The Concepts of Organizational Culture - Case Study Example

Report on Google and Yahoo, Short essay tasks Assignment 010) Introduction Every organization requires to know what they are doing and how things will be done. It is imperative for an organization to ensure that an organization has efficient operation of its business activities and that the roles of each worker are stipulated. Organizational structure, design and culture play an imperative role in organizational effectiveness and success. This is because they assist an organization to comprehend itself and enable the workers to work together to achieve all the tasks and achieve all the objectives of the company. These are aspects that an organization cannot neglect in its development. The concepts of organizational culture, structure and design have received considerable attention within organizational theory in the past decade. Researchers, consultants and mangers, have gravitated to the conception of culture, structure and design to encompass the special approach to life and creation of meanings which evolve within an organization. Different organizations have different organizational structures, designs and cultures. These aspects define the roles of each worker in the organization and the way its activities are done. Therefore, this paper will discuss in detail the organizational structure design and culture of Google and Yahoo Companies. Organizational culture, structure, and design are a new and different conception in understanding organizations. Yahoo incorporation is one of the renowned companies in the world for its internet services. It is an American company that offers search engine services, web portal, internet directory, news, finance and advertising. Some of the services offered by Yahoo Company include “Yahoo Directory, Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Finance, Yahoo News, and Yahoo Answers” (Media Relations, 2005). It is one of the most renowned search engine and social media sites not only in United States but also in the world. According to Media Relations (2005), approximately seven hundred million people use its internet services every month. It offers its services in more than 30 languages across the world and claims that it attracts an estimate of five hundred million people per month (Media Relations, 2005). Yahoo Company was established in 1994 by David Filo and Jerry Yang and incorporated in 1995. The organization’s CEO is Marisa Mayer who was one of the Google’s executive officer. The two founders established the company while at Stanford University. When they created the company, they first named it as “Jerry’s guide to the world wide web”. Initially, the “Jerry’s guide to World Wide Web” served as an information bank of other websites. It changed its name to Yahoo in 1995. Yahoo is an ellipsis for “Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle”. The phrase “hierarchical” delineates the manner in which the company catalog is assembled in levels and subdivisions. The phrase “Oracle” aims at implying “source of truth and wisdom” while “officious” delineated the many office employees who would use it (Media Relations, 2005). Over the past years, the company has continuously developed and recorded high profits and incomes. It has continuously unveiled new products and services, and ventured into mobile services (Media Relations, 2005). This progress has been seen through the able leadership of its board of directors and the CEO. This company aims at making people’s daily activities and habits entertaining and inspiring. It keeps its patrons connected across the world. Yahoo incorporation faces stiff competition from Google Company. Google is an American company that offers internet services and products. Such products and services include cloud computing, software, search, and advertising technologies. Google was established by Brin Sergey and Page while studying in Stanford University in 1996 (Google, 2013). These two founders own about 17 percent of the stake of the company. They later incorporated the company in 1998. The company’s mission statement revolves around organizing the world’s information and making it accessible an accessible to everyone in the world. The company has grown over the past few years triggering a chain of acquisitions, products, services and partnerships beyond the internet search engine services. The company offers internet software including electronic mail, social networking and office suite. The company has ventured into mobile phone software where it leads innovator of Android mobile phone operating system. The company has ventured a lot into the communications hardware by partnering with primary electronic producers across the world (Google, 2013). Google Company operates an estimate of one million servers across the world, with more than one billion search requests every day. According to CNBC (2007), Goggle is the most visited search engine and website across the world. Just like Yahoo, Google offers its search services in different languages. It is one of the best performing corporations in the world. Google Company also owns You Tube and Blogger sites. This company started as a research project. It was initially referred as “BackRub” where it only analyzed other websites to determine their relevance. It was later named Google, and started working under Stanford University’s website (Google, 2013). The company is headed by a CEO. The multifaceted contacts between employees and workers in Google are seen as determinants of behavior in the place of work (Eliud, 2012). It is one of the companies with a unique organizational culture. Part I: Structure and Design Organizational structure implies an organization’s hierarchy of people and departments and the flow of information. Structure of an organization is similar to the human skeleton. This is because it establishes the shape that a company takes. In this regard, organizational structure determines the reporting associations and work teams organization. It determines a great deal of the organization’s culture, leadership and function. On the other hand, organizational design refers to the process of selecting and adopting a structural configuration (Daft, 2010, p. 218). In essence, organizational design involves the choices made about how to structure the organization. Organizational structure