Leadership Management and Motivation in Organisation
As the century unfolds, new realities are becoming clearer. New models of Leadership and Management are blossoming, some with unfounded success. For instance, focusing on working better as teams and empowering those closest to the customers to make important decisions have led to great accomplishments (Kurtzman, 2010).
Management is often referred to words like efficiency, planning, paperwork, procedures, regulations, control, and consistency whereas Leadership is often associated with words like vision, creativity and risk-taking (Yukl, 2005). It has also been said that management is basically a control-laden activity; whereas leadership is basically a value-choosing, and thus a value-laden activity (Bass et al., 1990).
Overall Management is defined as “The organizational process that includes strategic planning, setting objectives, managing resources, deploying the human and financial assets needed to achieve objectives, and measuring results” (Burgoyne, 1989).
Leadership is defined as “A process in which leader and followers interact in a way that enables the leader to influence the actions of the followers in a non-coercive way, towards the achievement of certain aims or objectives” (Rollinson and Broadfield, 2002)
In Kotter’s (1996) view Management relates to planning, controlling and organising whereas leadership relates to visioning, networking, creating, coping with change and building relationship. Leadership is often considered grander, more lucrative and admirable, in a word: better, than the less visible, fundamentally based, management (Hughes et al., 2009). The relationship between management and leadership is summarised in Appendix 1.
From this we can argue are managers leaders or vice versa. As Zaleznik (1977) claims that in a bureaucratic society which breeds managers may restrain young leaders who need mentor and emotional interchange to develop. But Raelin (2004) argued that managers are not excluded from leadership. He says there is a potential for leadership to emerge from any individual under the right sets of circumstances.
I would argue from my personal experience that managers can be leaders and vice versa depending on individual capabilities, skills and adapting change, as in Lloyds banking Group (LBG) we have managers as our team leaders and are quite successful in switching their roles and understanding the responsibilities of both managers and leaders. The concept was that as managers have some formal authority to influence subordinates behaviour they can easily occupy the role of leadership.
However, just because the authority was there, it did not mean that subordinates will willingly assent to its use. There had been issues initially when they find it hard to switch over and look from leader’s point of view, which caused problems in bonding with employees and lack of motivation.
This resulted in getting all the managers trained on leadership programmes and understanding the needs or requirements of employees from their leaders. This was again based on how individual managers reacted to situations where they were able to keep their managerial ego aside and think as a team. Some of the managers were very good at switching over and thinking from a team perspective whereas some struggled.
Overall we can argue that Zaleznik argument regarding management and leadership requires different types of people can be true, if an individual cannot cope with the changing organisation requirements. But in LBG we have seen that managers successfully play leader’s role and vice versa to save cost or to adapt change and thus falsify Zaleznik’s argument.
But as Rollinson and Broadfield (2002) often focus on managers can be leaders, this is not an inevitable state of affairs. Even though it is widely assumed that leadership can be taught to anybody, it is probably far more realistic to regard management and leadership as two complementary activities (Kotter, 1988), each one having its own unique functions.
Quality work being top priority in organisations all over world as the use of contingent workers is on the rise. Managing knowledge workers continues to perplex experienced managers across divergent industries. And globalization and the challenges of managing across borders are now the norm instead of the exception. These changes can have a profound influence on how companies attempt to attract, retain, and motivate their employees (Steers et al., 2004)
Motivation, in contrast, results when the person believes that engaging in the behaviour will result in some desired experience or outcome. Motivation is then differentiated into intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Herzberg et al., 1957)
Intrinsic Motivation is where people may be motivated by the relationship between the worker and the task. It takes place when people feel that the work they do is interesting, challenging and have opportunities for advancement and growth.
Extrinsic Motivation takes place when people may be motivated by factors in the external environment such as pay, supervision, benefits, and job perks
The process of motivation is broadly based on a number of motivational theories. In this paper we will asses few motivational theories (Appendix 2) and asses these theories to identify what motivates people.
Instrumental Theory: Initially in the second half of 19th century a concept of Instrumental Theory stated that people work only for money. Motivation using this approach is exclusively based on system of external control and fails to recognise a number of other human needs (Armstrong and Stephens, 2005).
Maslow Needs Theory: The basic of this theory is the belief that an unsatisfied need creates tension and disequilibrium. Maslow (1954) formulated the concept of hierarchy of needs and believed that reasons people go to work changes. It starts from the fundamental physiological needs and leads through safety, social and esteems needs to the need for self-fulfilment. He believed that only an unsatisfied need can motivate behaviour and the dominant need is the prime motivator of behaviour.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Model (Motivation-Hygiene): Herzberg’s (1957) theory sates that the factors giving rise to job satisfaction are distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction. His research led him to conclude that hygiene factors such as pay, status, security, company policies and administration were rarely high motivators. People tend to take fringe benefits and good working conditions for granted, but when they are removed they had a highly demotivating effect. A salary increase had a short-term motivating effect when it was felt to be deserved, while what was felt to be an unfair salary was a long-lasting demotivator.
