Importance of Goals in Motivation and Leadership - Coursework Example

Importance of Goals in Motivation and Leadership Name: Institute: Importance of Goals in Motivation and Leadership Introduction Scores of leaders and organizations depend more heavily on the social inducement, task and reward systems to motivate extra role behaviour, as well as have relegated the manager to the function of decision making only. According to Li and Hung (2009), leadership is regularly attributed as being either transformational or transactional.  Generally, transactional approaches tap the instrumental motivation source, whereas transformational approaches tap the other four motivation sources (that is goal identification, self concept internal, self concept external, and intrinsic process).  In this case, transformational leadership is actually made of more three leadership approaches, and these approaches are pure and no leader is limited to only one approach.  Actually, leaders who are most successful in achieving the set goals make use of various leadership approaches, which includes both transformational and transactional styles in their repertoire.  Whereas the transactional leadership approach has been the fastener of managers and supervisors in the organisation (owing to the accessibility of pay as a reward), volunteer and not-for-profit organizations’ leaders have for some time depended on transformational leadership approaches.  Still, leaders are finding out that there are limitation in utilising one leadership approaches single-handedly, given that increasingly more limitations are erected upon them regarding the extrinsic rewards’ distribution. The essay seeks to discuss the importance of goals in motivation and leadership drawing upon relevant research literature to support this position. Discussion In Depth Critical Review of Theories Using Literature All through human history, Maner and Mead (2010) posits that leaders have been accountable for assisting organisational groups realise vital goals. Preferably, leaders make use of their authority to drive groups toward preferred results. Still, as mentioned by Li and Hung (2009) leaders may as well utilize their authority to serve their self-interest instead of effective leadership. Leadership evolutionary theories, however, as well highlight deep conflicts that exist between the motivations of followers and leaders. In aiding groups realize their goals, Maner and Mead (2010) posits that leaders often are offered power, defined with regard to their virtual capability to manage resources within the group. Explicitly, groups that are arranged hierarchically are attributed by asymmetric resources management, in that leaders (in contrast to the followers) benefit somewhat from superior control over the use and distribution of esteemed group resources. Leaders using transformational approach change followers’ attitudes, beliefs, and values in order to make them keener to perform effectively and productively. According to Zhu and Akhtar (2014), they change their follower motivation from self-centeredness to collective interest through stressing on a collective identity. Anderson et al. (2001) posits that persons who have collective vision devoid of seeking direct individual rewards could benefit their organizations, leaders, and peers in citizenship behaviour form (such as helping behaviour). Zhu and Akhtar (2014) empirical study demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between followers’ helping behaviour and transformational leadership. A number of practical studies have as well examined trust mediating role in the transformational leadership effects on helping behaviour, but these studies utilised trust as a basic construct. Nonetheless, considering the differences between affect-based and cognition-based trust, Zhu and Akhtar (2014) propose that all trust dimensions mediates the connection between helping behaviour and transformational leadership for various theoretical reasons. Humility, according to Ashton and Lee (2008) promotes a more goal appraisal of individual limitations and strengths manifested by visible individual limits’ disclosure, recognising faults, and searching for practical feedback concerning the self. From a psychological point of view, Owens et al. (2013) proves that persons who maintain more sensible self-view show a tendency of being healthier psychologically. On the contrary, persons with erroneously positive and self-enhancing perceptions are more probable to be confused for a long period of time, be more fraudulent, have inadequate social presence and dignity, as well as be less industrious. In context of the organisation, such behaviours hint that humility can have effects on the interpersonal work relationships’ quality, ensuing performance, and decision making. Arguably, leadership role as motivation driver for followers remains as one of the most difficult challenges in organizational behaviour (Berson et al., 2014). Substantial research points out that leaders from time to time concentrate on the attractiveness of actions as well as results, offering a super-ordinate and an abstract vision for members of the organisation, as well as on other instances concentrate on the achievability of actions as well as outcomes, and set firm goals for members of the organisation (Shamir et al., 1998; Berson et al., 2014). Goal setting and vision