and design may be used interchangeably. Organizational structure gives the framework around which the organization is arranged and how it functions. In essence, an organization’s structure determines how and when information is conveyed as well as who makes the decisions as according to the information provided (Miner, 2007, p. 146). This makes organizational structure essential for decision making. In most organizations, regardless of the structure, the lower employees report to the top level managers who use the available information in making decisions (Daft, 2010, p. 220). However, the structure of the organization affects the decision making process. An organization with a flat organizational structure makes quicker decisions faster than an organization with a tall organizational structure. Organizational structure is particularly significant in communication in the organization. This is because the structure in an organization assists in the distribution of power. Whenever an organization employs people, they know from the first day whom they will report. Organizations channel their communication through the supervisors and the heads of departments. For instance, marketing or sales representatives will discuss marketing issues and matters with the marketing director or manager, who in turn discusses such issues with the vice president or the CEO of the organization. An organization with a department organizational structure and design has its functions divided according to departments. In this case, the CEO is at the top of the company’s hierarchy, followed by other vice presidents, department heads or directors and the other employees. In product organizational structure, the company divides responsibilities and roles according to the product type. In a matrix organizational structure, the organization combines at least two or more organizational structures (Bloisi et al, 2006, p. 234). This organizational structure is mostly present in large corporations with interdepartmental projects and activities that cut across the operations of the company such as Google Company. Google’s Structure and Design Google has a unique organizational structure than most of the companies in the market. After the company was established by Brin and Page, they had to set the structure of the company differently (Eliud, 2012). Google Company has a cross-functional organizational structure with few attributes of an organic structure, which the company sustains through its cable leadership and innovative supervisory practices. It is because of its organizational structure that the company is the best company to work. The company is headed by a chairman or a CEO followed by numerous vice presidents. This structure shows the configuration of positions, lines of authority and job responsibilities. Google’s structure represents the goals of the organization. It clearly shows who is in power, has the authority and the different roles carried out be employees in the organization. According to Google (2013), the company’s organizational structure and design was influenced by the company’s goals and size. Google’s organizational structure is advantageous to the company and has made the company reap many benefits. Functional organizational structure increases the company’s effectiveness and efficiency. This is because it gives clear lines of authority, responsibility and communication. One of the benefits of the clear-cut lines of authority is smooth management. Google’s employees understand the boundaries between each other’s work and accountability of each. Since decision making is centralized, this provides a sense of direction to the organization. Needless to say, the employees communicate and coordinate with other departments and within their departments (Eliud, 2012). This functional structure groups Google’s employees according to their skills and expertise, which optimizes on their skills and knowledge. One of the notable advantages of Google’s functional structure is cost effectiveness. This is observed because grouping employees with similar skills and expertise together ensures that there are no repeated equipment and personnel in different departmental, thus saving on money (Eliud, 2012). The range of activities within a department is wider than it would be if it were stretched across the organization. This allows for specialization and creativity leading to efficiency and productivity increase. Unlike a pure functional structure, where the hierarchy is an impediment to change, its hierarchy and networks of management are fluid and can change in response to modifications and alterations in the market (Google, 2013). The organic structure attributes in its functional structure allows Google to develop new products every day. This is because there are no procedures of innovation. However, though this structure gives the workers a sense of belonging, it may create a divide between the employees. This may cause a decline in the communication between the departments, leading to lack of easy harmonization and collaboration. In this case, Google’s company may suffer a situation where its managers become bigoted, putting the departments ahead and forgetting about the other departments. In addition, functional structures are criticized for their inflexibility. The flexible nature of Google’s structure determines the organization’s culture. Google’s structure is typified by the “70-20-10 rule”, which is a managerial directive. This allows employees to be creative and innovative. This contributes to the open communication between the employees and the company executives (Kelly, 2012). This encourages employees to communicate directly with the employees and encourages them to take risks. In addition, the organizational structure of Google is typified by a situation where the organization allows employees to set goals for themselves. The company controls the employees through their set objectives. The employees are assessed on a quarterly basis according to how they have attained their goals (CNBC, 2007). In addition, the company allows the employee to evaluate themselves in order to determine where they can improve. Google Organizational Chart Yahoo’s Structure and Design Yahoo Incorporation has a matrix organizational structure. Unlike Google, which has had one organizational structure after establishment, Yahoo