Management and Theories for Motivation of Employees - Essay Example

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y Background: The 50’s and 60’s saw a number of theories that were developed for motivation of employees. Scholars andbusinesses had now realised that employees were not just numbers within an organisation but were the main source for the businesses performance. In light of this scholars and psychologists have worked on defining and categorising what would motivate employees within an organisation (Famous Models, 2008). Theory X and Theory Y: Douglas McGregor was an American social psychologist who believed that there are two ways of motivating people within an organisation. Focusing on this he developed the theory X and theory Y, which has been used in the human resources management, organisational behaviour and organisational development for years now. He introduced his theory in his book ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ which was published in 1960. He maintained that there were two main ways of managing people. His theory acts as a reminder to the managers who under normal pressure forget the rules of managing people within an organisation (Leadership, 2006). Theory X: This theory assumes that an average employee: Do not like work and if given an option would prefer to avoid work, Do not have any ambitions, Do not want responsibilities, Prefer being lead than to lead, Are not open the changes, Do not care about the organisational goals and are very self-centred, and Are not very intelligent and thus can be very gullible. The theory was based on the main assumption that employees work only for money and security. Approaches to the theory: McGregor classified the management approaches into two main categories: The Hard Approach: This approach for the management was based on compulsion, threatening, tight controls and very close supervision. The management was expected to build an environment of command and control where employees would have to follow all the rules set down by the management. This approach however was not the optimum approach as it led employees to become very de-motivated and result in low productivity, unwillingness to cooperate with management and resentment. The main reason for the hard behaviour of the management was based on the assumption that most people do not like work and only commanding and control would make people work. This resulted in managers utilising the authoritarian approach of leadership where employees would work only under the threat of punishment. The Soft Approach: Unlike the hard approach this was a completely different approach where the management would require building an environment of harmony within the organisation for employees. The main reason and aim behind this approach is that if employees are treated with a soft approach the employees would reciprocate by working harder and cooperate with the management when asked to do so. This approach based on the assumption that employees would cooperate when requested, this however was not the case. Management realised the approach resulted in the employees requesting for more rewards for lesser work output. This is an extreme approach and it was noticed that the approach resulted in making employees lazier with endless requests for rewards. Both these approaches have their own flaws and were both extreme cases. The ideal management approach would have been somewhere between the two approaches. However it is to be noted that the basis of the theory itself is incorrect (Johns, 2008). Problems of Theory X: McGregor argued that the concept put forth by Maslow – The Hierarchy theory was based on the satisfaction of needs however the satisfied need no longer motivates the employees. Theory X however does make firms rely on money and benefits to satisfy employee’s lower needs, which once met the source of motivation is lost. Theory X has put a lot of importance on the money factor for employees. The theory aims at satisfying the lower needs of the employees and taking care of the higher needs leisurely. This however is not very useful in increasing the motivation of the employees since satisfying the higher needs would make the employee more productive. For all the above mentioned reasons McGregor formulated theory Y, to over come the flaws of theory X. Theory Y: This theory assumes on the basis of the integration of individuals and organisational goals: Work is as natural as rest and play thus employees do not dislike work, If an employee is committed to a job they would be self motivated and self directed, Rewards plays a very important role and makes people more committed when higher needs are fulfilled, With all the above factors employees will seek responsibilities, Almost every individual can handle responsibility since ingenuity and creativeness is common. These goals allow employees goals to be in line with the goals of the organisation. McGregor also emphasised on the fact that some people are not mature enough to meet up to that assumed within the theory hence a hard approach is used until the employees reach the level of maturity. Implications on Management: Using theory Y the firm can make a number of changes to improve the energy levels of the employees, like decentralising and delegating which would lead the managers to delegate their responsibilities to the subordinates thus making the employees responsible for decision making. Also the theory makes it possible to increase the jobs which add variety for the employees thus satisfying the ego needs of employees. Also it allows employees to participate in the management by being a part of the decision making and also allows for performance appraisal where employees can set their own objectives and evaluate the progress of the objectives. Theory Y if correctly implemented in an environment would result in employees being highly satisfied and motivated to satisfy higher levels of their personal needs (Leadership, 2006). Conclusion: The X theory by McGregor has not been very useful. It is very evident from the problems of the theory that the theory has been a complete disaster and there have been a number of managers who have tried utilising the theory in the organisation and have faced the problem of employees being very de-motivated. However the theory Y has proved to be a very useful theory and is being followed by a lot of companies till date. McGregor is aware of the fact that some of the theories put forward by him are not realisable in practise however his main aim is to make