communication as per Berson et al. (2014) are two key theoretical approaches that expound connections between managerial behaviour and leadership as well as employee performance and motivation. For long, traits have considered drivers or needs: their satisfaction results in pleasure, while insufficient achievement results in displeasure (Latham & Pinder, 2005). However, Holtom et al. (2002) found that variables of individual difference had no or few or mediating or moderating effects on the workplace motivation. This conclusion was challenged by successive findings from meta-analyses, which argued that failure to put across one's traits may result in anxiety. Currently, it has been established that personality is the main predictor of motivation elements. Actually, present research demonstrates that traits influence and/or predict choice of job and job search, in addition to job satisfaction as well as performance. These traits, as highlighted in Latham and Pinder (2005) study include sociability, preciseness, self-monitoring and self-regulatory strategies, stubbornness, goal orientation, as well as core self-evaluations. Noticeably, self-regulation is more firmly associated more with positive affective variables. Feedbacks seeking as well as goal setting with regard to organisational goals are the central part of self-regulation. Processes of self-regulatory backing goal implementation as indicated in Latham and Pinder (2005) study offers a time viewpoint on self-regulatory and goal striving processes as mediating the intentions effects on behaviour. Self-regulatory processes involve four phases: selecting amongst competing wishes, rooted in projected value (predecisional); creating intentions for implementation in the goal intention service (preactional); bringing direct actions of the goal to a thriving end (actional); as well as evaluation on the necessity of future action (postactional). Resources and effort are mobilized anchored in anticipatory estimates concerning what is required necessary to achieve the goal. For that reason, at first the goal may improve performance prior to any offered feedback. After realising the goal, individuals whose self-efficacy is high set a goal that is even higher for the reason that this generates fresh motivating inconsistencies to be subdued. In this case, if the leader fails to realise the goal, goal commitment and self-efficacy forecast whether involved members should intensify their effort, respond indifferently, or become hopeless. Application of theory to examples Power of unevenness brings about an essential ambivalence in the leaders as well as followers relationship. By following the leader, it connotes that members of the group will have to surrender some of their power over resources as well as decision making at the group level. Therefore, even though members of the group require leaders to realize their goals, those members of the group have to surrender some of their control and this exposes them to exploitation (Li & Hung, 2009). As a result, members of the group could be motivated to reduce the existing power gap between the leaders and themselves through goal-setting for the reason that in so doing, they will be reducing the leaders' ability for exploitation. Contrary, leaders could be motivated to increase or maintain the power gap between followers and themselves, in so doing sheltering their privileged position in the group. The leaders’ power give them scores of personal benefits considering that it awards access to friends, group assets, admiration, honour, respect, contentment, as well as health, writes Maner and Mead (2010). Specifically, transformational leaders can motivate affect-based trust of their followers through encouraging a sense of responsibility, which as a result, can advance helping behaviour of the followers. Cognition-based trust of the followers, on the other hand, which is rooted in positive individual characteristics of transformational leaders, reduces seeming threat in a hierarchical association, to the extent that followers become willing in engaging in helping behaviour. Owens et al. (2013) suggest that through goal setting, workers who take part in this self-learning through interactions can gain a more precise knowledge concerning their individual intrapersonal resources as well as become less vulnerable to certitude, which is the basis of scores of problems in the organisation, self-complacency, and poor decisions. Observably, this overconfidence is particularly treacherous to leaders. In this regard, well set goals aid organizational leaders as well as members to more precisely know when to get going and when to study more concerning the issue, and which efforts they can knowledgeably handle and which must not be tried due to inexperience or incompetence. Additionally, as exhibited in Ashton and Lee (2008) study, self-disclosure over and over again results in improved trust, reciprocal disclosure, and relational satisfaction, and so the expressed humility dimension, evidenced by disclosure of individual weaknesses and limitations, can lead to improved quality as well as more clear interpersonal interactions between peers, followers and leaders. Two comparatively autonomous streams of research that is Berson et al. (2014) and Shamir et al. (1998) have confirmed these theories with regard to their effects on the organisational and individual