has continuously changed its structure. The recent change took place in October last year after the company experienced huge losses. The matrix organizational structure is embedded on the company’s primary divisions focused on technology, advertisers and users (Jones, 2012). A matrix structure divides authority by project and functional area. In this structure, the employees within the organization answer to three supervisors. The technology supervisor or director oversees the technological advancement of the company, while the advertisers’ director oversees the advertisement and the user’s director oversees the different categories of users. This organizational structure absorbs workers from different functional areas. Therefore, in this organization, the employees are under more than one functional department (Jones, 2012). This structure allows the organization to move workers to any team within the organization whenever their services are required. This structure allows exposure on the employees to other skills and experiences. This is because the employees have constant contact with other employees in other functional areas. Through this, the employees take part in different teams, which expose them to other skills and expertise. In addition, since the employees are in constant contact with other employees in different functional areas, Foremski (2013) notes that communication between them is swift and fluid. This also allows the workers in teams to tackles issues and challenges within the organization. This structure allows workers to be flexible within the organization. This is because the employees can be used across different organizational projects (Jones, 2012). In addition, this structure increases the employee’s motivation. This is because the leaders within the organization practice democratic leadership style where the inputs of the employees are considered before making any decisions. However, this structure presents challenges to the organization. This structure results to internal difficulties where the employees are confused about their supervisors and whom they will be reporting to (Guthrie, 2013). Since the employees receive different instructions from different managers and supervisors, this may create problems among the managers and result to ineffectiveness. This in turn leads to miscommunication among the employees and their supervisors. Yahoo’s Organizational Chart Comparison between Google’s structure and Yahoo’s structure The primary similarity between Yahoo and Google is that they are both headed by a CEO and a board of directors. The other similarity arises from the benefits that the businesses reap from the structures. Both Google’s organizational structure and Yahoo’s structure increase the company’s effectiveness and efficiency. Both organizations have a centralized decision making process that provides a sense of direction to the organization. Needless to say, the employees communicate and coordinate with other departments and within their departments. On the other hand, the two organizational structures have differences. The primary difference between the organizational structures is the ability to cope with change. The organic-functional structure of Google allows for the organization to embrace change and innovation. On the other hand, Yahoo’s matrix structure is adversative in the internet industry. This is because it is an impediment to change in an organization. Google’s structure is cost effective while Yahoo’s structure is costly. Part II: Organizational Culture The concept of organizational culture has received considerable attention within organizational theory in the past decade. Researchers, consultants and mangers have gravitated to the conception of culture to encompass the special approach to life and creation of meanings which evolve within an organization. Different organizations have different organizational cultures. Culture is a new and different conception in understanding organizations. Over years, different scholars and authors have defined organizational culture differently. In reference to Miner (2007), “organizational culture refers to the shared values and beliefs over time, which produce behavioral norms that are adopted in solving problems” (p. 134). These ideals help in binding the organization together. In contemporary turbulent organizational environments, organizations are promoting a culture that according to Miner (2007), promotes, flexibility, change and innovation to achieve success (p. 143). An organizational culture assists in uniting employees from different walks of life. Organizations have people from different demographics, backgrounds, and traditions. Organizational culture is one of the key building blocks of loyalty and motivation among workers in an organization. Whenever employees feel as part of the organization, they will want to be part of its success. This brings a sense of accomplishment and hard work among the workers. Google’s Organizational Culture Google upholds an organizational culture that creates an attractive, favorable, and expedient environment for work. Organization should provide a pleasant and comfortable environment for its workers. For this reason, Google provides a favorable environment where all diverse people can work. Kelly (2012) reports that there is a sense of unity among the Google employees, they all feel that they are a part of a team that is aimed at attaining Google’s goals (p. 36). Hofstede developed an organizational culture model that captures culture in four values (Hofstede, 2001); “power distance index, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance index” (P.134). Particular organizational norms comprise an organization’s culture. In essence, the content dimension of culture refers to specific values, norms and styles that characterize the organization. Google’s success is rooted to its exceptional organizational practices, norms, values, and core proficiencies. Notably, Google realizes “the thought-power of its employees” is the most valuable resource (CNBC, 2007). Arguably, Google’s principle of success lies not only on its capable technology but also on its ferociousness to formulate innovative and profit-oriented projects (Kelly, 2012). Google employs “70-20-10 Rule” in its management. This implies that the staff can spend 70 percent of their working