Teams are widely recognized as the basic building blocks of most modernday organizations (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Team-based designs enable organizations to quickly align their human resources with the multitude of changing work demands and competitive pressures. Enhancing team effectiveness offers a powerful means by which organizations can gain and maintain competitive advantage. Team effectiveness can be driven by a number of factors such as a supportive organizational environment, team-oriented external leadership, design features, dynamic processes and emergent states, and a host of other variables (Mathieu et al., 2008). However, research and practice have suggested that the best teams are well designed up-front. Teams that have an optimal mix of members’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) are better positioned to work well together and to perform effectively than are teams composed of a less-optimal combination of members (Bell, 2007; Ilgen, 1999). In short, team composition serves as the foundation upon which other team factors are built, and represents a key enabling feature of teams. Moreover, understanding how a team is “composed” can provide insights for targeted team development activities.
Numerous characteristics have been used to index team composition, including personality, functional expertise, competencies, goal orientations, teamwork orientations, and a host of other attributes (Klimoski & Zukin, 1999; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014). Importantly, these individual attributes motivate and enable individuals to occupy different team roles (Stewart, Fulmer, & Barrick, 2005). A role is generally defined as a cluster of related and goal-directed behaviors taken on by a person within a specific situation (Stewart, Manz, & Sims, 1999). Teams rely on different members to fulfill different critical needs such as organizing work, maintaining group harmony, and aligning their efforts with those of others in an organization (Aritzeta, Swailes, & Senior, 2007; Stewart et al., 2005). Accordingly, both research and practice will benefit from a greater understanding of individual differences that are associated with team role fulfillment, and from tools to assess those differences.
Team Role Theories
Roles are often considered to be one of the fundamental and defining features of both organizations (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Sluss, van Dick, & Thompson, 2011) and teams (Hackman, 1990). Aritzeta et al. (2007) noted that there are two heritages in the team role literature. One approach, which we could term role as position, equates roles with expected behavior associated with the particular position that a team member occupies (e.g., Katz & Kahn, 1978). Essentially, this view focuses on the characteristics and demands of jobs and how they give rise to certain expected role behaviors of occupants. A second approach, “role as person,” suggests that roles can be defined as a combination of the values, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals who occupy particular locations in a social network. From this perspective, roles emerge from a combination of members’ natural inclinations or preferences, as well as the social-psychological dynamics of the group (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). We adopt this latter approach because we are interested in developing indices of individual differences that may predispose people to fulfill particular roles in teams.
(Source: The Official Guide to Belbin Team Roles from Belbin HQ - What is Belbin? , 2014)
The interest in team roles gained momentum in the 1980s with the publication of Belbin’s (1981) work on successful management teams. Belbin’s (1981) theory advanced eight distinct team role types:
(a) idea generator,
(b) resource investigator,
(c) chairman,
(d) shaper,
(e) monitor evaluator,
(f) team worker,
(g) company worker, and
(h) completer–finisher.
(Source: Smartsheet Contributor Becky Simon August 7, 2017)
In later editions, he changed various names (i.e., chairman to coordinator, company worker to implementer) and introduced a new role called specialist. Belbin (1981, 1993) examined management teams playing executive simulations (e.g., computerized management and business exercises) during training courses where team performance was measured in terms of winning or losing.
In addition to the possible gender basis, the lack of consistent results across studies may be related to the type of team being assessed and the original sample and context. Belbin’s work focused extensively on management teams, and while certainly of interest, others have argued that top management teams are qualitatively different from other types of teams (Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012).
Employee motivation and engagement are critical sources for employees’ high performance both in manufacturing and services companies (Boss, 2014; Kwenin, Muathe, and Nzulwa, 2013; Reilly, 2014; McMullen, 2013; Trus, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, Delbridge, 2013). Such motivation and engagement have to be generated by effective leadership with clear managerial concepts are critical to influence the employee behavior to bring company to success performance (Boss, 2014; Johnson & Nandy, 2015).
According to the IT sectors if leaders trying to micromanage their employees it will affect team members work load and they will get frustrated instead of motivations.
(Source: Why employee motivation important , 2020)
Companies increasingly realize the important of their work forces to sustain corporate growth, especially in the midst of environmental uncertainty and fierce competition (Bao & Analoui; 2011; Gupta, Ganguli, and Ponnam, 2015). Hence, it calls for clear alignment of the individual workforce and the organization, especially through motivation and engagement (van Marrewijk; Joanna Timmers , 2003).
