Learning Organization and Human Motivation - Essay Example

 Learning Organization and Human Motivation Introduction We are called upon to evaluate this statement: ‘The manager who wants commitment, flexibility and creativity from employees is advised to provide them with lots of learning opportunities.’ We must determine what ‘lots of’ learning opportunities are, however. A learning opportunity (‘challenge’) to one person is the threat of change to another. Whilst all people are individuals with different learning styles and factors of motivation, most people still see their employment as a means to an end rather than an integral part of themselves. We shall examine the theories of organisational learning and human motivation, their strengths and weaknesses, and different management styles over time. As priorities of the world change, environments must change as well, and organisations change through ‘changing the behaviours of individuals’ (Stephen Kelner, 2000). As companies and corporations become larger and more complex, so do the responsibilities of management and the call for structured strategies. In our world of exploding technological changes, the burden of change upon individuals becomes greater and there is also the continual threat of downsizing or being replaced by automation. We shall critically examine learning theories and how they apply to the modern workplace in the light of the statement above. An Overview Of Motivation Theory There are innumerable theories regarding human motivation and especially over the past twenty-five years, these theories have provided a maze through which management has walked, trying this and that; some theories worked, others did not. Let us examine just a few theories that have withstood the test of time and are the core of the newer theories. We shall begin with the advent of Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs, since it was Maslow who countered Sigmund Freud’s statements of declaring people as inherently lazy creatures who are motivated at work only through reward, coercion, intimidation and punishment (accel Team, 2005). A. H. Maslow brought management and workers out of the dark ages and delivered them into a refreshing affirmation of themselves as human beings rather than animals. According to Mazlow, the highest needs of a human are self-esteem and self-actualisation (Maslow, 1943, pp 381 – 383). In the workplace (according to Maslow), the ability to exercise creativity and decision-making whilst practicing new skills is central to the self-esteem of the worker. In terms of management, the harbingers of change began to emerge as the workplace became less oppressive and more balanced between doing and learning. Still, there was work to be done in terms of addressing psychological needs of workers in terms of balancing rewards for incentives and motivational learning within organisations. Whilst an individual is hired on the basis of knowledge and skill for the task at hand, once in the work place, the individual needs the opportunity to climb higher, do better, if they so choose. This is where the balance of power can get sticky, for those in management also need to engage in learning and adapting to changing trends. If those on the higher end of the work spectrum fail to adapt and learn, those from below have the opportunity to move up and replace them; here is where fear becomes the motivating force, and its presence is counterproductive for all concerned. The most famous motivation theories, upon which nearly all current theories are based, originate from four theorists: Sigmund Freud (Theory X), A. H. Maslow Theory Y), Douglas McGregor (Theory XY) and William Ouichi (Theory Z). It must be noted that there are arguments regarding the authorship of Theories Y and Z; we are referencing them here with the corresponding theorists for the sake of cenvenience. In a nutshell, we shall install the core statements of each theory for purposes of clarity: Theory X: Work is inherently distasteful; most people are not ambitious, motivation is only at physiological and security levels, most people are self-centred, resist change and are unintelligent (Envision, 1998 – 2005). Theory Y: Physiological needs are of the lowest priority as motivation for learning; people strive for self-actualisation and in doing so are motivated to learn (accelTeam). Theory X-Y: Under favorable conditions, work becomes as natural as play, commitment fosters self-direction and creativity, most people can handle responsibility due to inherent creativity and ingenuity, and if adequately rewarded in regard to self-fulfillment, will commit to quality and productivity, seeking more responsibility (Envision). Theory Z: Combines American and Japanese management; promotes long-term employment, collective decision-making, self-accountability, holistic concern for employees and family (12Manage, 2005). It is obvious that of the four theories, Theory X is the least desirable scenario, yet it still exists in modern companies to some extent, especially in production floors. However, it