time on primary business roles, 20 % on related business roles and 10 % on areas of their desire. Google views mistakes and errors as tools for learning where the employees attempt to carry out outrageous thoughts (Kelly, 2007). Debatably, Google has centered its employee motivation on performance appraisals. Miner (2007) asserts that performance appraisals centers on the development anxieties of any organization (p.232). Google has tried to improve performance appraisals among its employees through increased spotlight on the provision of performance response. In addition, unlike many other organizations Google focuses less on worker characteristics and aesthetics. Google focuses less on the worker dressing (CNBC, 2007). CNBC (2007) reports that Google allows employees to wear casual wear to work, skate board, play pool tables, use the swimming pool, play volley ball and access free massage. This provides a suitable environment for the young graduates who consider wearing suits and tie uniform intimidating. Attending work at Google looks as if it is a prolongation of high school. Google provides a no dress code environment. The informal mood around the working environment of Google has played a valuable part in its success. In reference to the CNBC (2007), Google provides workers with “exercise balls and bicycles which decorate the office space where employees work in small groups furnished comfortably”. Moreover, workers are allowed to come to work along with their pets. Communication in organizations serves a number of fundamental purposes. Studies focusing on improvement among corporations assert that organizational communication is ranked as a primary element within an organization. Miner (2007, p. 313) suggests that communication within organizations serve four major roles which include motivation, control, information and expression. The “Googley” way of work communication process is open and free. This serves as a tract through which suggestions, ideas and insights to spawn change and innovation in the organization. Communication also keeps and retains values and associations essential to retain the system of Google organization. The founder and upper management of Google encourage its employees to extend communication among themselves and in departments. Communication is evident at the restaurant during any meals in the afternoons. CNBC (2007) reported that the employees interact freely during the meals at the restaurant. Some of the employees confess that they even have a lot of fun at work than at home. Kelly (2012) asserts that Google embraces employee equality. In reference to Hofstede (2001), worker equality refers to equal distribution of roles and values between the genders in the work place. In Google, women receive the same modest, caring values as men. According to the report by CBNC (2007), women and men enjoyed the same facilities offered by the company. The report showed both men and women having fun with the exercise balls provided at office spaces. In addition, women and men equally use the gymnasium and the car wash facilities. Among the items listed by CNBC (2007), there was no discrimination in their use. In reference to Kelly (2012), Google has embraced different people from different ethnic backgrounds and genders. Yahoo Organizational Culture Recently, Yahoo Incorporation changed its organizational culture. Initially, the telecommuters would work at home, but have been pulled to work at the company offices. The company had workers based at their homes. According to Guthrie (2013), this was aimed at tailoring policies that would give workers benefits and restructure the organization. Numerous attributes have typified Yahoo’s organizational culture. Yahoo is one of the companies that promote innovation among its employees. Since the new CEO, Meyer, the company has encouraged engineering innovation among the workers (Foremski, 2013). This is seen where the organization offers some “me” time to the employees where they can come up with innovations. This has immensely contributed to the continued success of the company over the past years. According to Kong (2013), Yahoo promotes teamwork and group working. The recent move by the Company CEO was aimed at getting the employees to the office in order to create collaboration and cohesiveness among its employees. Currently, engineers work in teams while acting on projects. These teams are free in regard to their projects and the way they work on them. Team work depends on how well the employees communicate and relate to each other. Team work in Yahoo is promoted by effective communication between the upper management, the engineers and project managers. Organizational communication is one of the pillars of the company’s organizational culture (Foremski, 2013). Yahoo espouses an organizational culture that creates a striking, positive, and convenient environment for work. Yahoo provides a favorable environment where all diverse people can work. Kong (2013) reports that there is a sense of unity among the Yahoo employees, where they all feel part of the team aimed at achieving the company’s objectives. Just like Google, Yahoo has employees from different walks of life. Different employees come from different backgrounds. Therefore, the company treats all its employees equally. There is equal distribution of roles and values between the genders in the work place. In Yahoo, women receive the same modest, caring values as men. They are all treated equally without discrimination (Kong, 2013). However, Yahoo has been criticized for being mediocre. This is because numerous reports have indicated the company hires mediocre and average workers. This has, to some extent, lead to unattractive launching of products and services that would have been otherwise attractive and enticing (Foremski, 2013). A company like Yahoo is a complex organization. People at different levels within the organization contribute to this convolution through seeking new ways of achieving their strategic objectives. Human moral forces interject another degree of complexity in the workplace, which cannot be dealt with through a system or process change (Kong, 2013). The CEO, Mayer, has sought opportunity in the human and organizational intricacy. She has created an environment in the organization where all aspects of the organization interact to bring