Motivation in the KeySpan Company - Essay Example

KEYSPAN: A CASE STUDY IN MOTIVATION and Program> TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents 2 Acknowledgement 3 Important Facts of the Case 4 Discussion 4 Answer to First Question 4 McGregor's Theory Y 5 Herzberg's Motivation/Hygiene Theory 6 Adam's Equity Theory 8 Employee Engagement 9 Answer to Second Question 10 References 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank our lecturer Ms Jeannette Ong Es-Lyn for the wonderful lectures she has given through-out this semester, and for the priceless knowledge she imparted to us, her students. We also want to thank our parents for the love and encouragement by sending us to the university to have a bright future. We owe them everything that we are today, and what we potentially could achieve in the years to come. Last but not the least; We also want to thank every member who participated in this work; Prince Usinefe, Patricia, Fouz and Mohamed Yahya. Without the generous help of these individuals, this work would not have been possible. IMPORTANT FACTS OF THE CASE KeySpan is the surviving entity of a merger between Brooklyn Union Gas and Long Island Lighting Company. It was Kenny Moore's job to bring together the personnel of the IT departments of the two merging companies. He decided to do it through an "open space" meeting, wherein the 400 IT staff members would come together to voice topics they would want to discuss in subsequent breakout sessions. Initially, the CIO was apprehensive that nobody would suggest any topic, and proposed planting topics with the directors in advance to "make sure some people came forward". Kenny discouraged this and said it was better to risk this chance and show the employees that the management trusted the process. In the end, some 50 topics for breakout session were proposed, and the breakout sessions were enthusiastically and energetically undertaken, making the open space meeting a huge success. Kenny observed that the key to success was the "Ownership for a successful merger from the hallowed halls of serious management into the cubicles of the ordinary work." He attributed the success to the freedom inherent in a business "invitation". DISCUSSION First Question: A careful reader will note that the word 'motivation' is not used once in this case and yet, the case clearly has a lot to say about motivation and how it is managed in the workplace. Use the previously discussed theories to explain why people were motivated. While the word "motivation" was never used in the case, it was clearly such a case. Management intended for people to perform in a certain manner and act a certain way to yield a particular result. Through the process of the "open space" meeting, management was able to motivate the people to do just that. There are several motivational theories that may explain why the process worked. Herein we shall discuss the case from the point of view of four of these theories, for the sake of conciseness and relevance. McGregor's Theory Y In 1960, Douglas McGregor began a long-standing debate (that incidentally still exists today) with the publication of his book The Human Side of the Enterprise. He introduced in this work his theory for which he is famously credited, Theory X and Theory Y. Essentially, he posed the question, "Could employees be trusted and empowered to do good work, or did they have to be closely directed, monitored, and controlled to act in the interests of the firm'" (Kochan et al, 2002, p. 2) Theory X, which is defined as the authoritative management style, posits that employees need to be closely monitored and controlled. On the other hand, Theory Y, popularly known as the participative management style, answers this with the first alternative, that is, that employees, may be counted on to do good work on their own and thus may be empowered to act on their own initiative. Theory Y makes the following assumptions: 1. Given the proper motivation, people will expend mental and physical effort at work as naturally as they do at play or recreation. 2. People do not only respond to control and punishment, but are self-motivating. 3. If the workers feel personal satisfaction at their job, they will be committed to the organization. 4. Under the proper conditions, the average worker will not only accept but will seek responsibility. 5. Most employees will resort to imagination, creativity, and ingenuity to solve problems at the workplace. (Human Relations Contributors, 2009) In the case, Kenny Moore conducted the open-space meeting as a show of managerial trust in the employees, to arrive at a creative and effective solution to the company's problems. At the onset, management sought to introduce some measure of control by planting topics with the directors to initiate the process. This Kenny Moore wisely did not agree to, because then the discussion will be directed by management and the purpose of inviting employee participation would be defeated. Employees who came out and spoke were likely aware that they could be later disciplined by management for any unconventional views that may be expressed. As such they must have felt they were taking a chance when they started the ball rolling. It is to management's credit that they allowed participation by the employees in this manner, in order to reap the insights of their viewpoint from the operations level of the organization, as well as harness their enthusiasm and energy in achieving the goals they set out together. Herzberg's Motivation/Hygiene Theory According to Frederick Herzberg, there are certain factors concerning a job that consistently affect job satisfaction, and others which relate to job dissatisfaction. Factors on the left are the motivation factors. They affect job satisfaction - that is when they are present, they create feelings of satisfaction for the individual employee. If the are not present, or not sufficiently present, then the employee feels diminished or no satisfaction; their lack, however, do not cause him to feel dissatisfaction. On the other hand, the factors to the right are the hygiene factors which, when perceived as insufficient or lacking, cause workers to be dissatisfied with their job. Their presence in adequate levels, however, does not cause workers to experience greater satisfaction with their work, just to