has been adapted to more humanitarian practices. Theory Y introduced the need to address workers as intelligent, thinking beings with the need for larger vistas in terms of personal fulfillment. Theory X-Y emerged triumphant by modifying Theory Y and taking it to a higher level; then came Theory Z, which changed the face of the modern workplace, both for better and for worse, depending upon whose hands it was. Case Studies How do corporations turn themselves around, moving with changing populations and fad trends in motivational psychology? Admittedly, it seems that every successful corporation has employed it’s own spin on the above theories, making adjustments here and there as employee and customer demand changes. How does management keep its people engaged? British Airways is famous for its reforms and its ability to make radical changes in the past two decades by employing Theory Z: A ‘Putting People First’ training programme was deployed by then CEO Colin Marshall in 1983, and by 1986 all BA employees had attended the seminars, although its original intention was aimed at employees who had direct contact with customers (Grugulis and Wilkenson, 2001). The training programme managed to transform BA from a textbook Theory X corporation into a thriving Theory Z success story. The psychological morale of employees was significantly improved, and with the radical shift from mere production/transportation to a customer orientated teamwork focus, employees at BA enjoyed a much happier work atmosphere reflecting mutual support, creativity in problem solving. Four factors were introduced in the training, which had not existed in the company before: 1. Clarity and Helpfulness 2. Promoting Achievement 3. Influencing Through Personal Excellence and Teamworking 4. Care and Trust This training reflected a new indoctrination of employees, from mechanical cogs in a wheel to proactive, enthusiastic people. In order to change the organisation, the people had to be changed, as is the common practice. What BA did was put forth the question to the people: ‘What can you do differently’ (p. 15). While the new approach was effective as well as radical, it did come on the tail of fear due to dramatic cuts in staff just prior to the implementation of the new training practices. By the 1990’s with economic changes and yet another shift in business priorities, BA’s practices were under threat and needed to be changed yet again, as is the nature of business. With growing competition from other airlines and the common profit loss seen in the 1990’s, BA was forced to reshape its management policies and scale back. Where creative control was largely interactive between staff teams in the better days, BA now had to view employee learning and creativity only inasmuch as it benefited the company itself and its progress. This example demonstrates what whilst Theory Z is a very effective approach to employee motivation and commitment, it is effective only insofar as how much the company is willing or able to financially invest. BA had to, out of economic necessity, revert back to near Theory X practices, with vestiges of Theory Z remaining in place and less importance placed upon employee expression and participation in decision-making. Samsung has recently undergone a radical transformation as well, employing a modified combination of Theory X-Y and Theory Z. According to a report in the International Directory Of Business Biographies, Samsung’s CEO Yun Jong-yong turned the corporation around by employing ‘the Thee P’s:’ Product, Process and Personnel Innovation. Yun’s practise of allowing its technicians and subordinates greater autonomy ultimately streamlined Samsung’s organsation into a simpler, more efficient process by fully utilizing its employees’ talents and skills. As we can see from these examples, providing employees with ‘lots of learning opportunities’ is not enough; management also needs to give employees a chance to exercise what is learned and incorporate it into their lives. Ideally, what is learned through work is broad-based enough to be applied to life in general, but the ability to do that depends upon the individual to make the parallels. Whilst Theory Z takes an idealistic and visionary stance on management and motivation/learning, it should be clear that this theory could only ever be applied within the confines of participants’ cognitive abilities to execute them (Choo, 1991). The main objective of a company to implement changes is always economy-driven. In order transform or alter the performance of a company, the individuals that run the company at all levels must be transformed and altered as well. This is no easy task since individuals are complex beings, each with their own style of learning and set of values, not to mention culture. As organizations become more ‘people friendly’ due to the already rampant exposure to comparative models and theories of how workers should be treated, management is continually challenged to rise to increasing instability in a volatile and competitive marketplace whilst maintaining a good working environment for subordinates. Learning Organisations Building and maintaining effective organisations involve personal mastery as a core discipline (Kai Larsen, et. al., 1996). Larsen’s work explores the modalities of Peter Senge, whose name is synonymous with ‘organisational learning.’ In Larsen’s report, personal mastery is the ability to see situations as they really are, with clarity, before decision-making is used. Organisational learning is dependent upon the teamwork of its constituents and those individuals must assess where the company is and where it is trying to go. The necessary steps to reach the goal are then put into place through effective exchanges of information. In this method, management depends upon its staff to have the necessary information rather than being the level that supplies all of the answers. In this way, the creative force of the individuals can be put to productive use with the manager as the coach rather than the master. An organization is only as good as its individual thinkers, and since in many companies employees think defensively rather than creatively, this is what the organization will reflect. Effective learning and the factors of motivation do not exist in the vacuum of blame-shifting and clinging to their positions. This is what sets the learning organization aside from the mediocrity of traditional management-empowered organizations. Organisational learning is based upon effective communication, and this is not achieved without the continual striving of individuals to let go of defencive tactics and communicate in a clear and rational way, with regard to respect and open-minded exchanges of information. Employers have an opportunity to motivate their employees through open dialogue and a feeling of trust, combining to make for more productivity all the way around. In this way, the problem of ‘blaming’ is virtually eliminated; ‘systems thinking shows us that there is no outside, that you and the cause of your problems are part of a single system, and that poorly designed systems, not incompetent or unmotivated individuals, cause most organizational problems’ (Peter M. Senge, 1990) All too often in Theory X-type organisations, control is the primary motivator for management and this discourages employees from doing much else than following orders. Whilst this suits some people, it is an impossible situation for a sense of thriving. Tightly controlled organisations that do not allow for upward or lateral thinking from every level eventually erode as the more creative thinkers make themselves available elsewhere. Organisational learning has the advantage of training employees to engage in strategic thinking rather than emphasizing strategy itself (Robert L. Webb, 2003) This is important due to the rapidly changing environments in which businesses engage. A control-orientated company is less likely to be able to be able to deal with a crisis effectively due to limited resources. A company engaged in organisational learning and strategic thinking is more able to avoid a crisis in the first place. The commitment, productivity and motivation of employees increase proportionately as learning and effective workplace interaction increases. In these modern times, it is critical for any business to keep its employees engaged in continual learning, including exercising insight and the use of abstraction due to ever stiffening competition. Today’s workers must be more cohesive, systematic, cooperative and knowledgeable than was demanded in the past. How does management get its employees from here to there? The following list is used by Dr. Hubert Rampersad, of QM Consulting in the Netherlands: Organizational learning ability can be increased (Rampersad, 2002) by: ¨      Creating conditions whereby people are willing to apply their knowledge, share and intensively exchange it with each other ¨      Establishing the organizational structure in such a way that people get sufficient space and opportunities to gain experiences and think ¨      Stimulating employees to formulate their own Personal Balanced Scorecard and through this cultivate a positive attitude toward improvement, learning and developing. ¨      Letting employees reflect on the balance between their own personal ambition and the shared ambition of the organization ¨      Making an inventory of your learning style and aligning it to your personal ambition. Reviewing this periodically; aligning it to the planning, coaching and appraisal meetings and the 360˚-feedback system ¨      Establishing improvement teams in which a balance of personalities, skills and learning styles is present ¨      Developing and accepting self knowledge regarding their own favorite learning style and the ones of other team members ¨      Giving people a sense of direction based on a shared ambition and linking them to each other ¨      Working with teams where team learning is central; teams that think and act from a synergetic perspective, and are well coordinated, with a feeling of unity ¨      Using