change. Differences between Google’s and Yahoo’s Organizational Culture In the contemporary business environment, worker independence is a primary ingredient of happy workplaces. Workers who feel free to contribute in ways they deem sensible make better employees. Google embraces worker freedom where the employees have the freedom to design their work days with the “70-20-10 rule”. This has contributed to innovation within the organization and employee satisfaction. On the other hand, Yahoo’s CEO seems to have kept the freedom for herself and reluctant in sharing it. This creates inequality and disparity among the staff members (Guthrie, 2013). Unlike Google, Yahoo does not allow its employees to come with casual wear to work, skate board, play pool tables, use the swimming pool, play volley ball and access free massage. Yahoo has a dress code and does not promote the informal dress code that Google promotes. In addition, it does not provide a suitable environment for the young graduates who consider wearing suits and tie uniform intimidating. Conclusion A company’s organizational structure, design, and culture play a fundamental task in its success. Organizational structure gives the framework around which the organization is arranged and how it functions. An analysis of the organizational structures and designs of Yahoo and Google reveals that they determine how and when information is conveyed as well as who makes the decisions as according to the information provided. This makes organizational structure essential for decision making. As portrayed by both Yahoo and Google, organizational structure is particularly significant in communication in the organization. These are imperative aspects in evaluating the performance of employees. Moreover, the structure of an organization is particularly significant in attaining the company’s goals and objectives. On the other hand, organizational culture helps a company attract the best talent and skills in the industry. Google’s interesting, attractive and convenient organizational culture has helped it attract the best skills and talent across the globe. Both Yahoo and Google have successfully combined technological creativeness with organizational structure. Though the organizational structure has its demerits, it provides employees with a favorable working environment that promotes creativity and innovation and motivates them. References Bloisi, W., Cook, C. W., & Hunsaker, P. L. 2006. Management and Organizational Behaviour. (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. CNBC. 2007, April 18."Work in Google." CNBC. Daft, R. L. 2010. Organization theory and design. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. Eliud, K. 2012, February. Organizational Structure of Google. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.managementparadise.com/forums/human-resources-management-h-r/214496-organisational-structure-google.html Foremski, T. 2013, February 28. Yahoo seeks to reboot notorious company culture. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.zdnet.com/yahoo-seeks-to-reboot-notorious-company-culture-7000011929/ Google .2013, January. Our history in depth – Company – Google. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.google.com/about/company/history/ Guthrie, D. 2013, March 8. Marissa Mayer: Choosing Corporate Culture over Worker Independence - Forbes. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougguthrie/2013/03/08/marissa-mayer-choosing-corporate-culture-over-worker-independence/ Hofstede, G. Culture’s consequences (2nd edn). 2001.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jones, B. 2012, April 10. Yahoo CEO outlines new corporate structure USATODAY. Retrieved April 2013, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-04-10/yahoo-restructuring/54155950/1 Kelly, C. 2012, Apr. "O.K, Google, Take a Deep Breath." New York Times [New York] Kong, D. 2013, February 25. Yahoo and the office – a story of company culture. Retrieved April 27, 2013, Media Relations 2005. Yahoo history. Retrieved April 2013, from http://docs.yahoo.com/info/misc/history.html Miner, J. B. 2007. Organizational Behavior: From theory to practice. M.E. Sharpe. Assignment 2 (011) Question 1 (Option 2) Motivation Most people start their new employment with passion and vigor, but lose their drive when supervisors fail to motivate them. It is often a challenge to organizations when the most valuable and experienced workers lose their commitment and motivation they once felt (Daft, 2012, p. 118). One of the secrets to success in an organization is engaged and motivated workers. Motivation is a challenge because it arises from within workers and differs among them. Motivation refers to the forces within or external to an individual that arouse eagerness and vigor in quest for a certain course of action (Schwartz, 2001, p. 120). Worker motivation influences productivity, and the role of the manager is to channel motivation to ensure progress and success of the organization. People have needs such as achievement, recognition and monetary gain, which translate into an internal tension that motivates certain behaviors with which to satisfy the need. To the degree that the conduct is successful, the individual is rewarded in the sense that the want is fulfilled (Schwartz, 2001, p. 123). The reward informs the individual that the behavior was appropriate and can be utilized again in the future. In this regard, motivation is used to refer to the process that instigates, directs, and sustains goal-oriented actions. Motivation is what triggers an individual to act, whether in getting a plate of food or a journal to acquire knowledge. Motivation engrosses emotional, biological, cognitive and social forces that trigger behavior. In daily practice, motivation is often employed to delineate why an individual does something. The three primary components of motivation are persistence, activation and intensity (Schwartz, 2001, p. 124). Activation engrosses the pronouncement to start behavior, such as registering for a German language class. Persistence refers to the unrelenting attempt toward a goal even though impediments may exist. For instance, registering for the German language class requires necessary investment of time, energy and resources. On the other hand, intensity is present in the attentiveness and energy that individual