Motivation and Leadership: A Discussion into Operational Theories and Practice - Coursework Example

Section/# Motivation and Leadership: A Discussion into Operational Theories and Practice Introduction: It iswithout question that there are many vital theories within human resources that help human resource personnel to manage and direct the efficiency, productivity, and utility of their respective workforces. As such, the field of human resources is diverse and necessarily covers a very large range of key issues. However, the fact of the matter is the human resources department operates as a means of fulfilling two distinct roles. The first of these roles is obviously the need to provide the workforce of the entity/firm/organization in question with an internal advocate that they may utilize as a means of making the most of the work environment. Secondly, human resources exist as a yet another representation of the interests and needs of the employer. Within this function, a human resource department necessarily seeks to minimize costs associated with the workforce, comply by relevant laws, maximize efficiency, and reduce losses. Accordingly, the study of human resources almost invariably centers upon these two core functions. In keeping with this particular dynamic which is been described, this brief study will focus a level of analysis upon the means by which human resources within a firm/entity/organization can and should seek to maximize the motivational factor that it engages with its stakeholders. Within this particular dynamic, it can readily be understood that seeking to maximize motivation necessarily increases efficiency, utility, profitability, and a host of other factors that would be viewed positively by the firm/entity in question. Moreover, the changing business dynamic in the current world, inclusive of rising competition, hiring freezes, procurement policies, and a host of other factors, means that a higher level of pressure is now exhibited upon human resource departments around the globe to maximize the level of motivation of the few employees that they can continue to employ as a means of continuing to stay relevant within the current model. Ultimately, this can be reduced to a firm or entity seeking to do more with less. Within such a dynamic, this particular analysis will measure some of the most pertinent motivational theories that exist and seek not only to define them but to explain how they can be utilized within human resources as a means of affecting a greater level of motivation (David, 2013). The theories that will be discussed are as follows: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Hertzberg’s motivation hygiene theory, McClellan’s theory of needs, Vroom’s expectancy theory, and Kolb’s learning styles theory. As such, by analyzing each of these theories and relating it to the practice of motivation in human resources, it is the intent of this author to underline and highlight the means by which a greater level of motivation can be affected within the current leadership that exist within each and every firm/entity/organization. By seeking to define and understanding the clear and dinstict linkage that exists between leadership and motivation, and vice versa, it is the hope of this author that the reader can come to a more clear and actionable interpretation of how leadership and motivation can work in something of a symbiotic relationship to maximize utility and efficiency within the given firm/organization/or work place. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Although Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has oftentimes been considered on a purely personal psychological level, the reality of the situation is that humans are by very nature social beings. By extension, the workplace is necessarily a realm within which individuals need to interact with one another as well as clients as a means of generating profit and income; both for themselves and for the entity in question (Taylor et al., 2013). In such a way, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is perfectly suited to defining and describing the means by which a given firm/organization can seek to maximize the overall level of motivation that is exhibited within its employees. Rather than viewing this as something of an undynamic approach, it must be understood, just as with all of the other theoretical interpretations which will herein be discussed, that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is not only something that the human resources process should be aware of but something that it should actively seek to integrate an understanding within the leadership of the firm. As such, human resources cannot and should not be thought to be responsible for the creation of motivation themselves; rather, it is the human resources department that is able to integrate an understanding of the importance of motivation to the leadership within the company/firm – and by extension integrate this appreciate and understanding with the line employee (Schuh et al., 2013). Figure 1.0 illustrates the means by which mass was hierarchy of needs functions. From a cursory review of this figure, the reader can come to the understanding that a greater level of motivation and profitability/efficiency is only able to be realized once the basic requirements near the lowermost portion of the peer amid have been satisfied. Naturally, it may seem at bit absurd for the firm/entity in question to be able to speak to the needs of breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, and