Overall all these theories adopt a psychologically universal view, which assumes that everyone has a common set of needs and conveys the impression that people are predictable in terms of what motivates them. Moreover all these theories mostly ignore the crucial issue of individual differences and also to the potentially powerful effects of different national and organisational cultures as factors that can shape human needs (Bagher, 2010).
In a work environment, it is sometimes viewed as the difference between what people can do and what they will do. In the practical workplace LBG uses various motivation models one of the highly used motivational models is Support and Challenge Principles Model.
Support and Challenge Principles Model (Sheppard Moscow, 1980): This model suggests that to achieve working relationship requires a balance of appropriate and agreed supportive and challenging behaviours. The two axes of support and challenge when put together create four potential workplace environments as shown in fig below:
S performance performance
U environment environment
T apathetic stressful
CHALLENGE High Challenge
To get the most from your working relationships, it is important to agree how best to work together to maximise performance and minimise tension. One way of thinking about this is to think of in the terms of developing a way of working that is both challenging and supportive. The list of behaviours in each of the categories is detailed in Appendix 3.
Different roles and situations will use different mixes of these two categories and depending upon the situation, the same individual can find any of these conditions or characteristics supporting or challenging. If the workplace situation remains very comfortable or alphabetic for a long time, then additional challenges will stimulate the move towards high performance.
On the other hand if the workplace situation remains very stressful for too long, then support to help manage the implications is highly effective. Though, there will be times when short periods of high challenges or high support are appropriate e.g. at the end of a particular busy period, comfort is a reward and high challenges can be very stimulating and energising in short bursts (LBG, 2011).
Management’s main interest in motivation is in the prospects it offers for bringing employee behaviour under tight control. Thus what interest managers most is not the process of motivation but employee behaviour. However we can hardly blame managers for believing that motivation theory offers this opportunity, because content and process theories both imply that if we know o person’s needs, the person can be motivated (Armstrong and Stephens, 2005).
Thus from the above we have seen different aspects of motivation and it might appear that there is an element of contradiction in what they say. Content theories deal with the needs that give rise to motivated behaviour, but perhaps oversimplify matters because they tend to portray human beings as having a homogenous set of needs. Nevertheless, as long as due allowance is made for individual differences, this does not detract from their potential usefulness. Process theories have a different emphasis: they seek to explain the dynamics of the motivation process and so much greater account is taken of individual differences (Bagher, 2010).
Historically, leadership has been conceived around a single individual in a specialised role, the relationship of that individual to subordinates or followers, and the individual’s actions. There are several major paradigms of leadership (Appendix 4), such as the traits (“great man”), skills and styles approaches, situational and contingency approaches, charismatic and transformational approaches (Northouse, 2007, p2; Bass, 1990).
The action-centred theory of leadership is based on extensive research by John Adair’s (1984), which focuses on the group and the needs that leader must meet. Adair argues that there are eight functions you must carry out, to meet these needs.
These functions can be learned, practised, observed and refined.
Source: (Bagher, 2010: 186)
Task need: A team leader needs to bring together the group to achieve a task by providing clear instructions and reasons so each member must know and understand what is expected of them.
Team need: Good leaders create groups which function best when they share the sense of purpose along with collaborating work efficiently, effectively, with a sense of pride and responsibility by maintaining or setting new standards.
Individual need: People or individuals are heart of any team but they have physical and psychological needs like better working conditions, status, opportunities to develop, build confidence and motivation.
From this it follows that being effective as a leader is not just a matter of choosing a specific style of behaviour, but arriving at an appropriate balance between the three functions. Encouraging communication between team members is key to creating a team that will continue to work well when the leader is absent. This resilience is valuable and might be referred to as ‘team sustainability’.
Leadership & Power
The link between leadership and power is a strong one and many of the theories of leadership can equally be framed as theories of power. Effective leading depends on relying on different power bases at different times as per need. At its simplest, the way you wield power to get compliance can be appropriate or inappropriate. Appropriate use of power can be described as influence, while inappropriate use can be described as bullying.
Source: French and Raven (1960)
Armstrong, M. and Stephens, T. (2005) Employee Reward Management and Practice, London: Kogan Page Limited.
Bagher, M. (2010) Organisational Behaviour: a contemporary approach, 2nd Edition, Harlow: Pearson.
