Motivation Theory and Implications in Sports Organisation - Coursework Example

MOTIVATION THEORY AND IMPLICATIONS IN SPORTS ORGANISATION of Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction: 3 McGregor’s Theory X and Y: 3 History: 3 Evaluation of Theory: 5 Application in Sports Organisation: Nike 5 Expectancy Theory: 7 History: 7 Evaluation of Theory: 7 Application in Sports Organisation: Adidas 8 Conclusion: 9 References 10 Introduction: Motivational practices being implemented in the contemporary business scenario varies in their approach and utilisation (Clegg, 2009). In the words of DiBella (2008), with the changes in the environmental surroundings of individuals the motivating factors are also changing. This has also brought in question the process of developing a motivating work culture in the business houses and validity of the existing concepts of motivation. Relating to this idea, Carl (2007) mentioned that stiff competition in the internal and external work environment is also influences the motivational processes of the business houses. Carrying forward these considerations, the study will focus on analysing the utilisation of McGregor’s X and Y Theory and Expectancy Theory in sports organisations in the prevailing scenario. McGregor’s Theory X and Y: History: Douglas McGregor developed Theory X and Theory Y in the 1960s for reflecting the two most persistent motivational models used by organisations for motivating their employee base (Adam et al. 2010). X and Y Theory mainly are focused on assessing the perceptions of the managers in relation to their employees and reflect the two extremes of evaluating employee motivation process. Often, this theory is also termed as the initiator of the management style being opted for in an organisation (Deal and Kennedy, 2008). McGregor’s theory states that motivation is one of the primary forces in shaping the behaviour of the employees. Figure 1: Theory X and Theory Y of McGregor (Source: Hoffmann, 2007, p - 104 ) The X theory considers that employees have to be pushed and forced for working and job satisfaction does not exist in the employee base. In X Theory the managers use punishment for gaining compliance from their employee base (Elizabeth and Adelina, 2007). Contradicting to this, the Y Theory is based on the perception that employees are loyal and self-motivated. According to Y Theory, employees take responsibility for their work and should be further motivated with the help of rewards to enhance their productivity and performance (Adam et al. 2010). Evaluation of Theory: The motivation theory of McGregor is based on the primary assumption that managerial perception forms the framework for designing the organisational culture of a firm (Hoffmann, 2007). Thus, the motivational process of a company depends on the perception of the managers rather than the organisational work process. However, Lilius et al. (2008) criticised that McGregor’s theory only focused on the extremes of the business management process. According to theory X and Y, the employees can either be extremely dissatisfied with their work profile or can be self-motivated to perform with their outmost potential. Also the factors influencing the work process have not been included in forming the motivation process of a firm. McGregor stated that Theory X and theory Y are different ranges and are not two variables of the same sequence (Elizabeth and Adelina, 2007). The theory of McGregor is also related to Maslow’s theory of Hierarchy of Needs which highlights that motivation is the primary factor that can enhance the productivity and performance of a workforce. But unlike Maslow’s Theory, McGregor’s theory reflects the characteristics of the management style in case of alternative managerial scenarios. In the words of Hoffmann (2007), McGregor’s theory is effective because it not only compares two scenarios that are existent in the practical world but also portrays the implications of implementing both the theories in organisations. Application in Sports Organisation: Nike In the words of Lilius et al. (2008), sports industry itself relies on an aspect that inspires motivation and self- belief. Nike is one of the most well-known brand names in the business segment of the world. They have focused on promoting sports rather than their products and services and gained a prominent place in the corporate sector of the world (Adam et al. 2010). It has to be noted that Nike has a decentralised management process which allows their subsidiaries to frame their management prospects based on their individual needs. The organisational structure of Nike is customised and has been developed based on the segregation of their employee base (Hoffmann, 2007). The top managerial authority of the organisation reflects a flat or heretical structure for reducing the complicacies in decision making and analysing performance of the various operational departments but the operational level is structured in a matrix process which ensures maximum productivity from their employees (DiBella, 2008). Based on their organisational structure, the motivational process is implemented in the work culture of the firm. Nike has again developed a customised motivational process for encouraging their work force. They try to develop a shared vision for aligning the personal interest of their employees with the brand name and the organisational objectives (DiBella, 2008). This step is based on the top sections of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs namely, Self-Esteem and Self-Actualisation. On the other hand, there is a direct relationship between employee and performance management (Miner, 2012). The HR line managers are not directly involved in the work process