excretion. However, the fact of the matter is that it is incumbent upon the employer to ensure a safe working environment exists whereby none of the basic physiological needs of the individual are disrupted (Schyns et al., 2011). Continuing to move up the list, the reader can note that more or less in each and every substrata of the pyramid, the employer can seek to provide for at least some of these needs. Naturally, the ultimate point of all of this is seeking to bring each and every employee firmly into the arena of self-actualization. The purpose for this is of course the maximize the utility and the means of increased motivation that is derived from this final stage. As the pyramid below denotes, morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem-solving, lack of prejudice and acceptance of facts are all the fruits of this final level of self-actualization. As a result of this, the profitability and efficiency of the employee necessarily reaches its maximum within this final stage of self-actualization (Parris & Peachey, 2013). However, it must be noted that an increasing level of motivation is realized within each and every successive strata of this particular pyramid. In such a way, motivation can powerfully be integrated into any firm/entity by merely seeking to ensure that each of these metrics defined below are met within the employees so that further levels of self-actualization and motivation can ultimately be affected. Figure 1.0 Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory A similar motivation theory that is directly related to the workplace and the means by which the employee interacts with the employer is with regards to Frederick Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory; oftentimes referred to as Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Tyssen et al., 2013). Of all the theories that will herein be discussed, it is perhaps Herzberg’s theory of motivation-hygiene that is the most simplistic. Whereas it is oftentimes viewed that simplistic theories are necessarily in and of themselves weak, the fact of the matter is that Herzberg’s theory has stood up to the test of time and numerous challenges to its legitimacy. As such, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory asserts that a certain number of key factors cause workplace/job satisfaction. Conversely, a key set of factors also cause dissatisfaction. Moreover, he asserted that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction necessarily worked independently of one another. It is of course the second theoretical postulation that places Herzberg’s theory apart from what many might have deemed common sense (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Ultimately, in order to appreciate and understand Herzberg’s motivation theory, it is necessary to understand and appreciate the fact of the stakeholders within the company/firm/or organization that will have the most knowledge and oversight with regards to the level of satisfaction that is being displayed; i.e. leadership. Within such an understanding, this particular motivational theory places the onus of the decision making process of management squarely upon the shoulders of the leaders within the company to craft and formulate effective and representative decisions based upon the levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction that might be exhibited within the component parts of the organization (Cantrell, 2010). Although there are many similarities to the aforementioned Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Herzberg sought to create a new dimension to this theory by engaging the reader with an understanding of the importance of a so-called “two factor model of motivation” (Verlage et al., 2012). This two factor model was based on the premise that satisfaction (which can be understood tangentially as self-actualization) is necessarily brought about by a certain set of job characteristics, incentives, or other factors. Conversely, the inverse of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (dissatisfaction) also has a unique level of job characteristics that ultimate lead to it. In such a way, it becomes incumbent upon the employer to seek to realize and mitigate the negative aspects of the particular job in question is a means of ultimately reducing the level of dissatisfaction that is exhibited within the individual employee and within the firm is all. Moreover, due to the fact that not all aspects of job dissatisfaction may be reduced completely or entirely, Hertzberg puts forward the understanding that it is also incumbent upon the employer to seek to maximize the level of job satisfaction at each and every opportunity. In such a way, job satisfaction and dissatisfaction cannot be understood as a one-time fix; rather, it is something that must be perennially engaged in as a means of benefitting the overall longevity and profitability of the firm as well as promoting a greater level of cohesion among the employees (Kalaluhi, 2013). This not only is done as a means of countering the dissatisfaction that is doubtless evidenced within each and every firm within the system, it is also done as a means of promoting a further level of motivation within the employee base. Naturally, as has been discussed and elaborated upon above, within Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the greater level of satisfaction/self actualization that can exist within the individual employee, the greater level of motivation that is internally exhibited. This