction of work. His idea also encourages affiliation and cooperation, treating other people more valuable than things and reflects an interest of management to sustain and develop pleasant relationships. This encourage sharing of feeling, thoughts, and ideas cooperating and making others feel as part of the team that optimizes effectiveness and efficiency. The competing value framework can find its use in organizational context. It has clear-cut models that can be applied as strategic tools for developing management and supervision programs. Organizations can also apply the model in diagnosing desired and existing culture to create an atmosphere where every individual feels proud to associate and instill a brand of quality among clients. The competing value framework models can be used as tool for examining organizational gats that lead to failure of achieving its goals. Such gaps result from management ineffectiveness, employees’ skills and qualification, organization culture, policies and ethics. Another area of use can be as a training tool for managers especially those on practice to help them understand and interpret various organizational processes and functions (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 2009). The framework states individual duties and responsibilities and departmental roles, thus management can oversee the different managements with ease insuring each achieves target in stipulated time. Another possible application is helping organizational members and stakeholders to better understanding the differences and similarities of managerial leadership roles. Organizations that institute constructive cultures inspire members to work to their capacity and potential, resulting in high levels of satisfaction, service quality, teamwork, motivation, and sales growth. Such cultures are evident in environments where quality is at the heart of the organization and valued over quantity, cooperation is key to better results rather than competition, and effectiveness and efficiency are judged at the system unlike the competition level. Constructive norms are consistent and supportive of the objectives behind empowerment, transformational leadership, re-engineering, learning organizations, and continuous improvement. Bibliography Amos, T., & al, e. 2009. Human Resource Management. Beverly Hills: Sage. Black, R. J. 2003. Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success. London UK: ISBN 1-58112-211-X. Bligh, M. C. 2006. Surviving Post-merger ‘Culture Clash'. Can Cultural Leadership Lessen the Casualties: Leadership, vol. 2: pp. 395 - 426. Handy, C. B. 1976. Understanding Organizations. Oxford University Press. O’Neill, R. &. 1993. Human Resource Management. Editor’s Note: Applications of the Competing Values Framework, vol 32, (1), 1-7. Quinn, R., & Rohrbaugh, J. 2009. Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science. A spatial model of effectiveness criteria, vol. 29,363-377. Smart, J. C., & St. John, E. P. 1996. A test of the "Culture Type" and "Strong Culture" hypotheses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education, vol.16(3), 219-241. Appendix The Competing Value Framework Organizational Effectiveness By Quinn Rohrbaugh Read More