inputs in attaining the goal. Motivation is extremely essential in an organization. This is because it can lead to behaviors that typify high performance within the company. Studies have revealed that high worker impetus goes together with lofty organizational profits and performance. It is the responsibility of the employee to find the right combination of motivational techniques and rewards to satisfy an employee’s needs and at the same time encourage high work performance. As indicated, people have different needs. These desires transforms to an internal drive that inspires certain behaviors in an attempt to satisfy the desires. In order to satisfy the needs of employees, a manager should understand the needs of the employees. The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs proposes on how people are motivated by numerous needs. According to Daft (2012, p. 166-17), these needs are in a hierarchical order. A manger should effectively understand the needs of his or her employees. Such needs include the “physiological needs, safety needs, esteem needs, self-actualization and esteem needs” (Daft, 2012, p. 167). The physiological needs are the basic human wants that include food, oxygen, and water. These needs area reflected in an organization through the provision of adequate air, heat and a substantial salary that can ensure survival. Safety needs refer to the need for emotional and physical security in an organization. This is well articulated through freedom from threats and violence. Some people in an organization may have belongingness needs. These are needs where individual desires to be accepted by his or her peers, and be part of a group. This need can be actualized through encouraging team work and cohesion within the employees in the organization. Esteem desires relate to the desires for self-image and recognition from other people. These needs in an organization represent the need for higher responsibility, status and credit for the contributions towards the organization’s success. Finally, self-actualization needs include the desire for self-fulfillment. In this need, the employees have a high desire to increase and enhance their competence and become better people. There are numerous ways through which managers can motivate their employees. The most significant perspectives include goal setting, equity theory, and expectancy theory. Numerous researches have revealed that certain, challenging targets enhance people’s motivation and performance levels. This theory asserts that managers can increase their employee’s performance through setting high performance and challenging goals for them and then assisting them track their progress through timely continuous feedback. Studies have identified that challenging targets are more motivating than easy achievable targets. In essence, an easy target provides little challenge to employees and does not require them to increase their inputs (Daft, 2012, p. 117). Highly ambitious, but attainable targets lure the employees to increase their productivity through stretching their abilities and providing a basis for greater feelings of attainment and effectiveness. A study carried in Germany established that only the workers who perceived their goals as challenging showed increase positive emotions and feelings of job satisfaction and success. The equity theory centers on people’s discernment towards how they are treated when compared with others. Individuals are inspired to search for social fairness in the compensations they anticipate for executing an action. This theory asserts that people discern their reparation as equivalent to what other people obtain for analogous performances. In this regard, they perceive as being treated equally with the other people. Arguably, people assess equity by a ratio of inputs to outcomes (Daft, 2012, p. 122). In equality may exist where a newly employed inexperienced personnel receives similar salary to an experienced and educated employee. In such a case, the experienced employee may be de-motivated due to the inequality portrayed in the compensation criterion. In such a case, the organization should strive to ensure that there is equality in compensation to its employee’s, in order to avoid cases of lack of motivation among the employees. On the other hand, the expectancy theory asserts that motivation relies on a person’s expectations about their aptitude to perform tasks and receive desired rewards. This theory is based on the individual’s efforts, his or her performance and the desirability of outcomes. Motivation can either be intrinsic or extrinsic. In reference to Daft (2010, p. 121), intrinsic motivation arises from the satisfaction that an individual receives from rewards given in the process of doing an action. The completion of a multifaceted task may bestow a pleasant feeling of attainment, or solving a problem that troubles many people may satisfy a personal mission. Therefore, intrinsic motivation arises from within an individual. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation arises from the external environment. Such factors that affect such motivation include recognition, pay rise, and promotions. Extrinsic motivation refers to motivation that arises from the outcomes of an action. Intrinsic motivation is defined in terms of how people behave without inducement. Intrinsically motivating factors are those factors that an individual will engage in without a reward apart from the satisfaction and interest that accompanies it. In this case, people may be motivated by curiosity, challenge, control, fantasy, recognition, cooperation and competition. In challenge, individuals are inspired when they work towards meaningful targets whose achievement necessitates a degree of difficulty. Under curiosity, the individual is attracted by something in the external environment. According to Ryan and Deci (2000, p. 57), an intrinsically motivated person does an action for fun or other fulfillment other than because of other external factors or rewards. This phenomenon was first discovered in experimental researches of animal’s conduct. In reference to White (1959, p. 299-305), it was revealed that animals “engage in exploratory, curiosity-oriented, and playful conducts even in the absence of rewards”. Though intrinsic motivation subsists among people, it is present in the association