images, metaphors and intuitions to share and exchange implicit knowledge ¨      Working with self-directing teams in an organizational network, using generalists with ample responsibilities and competences and where there are knowledge overlaps and task rotations between employees ¨      Stimulating employees to think about, identify and solve common problems as a team, let go of traditional ways of thinking, constantly develop their own skills, let them acquire experience and let them feel responsible for company and team performances ¨      Having leaders who coach, help, inspire, motivate and stimulate, are action oriented, and constantly evaluate processes based on performance measures ¨      Having people who continually learn from their mistakes and openly communicate with each other, and constantly apply Deming’s and Kolb’s learning cycles in their actions ¨      Systematically working with problem solving methods (brainstorming, problem solving cycle, risk management, etc.) ¨      Giving feedback about improvement actions undertaken ¨      Applying an integral and system approach ¨      Implementing a knowledge infrastructure; internet, intranet, library, evaluation sessions, etc. ¨      Letting employees concentrate on everything that happens in the organization ¨      Stimulating informal employee contacts ¨      Driving out fear and mistrust from the organization ¨      Simplifying the organizational structure and management language ¨      Allowing mistakes. Without mistakes, there is no learning Conclusion Management who is interested in cultivating and keeping commitment, flexibility and creativity from its employees is advised to not only provide employees with lots of learning opportunities but creative and productive outlets to use what has been learnt. A company that engages in organizational learning is more likely to succeed in that aim, which is the lifeblood of the company, the community at large, and a healthy economy. Bibliography Alderman, M. K. 1999, Goals and goal setting. In Motivation for achievement: possibilities for teaching and learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ: Choo, Chun Wei. 1991, Towards an information model of organizations, The Canadian Journal of Information Science 16 (3) pp. 32-62 DeMartino, Manfred F.; Stacey, Chalmers L.; Allen, Howard. 1958, Understanding Human Motivation, Howard Allen, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. pp 259 - 262 Grugulis, I. and Wilkinson, A. May, 2001, British Airways: Culture and Structure, Loughborough University Business School. [Online] http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:pezfu5a3mZgJ:www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/bs/research/2001-4.pdf+management+practices+in+british+corporations&hl=en Huitt, W. 2001, Motivation to learn: An overview, Educational Psychology Interactive. [Online] http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/motivation/motivate.html Kelner, Stephen. 2000, Human Motivation and Organizational Mobilization, Center For Quality Of Management Journal. [Online] http://cqmextra.cqm.org/cqmjournal.nsf/reprints/rp11300 Kofman, Fred; Senge, Peter M. 1993, Communities of commitment: the heart of learning organizations, Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1993, vol. 22, no.2. pp. 5 – 19. Larsen, Kai; McInerney, Claire; Nyquist, Corinne; Santos, Aldo; Silsbee, Donna. 13 May 1996, Learning Organizations, State University at Albany. [Online] http://home.nycap.rr.com/klarsen/learnorg/#_Toc356579314 Maddock, Richard C.; Fulton, Richard L. 1998, MOTIVATION, EMOTIONS, AND LEADERSHIP: The Silent Side of Management, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, London. pp. 57 – 63. Maslow, A.H. 1943, A Theory Of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, vol. 50, pp. 370 – 396 Motivation Theorists and Their Theories, 2005. accelTeam.. [Online] http://www.accel-team.com/motivation/theory_01.html Motivation Theory X – Y, Envision Software, Inc. 1998 – 2005. [Online] http://www.envisionsoftware.com/articles/Theory_X.html Organisational e-learning case studies, 1994 – 2005, e-Learning Centre. [Online] http://www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/Resources/casestudies.htm Senge, Peter M. 1990, The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations, Sloan Management Review. Fall 1990, pp. 7 - 23 Theory X, Theory Y (McGregor) , Theory Z (Ouichi). 2005, 12Manage Rigor and Relevance. [Online] http://www.12manage.com/methods_mcgregor_theory_X_Y.html Rampersad, Dr. Hubert. 2002, Increasing Organizational Learning Ability Based On A Knowledge Management Quick Scan, Journal Of Knowledge Management Practice [Online] http://www.tlainc.com/articl40.htm Webb, Robert L. 2003, The Efficiency Of Learning Opportunities, Workplace Home Page. [Online] http://www.motivation-tools.com/workplace/learning_opportunity.htm ‘Yun Jong-yong, 1944 –‘. 2005, International Directory Of Business Biographies. [Online] http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/S-Z/Yun-Jong-yong-1944.html Read More