Bass, B., Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990) Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Burgoyne, J. (1989) Management Development: Context and Strategies, Aldershot: Gower.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1957) The Motivation to Work, New York: Wiley
Hughes, R., Ginnett, R. and Curphy, G. (2009) Leadership, 6th ed., Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Kotter, J. (1988) The Leadership Factor, New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Change, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kurtzman, J. (2010) Common Purpose: How Great Leaders Get Organizations to Achieve the Extraordinary, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maslow, A. (1954) Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper & Row.
Raelin, J. A. (2004) Don’t bother putting leadership into people, Academy of Management Executive, 18(3): 12-28.
Rollinson, D. and Broadfield, A. (2002) Organisational Behaviour and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.
Steers, R., Mowday, R. and Shapiro, D. (2004) The Future of Work Motivation Theory, Academy of Management Review, 29(3): 379-387.
Yukl, G. (2005) Leadership in Organizations, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zaleznik, A. (1977) Managers and Leaders: are they different?, Harvard Business Review, (May/June) 55(3): 67-77.
French, J. P. R., and Raven, B. (1960) The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 607-623), New York: Harper and Row.
A Comparison of Management and Leadership Competencies.
Source: Northouse, 2007, p. 10.
Summary of Motivation Theories and their practical implications
Summary of theory
People will be motivated to work if rewards and penalties are tied directly to their performance.
Conceptual basis of incentives and pay for performance schemes.
Unsatisfied needs create tension and disequilibrium. To restore the balance a goal is identified which will satisfy the need, and a behaviour pathway is selected which will lead to the achievement of the goal. Only unsatisfied needs motivate.
Identifies a number of key needs for consideration in developing total reward policies.
The factors giving rise to job satisfaction (and motivation) are distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction. Any feeling of satisfaction resulting from pay increase is likely to be short-lived compared with the long-lasting satisfaction from the work itself. Makes a distinction between intrinsic motivation arising from the work itself and extrinsic motivation provided by employer, e.g. pay.
A useful distinction is made between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation which influences total reward decisions. The limited motivational effects of pay increases are worth remembering when considering the part contingent pay can play in motivating people.
Motivation is likely only when a clear perceived and usable relationship exists between performance and outcome and the outcome is seen as a means of satisfying needs.
Provides the foundation for good practice in the design and management of contingent pay. The basis for the concept of the ‘line of sight’ which emphasises the importance of establishing a clear link between the reward and what has to be done to achieve it.
Latham and Locke
Motivation and performance are higher when individuals are set specific goals, when the goals are difficult but accepted and when there is feedback on performance.
Provides a theoretical underpinning for performance management processes to ensure that they contribute to motivation through goal setting and feedback.
People will be better motivated if they are treated equitably and de-motivated if they are treated inequitably.
Emphasis the need to develop an equitable reward system involving the use of job evaluation.
Source: (Armstrong and Stephens, 2005)
Definitions of key Job Dimensions
Job Dimensions Definition
Work Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee is satisfied with work, including opportunities for creativity and task variety, allowing an individual to increase his or her knowledge, changes in responsibility, amount of work, security, and job enrichment (Balzer and Smith et al, 1990; Smith et al, 1969)
Pay Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee forms an attitude toward pay based on perceived difference between actual pay and the expected pay. Expected pay is based on the value of perceived inputs and outputs of the job and the pay of other employees holding similar jobs or possessing similar qualifications (Balzer and Smith et al, 1990)
Supervision Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee is satisfied with his or supervision, as measured by consideration and employee-centred actions of the supervisor and the perceived competency of the supervisor by the subordinate (Balzer and Smith et al, 1990, Herzberg et al, 1957)
Satisfaction with promotions: The degree to which an employee is satisfied with the Company’s promotion policy, including frequency of promotions, and the desirability of promotions (Balzer and Smith et al, 1990, Herzberg et al 1957)
Co-workers’ Satisfaction: The work-related interaction and the mutual liking or admiration of fellow employees (Bazler and Smith et al, 1990, Smith et al, 1969, Alderfer, 1969)
Overall Job Satisfaction: The extent to which an individual’s desires, expectations and needs are fulfilled by employment (Szilagi, Sims, and Terrill, 1977)
Build on STRENGTHS
Offer HELP and guidance
Ask OPEN questions
DISCLOSE similar experiences
Ask PROBING questions
Point out AVOIDANCE behaviour
Offer ALTERNATIVE opinions
Tell people what you EXPECT
Set STRETCHING targets
ASSERT your views
Having Things Like
Tools or Methods
A climate of openness and honesty
Having Things Like
Confronting feedback from others
Doing things in a different way
Working with fresh people
Learning new behaviours
New tools or processes
High work volumes