between activities and individuals. Though Skinner (1953, p. 54) asserts that all behaviors are motivated by a reward, intrinsically motivated deeds derive the reward from within the activity. Though evidence from studies indicates that individuals are copiously gifted with intrinsic motivational inclinations, this inclination comes out only under identifiable circumstances. Study has delved further into intrinsic inspiration to identify the specifiable conditions. It has been revealed that interpersonal events and structures that lead to attainment of a feeling of competence enhance intrinsic motivation among individuals. Extrinsic motivation is a concept that is relevant every time an action is executed in order to gain some distinguishable result. Therefore, extrinsic motivation is extremely different from intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation can either be positive or negative (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 62). A positive extrinsic motivation may be used where, for instance, a student works hard and does all the homework issued in order to understand the topic and pass his or her examinations. A negative extrinsic motivation may be where a student does her or his homework in order to avoid punishment by the parent or teacher. References Daft, R. L. 2012. Management. Australia: South-Western. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. Schwartz, A. E. 2001. Motivation: Linking Performance to Goals. Andrew E Schwartz. Skinner, B. F. 1953. Science and Human Behavior. New York: MacMillan. White, R. W. 1959. motivation reconsidered. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333. Question 2 Question 2 (a) The following are personal strengths and weaknesses using the big five personality Questionnaire: Strengths Talkative Thorough Creative Down to earth Supportive Enthusiastic Good communicator practical Perseveres Planner Respect others Diplomatic Deep thinker Dreamer Imaginative Weaknesses Mostly disorganized Worries on small matters Sometimes lazy Easily upset at times Sometimes shy Prefer non-routine work Don’t like group work Easily distracted Politics liberal At times am careless I relate well with people Tense at times Worries too much Sometimes moody Question 2 (b) Holland described ideal personality types and outlined them in a hexagonal model. The personality types are pure; hence individual’s personality will consist of characteristics from different types. Realistic (R) These are very active individuals who enjoy manual tasks, such as carpentry, masonry, athletes and mechanics. Realistic people enjoy working with things than with human beings. They are inclined to extraneous activates and like to play with pet animals. People with this personality type prefer learning by engaging in physical activities than reading notes or attending a lecture in class. They are very direct in what they want and think and treasure material possessions. They relate poorly with people but are very good in manual tasks. They prefer to work in technical environments where they can produce quantifiable results. Their career fields include military, engineering, and veterinary officers (John Hopkins University , 1991, pp. 1-5). Investigative (A) These are analytical, observant, researchers, and intellectuals who enjoy science oriented activities such as solving mathematic problems. They are attracted to very involving and challenging activities especially those involving mental skills in complex situations. They are individuals who are very skilled in solving problems; work in isolation, and use facts and logics to work out their tasks. They highly treasure science, mathematics, and consider themselves as learned with great skills. However, they are poor leaders and persuaders. They enjoy investigate tasks, focusing on solving problems from the source rather than their symptoms in complex and independence environments. Some of their careers include pharmacist, researchers, Laboratory technician, and software programmers (Jones, 2011, p. 1). Artistic (A) These are individuals who value creative tasks, are very imaginative, and have their own style of completing tasks, such as singing, playing piano, typing, acting or directing others in film productions. Artists express their thoughts and ideas through creative ways. Individuals in this group are highly flexible; prefer ambiguous tasks, strictly follow schedules, and have their designed way of completing tasks. They tend to be full of emotions, open and good communicators. They perceive themselves as possessing creative brains, musical, acting, and writing skills. They are original, with no or minimal management skills. They prefer highly competitive environment with space for creativity, imagination, flexibility and accommodative of one’s style of working. Such careers include journalist, painters, musicians and designers (John Hopkins University , 1991, pp. 1-5). Social (S) Socialist are people concerned with other’s welfare, very responsible, idealistic with a heart for humanity. They enjoy working with other people, assisting, and training, directing, guiding and supporting them. They often focus on building strong relationships, treasure voluntary work and finding solution to conflict and reconciliation of the conflicting parties. They champion for team work, mass discussions in solving social problems by utilizing their interpersonal experiences. Socialist devalues procedure activities that involve tools and machines. Due to their social skills, individuals are good communicators and have high persuasive skills. They perceive themselves as teachers, convincing, social, outgoing with no skills in machinery tasks (Eric, 2009, p. 56). Enterprising (E) Enterprising are individuals full of energy, ambitious, highly sociable and self-confident. They like tasks that involve convincing and persuading people, such as in marketing and management roles. Though they avoid systematic activities, they have organizational and leadership skills and combine their interpersonal and convincing capabilities to meet their objectives. They are dominant and very efficient in speaking and socializing with a group of people, either in meetings or seminars (Eric, 2009, p. 56). They perceive themselves as outgoing, possessing critical leadership skills, experienced, and confident with little or no knowledge