organisations realise that employees will be more productive and effective if they are treated as responsible and valued employees (ACCEL, 2008). It is very evident from the nature of theory X that McGregor had not put in too much of a research before introducing theory X and due to the lack of research the theory turned out to be a complete disaster. Also the assumptions made by the scholar in this theory were very incorrect and not the optimum way to motivate employees. Theory X Theory Y (Business Balls, 2008) References – Theory X and Y ACCEL, 2008, ‘Human Relations Contributors’, Accessed on 18 October 2008, Retrieved from http://accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_03_mcgregor.html Business Ball, 2008, ‘XY Theory Diagram’, Accessed on 18 October 2008, Retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com/mcgregorxytheorydiagram.pdf Famous Model, 2008, ‘Motivation Theories’, Accessed on 17 October 2008, Retrieved from http://www.chimaeraconsulting.com/motivation.htm Johns, K., 2008, ‘Motivation Theory X’, Accessed on 17 October 2008, Retrieved from http://essay.studyarea.com/Old_Essay/Business/motivation_theory_x.htm Leadership, 2006, ‘Leadership - motivation and Douglas McGregors X and Y theory’, Accessed on 17 October 2008, Retrieved from http://www.leadership-basics.com/leadership-motivation-X-andY-theory79.shtml Herzbergs Motivation-Hygiene Theory Background: Frederick Herzberg an American Psychologist was the first ever to introduce the concept of job enrichment. Herzberg is considered to be an original thinker of management and motivational theories (Business Balls, 2008). His book ‘The Motivation to Work’ in 1959 was the first to provide the motivational theories at work places. Herzberg took great care to ensure the theory was well developed and for this he and his colleagues made the extra effort of ensuring the accuracy of the information they received before deriving the theory. Research: Herzberg and his colleagues used a pioneering approach to collect data for the research. He aimed at analysing the factors that influenced the job satisfaction of the employees and thus conducted a survey with a sample of people who were asked what they liked best about their jobs and what they disliked about their jobs. He used a different approach where he used ‘critical incidents’ from the survey respondents, to analyse the factors that caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction at work. Using the results from the interviews Herzberg came up with the ‘Two factor theory of Motivation’. He explained that there were two main factors: a) Motivators and b) Hygiene Factor which were the main cause for job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Business Balls, 2008). The figure below explains the theory in a clearer fashion. Hygiene factors are merely a launch pad - when damaged or undermined we have no platform, but in themselves they do not motivate. Main Theory: Herzberg’s based his theory on two main factors: Motivators (Job Content): These are the needs of employees to improve performance. These factors arise when the employees are not dissatisfied but are unmotivated. Hygiene Factors (Organisational Context): These are needed to ensure that employees are not dissatisfied. These factors do not lead to higher motivational levels however it ensures that the employees are not left dissatisfied (VBM, 2008). Herzberg reasoned that the factors that caused satisfaction are different from those that cause dissatisfaction hence the two feelings cannot be treated as opposites. He explained that if a person is not dissatisfied it does not mean that the employee is satisfied, similarly if an employee is satisfied does not mean that he is not dissatisfied. Even though the two sound very similar, there is a vast difference between the two. The argument by Herzberg portrays two distinct needs of humans. He classified the needs to physiological and psychological. The physiological needs of humans can be fulfilled by money however the psychological needs can be fulfilled only by growth and achievement. The prevalence of dissatisfaction is not related directly to the work however it is an external factor. Herzberg refers to the hygiene factors to be short term as they only provide employees with a short term kick start but fade over a period of time (Buchanan, 2004). Theory and Management: If the management utilizes this theory within the organization, it is essential that the employers provide not only the hygiene factors but also the motivators to ensure that employees are satisfied with their jobs. Herzberg has argued that motivating an employee is a continuous process and requires the motivators to be provided constantly. He also emphasized on the need of the job to be challenging enough so as to fully utilize the employee’s ability, also if employees did show progress at work, the levels of responsibility should be increased. He emphasized this so much due to the fact that if an employee is given a job which does not utilize his full ability the employee would be de motivated and uninterested in the job (Solcum, 2006, Buchanan, 2004). Conclusion: Herzberg theory has been accepted world over however there are a number of critics who argue that it is a natural human behavior to take up the credit of satisfaction and blame external factors for dissatisfaction. This theory even though its weaknesses has however been accepted well as it takes into account the factors that truly motivate employees rather than the short term factors. It is very evident from the theory Herzberg has conducted the research very carefully before arriving at the theory. The research that was conducted to result to the theory was well thought out and analyzed all the factors that would cause an employee to be satisfied as well as dissatisfied. This is one of the best theories as it has a wider perspective and clearer aims. References – Herzberg Theory Business Balls, 2008, ‘Frederick Herzbergs motivation and hygiene factors’, Accessed on 18 October 2008, Retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com/herzberg.htm and http://www.businessballs.com/herzbergdiagram.pdf (Diagram) Buchanan D. and Huczynski A., 2004, Organizational behaviour, 5th edn, Prentice Hall, Essex Slocum, J. W. and Hellriegel, D., 2006, Fundamentals of Organizational Behaviour, Thomson South-Western, USA VBM, 2008, ‘Hezberg: Two Factor Theory’, Accessed on 18 October 2008, Retrieved from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_herzberg_two_factor_theory.html Read More