performance. These research streams are likely to be alienated by disciplinary boundaries, in that research on vision is followed mainly by scholars on leadership while goals research is followed by scholars on organizational behaviour and psychologists. Still, in spite of the comparable effects on results, these approaches on motivation (Goal setting and vision communication) have conflicting mechanisms. For instance, effective statements on vision are inclined to be somewhat theoretical, rooted in broad, imagery, and enduring objectives; on the contrary, effective goal setting entails creating certain, demanding and time-limited objectives, which involve experimental in-role performance. As noted by Berson et al. (2014), even though goals and visions are related in a number of respects, there are noteworthy distinctions between them. That is, visions are wide-ranging and are by no means completely realised in practice, while goals are precise and can be readily realised. With competition intensifying and technological change rate increasing, Vaccaro et al. (2012) argues that organisations must renew themselves. The new challenge is not just presenting new services and products, but as well changing the leadership nature in the organizations. This may occur by, for example, adapting organizational practices, processes, and structures to create a helpful competitive advantage source. More recently and earlier studies, evidently demonstrate how leadership innovation as highlighted in Alexiev et al. (2010) could not just lead to organizational change as well as bring possible advantages to it, but as well redefine the industry through impacting the dissemination of novel concepts. The leadership role as per Vaccaro et al. (2012) has as well been found to be pertinent in worker readiness to voice their ideas intended for bettering the organization as well as the manner through which it functions. To handle how certain leadership behaviours have an effect on the hunt of innovative management structures, processes, or practices, Vaccaro et al. (2012) concentrated on transactional as well as transformational leadership. Undoubtedly, transactional and transformational leadership have been a subject of study for a range of studies so as to capture the degree to which subordinates are engaged by their leaders by infusing in them the goals of the organisation, or expounding the rewards that comes after realising such goals. Conclusion In conclusion, it has been argued that management practitioners can find it beneficial to consider the differential impacts of pro-social motivation and trust when creating leadership programs as well as promoting helping behaviour of the followers. Furthermore, both leaders and followers’ motives reflect strategies intended for helping them obtain the benefits, as well as stay away from the risks, of being part of hierarchical groups. As demonstrate on the current studies, such strategies rely on an interaction amongst drivers in both the situation as well as the person. Whereas all form of leadership behaviour are pertinent for organisational innovation, less multifaceted, smaller organizations gain more from transactional leadership whereas bigger organizations must bring into play transformational leaders to pay off for their intricacy and let management innovation to thrive. As argued in the literature, goal setting enables leaders and their followers to work collaboratively; thus, resulting to trust, improved prioductivity and motivation. References Alexiev, A. S., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2010). Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1343–64. Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). ho attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116–132. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of honesty-humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 216–1228. Berson, Y., Halevy, N., Shamir, B., & Erez, M. (2014). Leading from different psychological distances: A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation. The Leadership Quarterly, 1-13. Holtom, B., Lee, T., & Tidd, S. (2002). The relationship between work status congruence and work-related attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 903-15. Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516. Li, C., & Hung, C. (2009). The influence of transformational leadership on workplace relationships and job performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 1129–1142. Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The Essential Tension Between Leadership and Power: When Leaders Sacrifice Group Goals for the Sake of Self-Interest. ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482–497. Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed Humility in Organizations: Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership . Organization Science, 24(5), 1517 - 1538 . Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387–409 . Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J., Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating Role of Organizational Size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28–51. Zhu, Y., & Akhtar, S. (2014). How transformational leadership influences follower helping behavior: The role of trust and prosocial motivation. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 35(3), 373–392 . Read More