and skills in science. They therefore prefer an enterprising environment with opportunity to portray and sharpen their leadership, organizing, and marketing and get rewarded through cash and fringe benefits. They like to be motivated through large and prestigious assets such as biog cars, comfortable office equipments and members to prestigious clubs and associations. Examples of these careers include chief executives, company directors and salespeople (Jones, 2011, p. 1). Convectional (C) These are careful individuals, very efficient, and organized. They prefer to carry out routine and structure tasks by following stipulated procedures, regulations and conforming to the set leadership standards. They tend to avert risk and work best in certain environments where a lot of information is known. They are unoriginal and only prefer tried and tested ways of performing tasks. They enjoy organizing activities such scheduling meetings, setting data, graphical analysis of situations and carrying out office works. These individuals are very effective, patient and are reliable, though they dislike attention seeking roles such as leadership (Skis, 2010, p. 1). They perceive themselves as organized, efficient, and good in numbers, statistical works and basic clerical skills. However, they are not original and also do not possess creative and imaginative abilities. Their preferred working environment involves planning, and organizing tasks such as information management, record maintenance, and auditing. They are more comfortable in structured tasks with clearly defined procedures and methods. Convectional careers include clerks, auditors and bankers (Skis, 2010, p. 1). Holland’s Hexagon Holland explains the correlation among the six types of personalities using a six sided diagram or the hexagon, with each personality place at one among the six corners. The different kinds are put in the hexagon on the basis of their relationship. Those personalities with higher correlation are closer to each other in the hexagon, and these are the types that share characteristics. Those that are far away from each other have lower correlation between them and share less characteristic. From the hexagon below, Convectional type has more similarity with realistic or investigative type (Eric, 2009, p. 56). Holland’s explanation of the relationship between the six personalities brings out the concept of harmony or congruence, which refer to the correlation between the type of personality and the career environment. For instance, a socialistic personality type is most in harmony in a social situation or environment than it would be in a realistic environment. Workers with high congruence and work in harmonious environment tend to have more job satisfaction than those working in an unharmonious environment (John Hopkins University , 1991, pp. 1-5). Question 2 (c) Holland types (Strengths and weaknesses) From the six Realistic (R): Thinker, active, energetic, love pets, frank, avoid group discussions, practical, athletic, love nature. Investigative (I): Creative, thinker Artistic: Creative, imaginative, frank Social: Diplomatic, supportive, good communicator, persuasive, friendly, outgoing Enterprising: Energetic, dreamer, adventurous, social, persuasive. Convectional: Careful, reliable, orderly The personality type defining most of my personal traits and interests are: Realistic, Social, and Convectional types. This is described below: Realistic(R) I can play football, operate machines, fix vehicles, swim, and play video games. I like nature walk, doing manual work, constructing houses, driving and fixing doors. As a realistic individual, most of the activities are manual and physical, hence will utilize my energetic and love of science. I will be best suited and more satisfied in this category. Realistic career will best fit with my love for pets, machines, computers and challenging activities (Litz, 1992, p. 1). Social (S) I can train other people communicate effectively, supportive and very frank. However, I do not like group discussions and prolonged meetings. I cannot act as a negotiator and prefer working independently. Because of the many weaknesses involved in this type of personality, this provides a salient reason why social work cannot fit my personality and the basis of my career. Convectional Convectional personality type describes my personality. This is because I can follow regulations easily, respect authority, and am a good writer, thus can produce good reports and work easily with computers, do complex calculations, gather information, analyze and represent them clearly. However, I cannot pick a career from this field because I do not like group work, which is highly recommended in offices. In many instances, am usually disorganized and lazy. This limits my capability to correct data. Another weakness involves carrying out non-routine tasks, where else am happy and comfortable with unstructured tasks (Skis, 2010, p. 1). From the comparison above, it is evident that I can identify my personality with the three personality types outlined by Holland. These are realistic, social and convectional personality types. In addition to comparing what I enjoy doing and what I would like to do, I have realized I have strengths similar to the attributes of realistic. Therefore, the best occupation for me would be engineering. Engineers are usually active, thinkers, practical and like working independently with less supervision. Most of their work is practical, manual and involves a lot of physical activities. Despite the many characteristics I enjoy in social type, my humanitarian capabilities are limited by my lack of interest in group discussions, which is highly practiced in social works. Social works also require people who are not shy and are diplomats. References Eric, P., 2009. A test of Hollands theory of vocational personalities and work development. Journal of employment counselling, p. 56. John Hopkins University , 1991. Hollands occupational personality types., New York: John Hopkins University. Jones, L. K., 2011. The Career Key. [Online] [Accessed 4 2013 ]. Litz, H. J., 1992. Making Vocational Choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environment. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Skis, D., 2010. Exploring college student development. [Online] [Accessed 4 2013]. Read More