not be unsatisfied with it. In short, factors on the left are motivators when sufficiently present, and factors on the right are de-motivators when sufficiently lacking. In the case, it will be seen that factors on the left were at work. By holding back management intervention and "inviting" employees to avail of the process, their views were afforded due recognition, and the success of the activity was demonstrably an achievement on their part. They took responsibility for their own advancement and growth - all factors that motivated the employees to take a chance on the process. Since this is but the starts, management must push through with these initiatives in order to demonstrate to their people that their participation is important to the company. Adam's Equity Theory In 1963, John Stacey Adams formulated what is now known as Adam's Equity Theory. Adams noted that there are various subtle factors that affect an employee's perception of his work. His theory is founded on the need to strike a balance between employees' inputs and outputs. Employee inputs are what they contribute to the company's operations, such as hard work, skilled execution, tolerance, enthusiasm, innovativeness, and so forth; in return he is accorded such outputs as a fair salary, benefits, intangibles such as recognition and public acknowledgement, etc. Adam's theory states that a strong and productive relationship between employer and employee is dependent upon finding a fair balance between these inputs and outputs. It is only when employees feel that their efforts are being duly rewarded will they be motivated and contented. Adam's equity theory incorporates more of the comparison of an individual of his situation with those of colleagues, peers, and other reference points situated in the wider environment in general. Equity does not rely only on an employee's input-to-output ratio, but his comparison between his ratio and that of others. In this case, the equity theory is evident in that 400 employees from two formerly separate companies are to be integrated into one. Needless to say, each of the 400 IT personnel see each other as peers or equals. The process of holding the open space meeting was necessary to show that neither one nor the other group of employees was being given special favors, and that they each had equal opportunities for work, and advancement, and rewards in the new set-up. Equity has been established, or at least the perception thereof, in allowing each person the same opportunity to voice out his opinion and discuss the future initiatives of the group. Employee Engagement A more recent motivational theory is that of employee engagement. Employees are more motivated at their jobs when they feel engaged, and this occurs when they find a personal significance and involvement in their work, receive encouragement and interpersonal support, and operate in efficient work environments. Engagement is all about engendering an employee's personal commitment to the point that he identifies himself with the firm and "owns" his job. The elements of engagement are individual value, focused work based on clear direction, and interpersonal support. When a firm appreciates employees' individual value, they become engaged and as a result make a unique contribution, experience empowerment, and realize that they have opportunities for personal growth. Issues such as having the power and ability to affect one's work environment and make meaningful choices in the workplace are indispensable requisites to employee empowerment (Conger & Kanugo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). The employee's perception that he is undertaking meaningful work is one of the most vital and influential determinants of an employee's willingness to stay within an organization. (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001) Employee engagement cannot be merely ordered or assigned; it must be developed into the organizational culture by means of processes that involve the individual's participation. The open space meeting thus "engaged" the 400 employees through "inviting," not ordering, compelling or manipulating, the message is delivered that the company values them individually. The process of discussing their own perspectives and ideas made the employees "own" the process and its results. This is the crux behind employee engagement. Second Question: Would you be motivated by participation in an 'Open Space' meeting' Why or Why not' Yes, I would be motivated by an "open space" meeting if it were conducted in the same terms and under the same conditions as the one arranged by Kenny at KeySpan. Kenny was true to the process and determined that it would not even be seen to be a sham. This sincerity is an essential element in all dealings of the company with its employees. At the same time, the open space meeting yielded clear directions for all members of the group, because the ideas came from them and the meeting provided an ideal venue to thresh out the problems, implications, and plans for these ideas. The results of the meeting became a contract of sorts between management and personnel, that these were the agreed upon targets that each, in their own roles, are bound to deliver to the other. The arrival at such a consensus is the key to the employees' motivation because it assures him of his individual worth, it provides him a clear concept of his objectives, and it invites his consent and commitment to its execution. He is accorded value, respect and dignity - strong factors that motivate. REFERENCES Bernthal, P R, & Wellins, R.S 2001 Retaining talent: A benchmarking study. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International. Conger, J A , & Kanugo, R 1988 The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, vol 13, pp. 471-482. Human Relations Contributors: Douglas McGregor. Accessed 15 October 2009 from http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_03_mcgregor.html. Kochan, T, Orlikowski W, and Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J 2002 Beyond McGregor's Theory Y. Accessed 15 October 2009 from http://mitsloan.mit.edu/50th/pdf/beyondtheorypaper.pdf. Thomas, K W, & Velthouse, B A 1990 Cognitive elements of empowerment: An "interpretive" model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, vol. 15, issue 4, pp 566-681. Read More