necessarily leads to a greater level of profitability and utility/efficiency that the firm can seek to draw upon (Waters, 2013). In this way, it becomes clearly apparent to the reader why it is necessary not only to seek to reduce the overall level of dissatisfaction that might be evidenced within any particular job/workplace while of the same time maximizing job satisfaction; both of which can be utilized to increase overall motivation and in turn satisfaction/profitability. McClelland’s Theory of Needs Whereas Herzberg and Maslow have lain out a convincing set of motivational theories, it was not until David McClelland’s theory of needs that the individual motivators with respect to the institution of the workplace were identified. It should be understood by the reader that David McClelland’s theory was not intended to go in place of any of the others that have gone before it; rather, it was intended to build upon it as a means of defining and describing the ways in which motivation could be maximized within the individual in question. As a means of elaborating upon this, McClellan noted that three individual motivators were evidenced within all individuals. The necessity of seeking to define and elaborate upon what key motivators existed among all individuals was of course the most difficult part. Whereas there are individual motivators that can have a profound impact upon small group of employees, such motivators are not necessarily the primal factors that a human resources department should rely upon (Dansereau et al., 2013). The obvious reason for this is due to their general lack of universality. However, according to David McClelland’s theory, these three universal factors to motivation include the following: achievement, affiliation, and power. Moreover, he noted that individuals will display unique characteristics fully dependent upon their dominant motivator. In such a way, the reader can come to understand that although all individuals possess these three universal motivators, each and every individual will have one motivator out of the three that is dominant (Germaine, 2012). What this means is that the individual will be most likely to place a high level of and emphasis and importance upon the satisfaction and appreciation of this key motivator as compared to the other two (Norton & Palazzolo, 2010). In such a way, the clear and pertinent understanding is that it is incumbent upon the employer to seek to integrate with the employee as a means of realizing their particular key motivation. Once this is determined, a level of inference can then be drawn with regards to how to best utilize this motivator and improve the employee/employer relationship. Just as with many the prior two theories which have been engaged with, McClelland’s theory of needs underscores the role of both management and leadership within the human resources context as a means of maximizing motivation among the employee base. Without an appreciable concern for such a factor, neither the profitability of the firm, nor the ultimate goals of leadership can effectively be engaged with (Miao et al., 2013). McClelland defined those individuals who had a dominant motivator of achievement were necessarily more likely to perform in the following way: taking calculated risks as a means of accomplishing key goals, preferring to receive a level of regular feedback upon their progress and/or achievement, exhibiting a strong need to accomplish what can otherwise be described as challenging metrics, and preferring to work alone. In such a way, it should become quite clear to the reader that seeking to integrate with an understanding of McClellan’s motivational theory is extraordinarily important due to the fact that these three motivators identify a clear and distinct subset of behavioral characteristics that if understood can be utilized, and edged, and maximize to their fullest potential. By the same token, McClelland saw that individuals who exhibited affiliation is their dominant motivator experienced characteristics related to the following: favoring collaboration over competition, shying away from risk and/or uncertainty, desiring to be liked, and wanting a sense of belonging within the group. Lastly, those individuals who most readily responded to power as their dominant motivator exhibited the following characteristics: liking to win arguments, enjoying competition and winning, and wanting to control and influence others (Miniotaite & Buciuniene, 2013). Lastly, it must be understood that none of these definitive motivators are in and of themselves bad; rather, they merely exhibit different personality types that can be engaged as a means of maximizing motivation in seeking to understand key compliments which the individual employee most readily response to. Vrooms Expectancy Theory Continuing to understand what motivates individuals within the workplace, Victor Vroom proposed what came to be known as the expectancy theory. Within the expectancy theory, the main understanding is that individuals choose a given course of action most specifically based upon what they believe the expected result of the selected behavior will be. Many analysts have defined this particular method of approach and rather simplistic terms by stating that the motivation for a particular behavior is ultimately chosen and decided upon based upon whether or not the outcome is desirable. Of all the theories of motivation that it thus far been discussed, it is perhaps this one theory that provides the greatest level of danger with