and are guided by the principles of X Theory which makes performance the sole factor for appraisals while the operational managers of each departments use Y theory to ensure that the potential skills of the employees can be utilised. Although the motivational concept of Nike is complicated, it has helped the organisation in generating positive results and reflects a clear utilisation of the existing theories of motivation. Expectancy Theory: History: Expectancy Theory of motivation was developed by Victor Vroom in 1964 (Adam et al. 2010). The expectancy theory focuses on evaluating the choices available to an individual based on the behaviour is selected. Figure 2: Expectancy Theory of Victor Vroom (Source: Hoffmann, S., 2007, p - 116) According to the expectancy theory, behaviour of an individual is the result of selection of various options that can create an outcome which reflects the expectations of the individual (Adam et al. 2010). The theory of expectancy focuses on developing the reward structure of the firms in a relevant manner so that the employees can perform in order to achieve their expected rewards and also enhances the commitment of the workforce. Evaluation of Theory: The expectancy theory unlike most other motivation theories focuses on the behavioural decisions of an individual and relates it with the expectations and requirements in accordance with that develops the motivational framework of an organisation (Lilius et al. 2008). Elizabeth and Adelina (2007) stated that expectancy theory is too complicated to be implemented in the real life scenario as behaviour of an individual changes and is influenced by the changes of the needs and expectations. Clegg (2009) further added that developing expectancy as a motivational tool is complicated as the expectations of every individual differs and hence their behaviour which does not help the organisation in setting up a holistic motivational or reward framework. However, Miner (2012) explained that the variables of expectancy theory can be focused upon for deciding upon the reward structure of a firm as it creates a relevant work structure and is aligned with the employee needs. Application in Sports Organisation: Adidas The case of Nike reflected that the motivational process is mainly focused on aligning the brand value with the employee participation. Adidas on the other hand has developed segmented structure of reward for motivating their employees (DiBella, 2008). Although Adidas also stresses on performance based appraisals, their motivational process focuses on the detailed activities of each task. For instance, they have designed set benchmarks of quality and efficacy and achieving these benchmarks alleges an employee to a reward. Adidas has considered the variable of valence and have provided the employees an option of selecting their reward based on the value of performance (Miner, 2012). Considering the implications of the motivational process of Adidas, it can be stated that although expectancy theory has helped them in enhancing the performance and productivity of the workforce, their managerial process is being over utilised in framing the reward structure (Miner, 2012). On the other hand, performance focused reward structure related to the specific activities of each task has allowed Adidas to gain perfection in their operational processes (DiBella, 2008). The utilisation of expectancy theory in the existing business processes can thus be considered effective only if the concerned organisations can manage the balance between the three variables (effort, instrumentality and valence) of expectancy theory. Conclusion: Motivational theories are used in organisations for increasing the productivity and performance of the employees. Both McGregor’s and Vroom’s theory are directed towards encouraging the employees but the aspects considered are different. Theory X and Y is based on the perception of the managers for designing the motivational framework where as Expectancy Theory is based on the behaviour and expectations of the employees and design the reward structure accordingly. Analysis of Nike and Adidas reflected the utilisation of McGregor’s and Vroom’s theory in the organisational layout. However, developing a holistic motivational approach is still a complicated process considering the variety in the expectations, behaviours and the perceptions of the workforce of organisations. References Adam, M. G., Elizabeth, M. C., Grace, C., Keenan, C., David, L. & Karen, L. (2010). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 10, pp. 53–67. Carl, F. F. (2007). Opening the black box of motivation: A cross-cultural comparison of Sweden and Russia, International Business Review, 14, pp. 345–367. Clegg, S. (2009). The Sage handbook of organization studies (3rd ed.), London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A.A., (2008).Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. 6th ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. DiBella, A. J. (2008). Culture and Planned Change in an International Organization: A Multi-Level Predicament. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4(4). pp. 352-372. Elizabeth, P. and Adelina, B. (2007). Job motivation and satisfaction: Unpacking the key factors for charity shop managers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13, pp. 121–131. Hoffmann, S. (2007). Classical Motivation Theories - Similarities and Differences between them (4th ed.). Germany: Grin Verlag Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Maitlis, S., Kanov, J., Dutton, J. E. & Frost, P. (2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 29, pp. 193–218. Miner, J. B., (2012). Role Motivation Theories (6th ed.). London: Routledge. Read More