regards to how a firm or entity seeks to continue its processes and derive the level of profitability to the future. The reason for this level of threat is due to the fact that this particular approach represents an ends justify the means theoretical framework. Within such a particular rubric, the reader can clearly and definitively see the reason why proper and effective leadership within an HR type capacity is so vital towards defining success. Although there is a large degree of expectancy theory that is ultimately built around the unique psychology of the individual worker, the majority of this theory concerns the organizational culture that exists and pervades the entity (Du et al., 2013). As such, it is very much within the power of the leadership, encouraged by HR directives and goals, to fundamentally increase motivation by changing the ground rules of expectancy theory to reflect a healthy company/business environment. Although this is not necessarily always a net negative, the fact of the matter is that a firm must seek to employ a rather the rigid level of regulations and constraints upon the individual stakeholders (employees) as a means of reducing the temptation that they might have to cut corners and behave in an unethical manner. Victor Vroom himself defined the theory as follows: "This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to performance and to ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved and wanted by the recipients". With regards to such an understanding, the reader can readily see how it is come but upon the firm to seek to engage motivation within the constructs of ethical and realistic means. In such a way, it becomes vitally necessary for the motivating process to be a function of the firm itself and less involved/dependent upon the egotistical impulses of the component parts (employees). It should not be understood that it is the role and responsibility of the entity or firm in question to seek to rewire the means by which the employees think or exhibit their own natural psychology; rather, it should be understood that it is the role of the firm/entity in question to seek to create the ground rules and a basic environment of interaction between these two so that further levels of efficiency, cooperation, and work collaboration can take place (Livingston & Lusin, 2009). Naturally, the tie in with regards to the way in which a human resources department can seek to affect each and every one of these motivational goals comes clearly into focus. Kolb’s Learning Styles Theory Although many important and aspects of motivation have thus far been discussed, one particular facet of motivational theory that has not readily been engaged with is with regards to the way in which individuals exhibit natural individual patterns of acquiring and processing information. Although each and every one of the theories of motivation to thus far been discussed are fundamentally useful in seeking to allow the employer to integrate with the employee to a more effective means in order to maximize utility/profitability, none of these would be possible if not for the unique ability that the employee exhibits with regards to acquiring and retaining specific information. Within such an understanding, the reader can quickly come to an understanding that it is incumbent upon the firm in question to be able to integrate key issues and “learned” behaviors to the stakeholder/employee (Hoflund, 2013). Accordingly, it is once again incumbent upon human resources to seek to define and manage these “learned” behaviors by encouraging leadership to set a high standard for what will become to be accepted to standard operating procedure within the particular industry/firm/business in question. It must be noted that although leadership, upon the encouragement from human resources, can seek to change learned behavior to a certain extent, it is also very important that the human resources department is keenly aware of the need to find individuals that uniquely suit the needs of the firm. In such a way, the level to which learned behavior must be modified and bent to the company’s particular needs will necessarily be reduced. An ancillary factor that necessarily exists alongside this is that individuals naturally will need to integrate with the information and “learning styles” that the firm seeks to promote at different levels, different degrees, and at differing speeds. Such a construct is of course well understood with relation to the elementary educational application of Kolb’s theory; however, it has only been utilized as a means of promoting motivation within the workforce within the past several years (Metcalf & Benn, 2013). Such an understanding necessarily impacts upon the way in which the human resources department of each and every company must seek to integrate with the employee due to the fact that such a theoretical interpretation means that a nuanced and non-standardized approach must be integrated as a means of affecting the greatest level of change and motivational evolution that is possible within each and every iteration. Conclusion: As can be seen from the preceding analysis, the means whereby a human resource department can seek to affect an overall change on motivation within its employees is multifaceted and broad. Accordingly, due to the fact that a business’ ultimate goal is to perpetuate itself and to maintain a larger and larger share of profitability, the need to motivate employees and maximize utility and efficiency is a primal need. Rather than stating that this is a task for human resources alone, the hope of this author is that the reader has been able to come away with a broader and more complete understanding for the way in which human resources can impact upon leadership; which can then in turn maximize a level of increased motivation within the respective employees. Moreover, it can and should be noted that motivation and the theories surrounding it touch on a broad variety of topics; both with relation to the means by which an employee exhibits extant needs that the firm/entity in question can seek to provide or address. In this way, rather than viewing motivation from a one dimensional standpoint, or as a nebulous concept, it is clearly able to be understood as a core component of one of the key ways in which an entity/form/organization can seek to leverage such a psychological response as a means of benefitting not only the employee-employer relationship, but also the overall level of profitability and staying power that the firm can hope to exhibit within the given market that it serves and competes. References Hoflund, A. (2013). Exploring the Use of Grounded Theory as a Methodological Approach to Examine Network Leadership. Journal Of Health & Human Services Administration, 35(4), 469-504. Cantrell, K (2010). Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-171. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2010.54503774 Dansereau, F., Seitz, S. R., Chiu, C., Shaughnessy, B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). What makes leadership, leadership? Using self-expansion theory to integrate traditional and contemporary approaches. Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 798-821. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.008 David Ng, F. S. (2013). Leadership learning through the lens of complexity theory. Human Systems Management, 32(1), 43-55. doi:10.3233/HSM-130783 Du, S., Swaen, V., Lindgreen, A., & Sen, S. (2013). The Roles of Leadership Styles in Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal Of Business Ethics, 114(1), 155-169. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1333-3 Germain, M. (2012). Traits and skills theories as the nexus between leadership and expertise: Reality or fallacy?. Performance Improvement, 51(5), 32-39. doi:10.1002/pfi.21265 Kalaluhi, S. (2013). Leadership in Context: The moderating Effect of Follower Need for Autonomy on Directive Leadership Style, Empowering Leadership Style, and Leader Effectiveness. Global Conference On Business & Finance Proceedings, 8(1), 139-143. Livingston, D., & Lusin, J. (2009). A Prescriptive Hybrid Model of Leadership: Complexity Leadership Theory and Authentic Leadership Theory. Proceedings Of The European Conference On Management, Leadership & Governance, 102-109. Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2013). Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability. Journal Of Business Ethics, 112(3), 369-384. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1278-6 Miao, Q. Q., Newman, A. A., Yu, J. J., & Xu, L. L. (2013). The Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: Linear or Curvilinear Effects?. Journal Of Business Ethics, 116(3), 641-653. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1504-2 Miniotaite, A., & Buciuniene, I. (2013). Explaining Authentic Leadership Work Outcomes from the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory. (English). Management Of Organizations: Systematic Research, (65), 63-75. doi:10.7720/MOSR.1392-1142.2013.65.5 Norton, L., & Palazzolo, L. (2012). Integral Leadership in Action 2012, Evolving Leadership for an Awakening World: Transforming Leadership through Theory, Action and Application. Integral Leadership Review, 12(4), 1-8. Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6 Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., Trevinno, L. K., & Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding Ethical Leadership Within and Across Organizations Levels. Academy Of Management Journal, 55(5), 1053-1078. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0064 Schuh, S., Zhang, X., & Tian, P. (2013). For the Good or the Bad? Interactive Effects of Transformational Leadership with Moral and Authoritarian Leadership Behaviors. Journal Of Business Ethics, 116(3), 629-640. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0 Schyns, B., Kiefer, T., Kerschreiter, R., & Tymon, A. (2011). Teaching Implicit Leadership Theories to Develop Leaders and Leadership: How and Why It Can Make a Difference. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 397-408. Taylor, S., Pearse, N., & Louw, L. (2013). Development of a Philosophy and Practice of Servant Leadership Through Service Opportunity. Proceedings Of The European Conference On Management, Leadership & Governance, 283-289. Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Spieth, P. (2013). Leadership in Temporary Organizations: A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda. Project Management Journal, 44(6), 52-67. doi:10.1002/pmj.21380 Verlage, H., Rowold, J., & Schilling, J. (2012). Through Different Perspectives on Leadership: Comparing the Full Range Leadership Theory to Implicit Leadership Theories. E Journal Of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 10(2), 68-91. Waters, R. D. (2013). The role of stewardship in leadership: applying the contingency theory of leadership to relationship cultivation practices of public relations practitioners. Journal Of Communication Management, 17(4), 324-340. doi:10.1108/JCOM-05-2012-0041 Read More