Motivation
Motivation has an important role in encouraging someone to do the work to achieve their personal or group or company goals. The executive leaders and managers of the companies need to apply effective methods or approaches to influence the employee motivation in order to achieve better performance. Motivation of the employees can be sourced from internal (intrinsic) and external (extrinsic) value for the organization (Zamer, et. al., 2014).
Authors and researchers explained the concepts of motivation from different angles, three of them are: Abraham Maslow (1954), who developed the concept of motivation since 1940s, and explained that the motivation for someone to do something driven by a series of stages of need, as follow: (a) biological and physiological needs, such as: air, water, food, sex, sleep, etc; (b) Safety needs, such as protection, security, law, order, stability, etc; (c) Social needs (belongingness and love needs), such as friends, family, relationship, work group, etc; (d) Esteem needs, such as: achievement, status, self esteem, responsibilities, reputation, confidence, achievement; (e) Self-actualization needs (personal goals and fulfillment), such as: creativity problem solving; spontaneity, authenticity. In 1969, Clayton P Alderfer simplified Maslow’s theory to be three categories, as existence needs (physiological and safety needs), relatedness needs (belonging needs) and growth needs (self esteem and self actualization). While, Frederick Herzberg (1966) with his twofactors theory developed in 1959s known as the hygiene theory. He suggested that people have two sets of factors affecting motivation, namely (a) hygiene factors, they are extrinsic factors and this factors determine dissatisfaction, such as salary or remuneration, job security and working conditions; (b) motivators, they are intrinsic factors and this factors determine satisfaction such as sense of achievement, recognition, responsibility, and personal growth. Furthermore, David McClelland (1961) identified three basic needs, which are: needs for achievement; needs for affiliation and need for power. McClelland’s theory explains the inspiration human needs to be met or avoid failure (Zamer et. al., 2014; Aworemi et. al., 2011).
Employee Engagement
To survive and sustainable growth in the rapid business development and tight competition, the company have to manage their human resources effectively, encourage the employees to keep their high commitment and strong engagement to the company (Markos and Sridevi, 2010). Beside of the employee motivation, Harvard Business Review in 2013 reported the results of a study of 568 entrepreneurs from five countries, namely North America, Asia, Europe, MEA, and South / Central America, explained that the employee engagement to the company is an important thing to be maintained and improved, because it can encourage successful effort for the company (HBR-Report, 2013). It means that if the company is able to build and maintain as well as keep the employee engagement are strong, it is believed the employee and the company will have a good performance. Another reviewed have been done by Markos and Sridevi, (2010); Siddanta & Roy (2010) and Truss, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, Delbridge, (2013) summaries that the employee engagement can improve the performance of the employees.
According to Kahn, (1990); Purcell, (2006); Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, (2010) Engagement is defined as the attachment actions of members of the organization to carry out their role of work better. It means that an employee is said to be involved and bound if he could freely express himself physically, cognitively and emotionally in his official role consistent with the organizational goal (Gupta; Ganguli & Ponnam; 2015).
In addition, Reilly (2014) mentions 5 method to improve the employee engagement, as follow:
(1) use the right employee engagement survey;
(2) focus on engagement at the local and organizational levels;
(3) select the right managers;
(4) coach managers and hold them accountable for their employees engagement;
(5) define engagement goals in realistic.
Performance of the Employees
Many factors affect the performance of employees at the manufacturing and services companies, which are sourced from internal or external domain (Kenichi & Kreitner, 2003). Employee performance can be reflected from the height of togetherness and the level of employee satisfaction (Zuriekat, Salameh & Alrawasdeh, 2011; Pandla, 2016), also the concept of rewards that are implemented (Tze San, Mei Theen & Boon Heng, 2012). Even though many factors influence employee performance, but this study will emphasize on motivation and employee engagement as dominant factors in influencing the performance of employees and believed would affect the performance of the company. Beside the financial, nonfinancial interest or other rewards and the management support (Zamer et. al., 2014; Uzonna, 2013) that the high employee engagement also will strengthen the spirit of employees to improve their performance (Albdour & Altarawneh, 2014; Trus, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, & Delbridge, 2013; McMullen, 2013; Ram & Prabhakar, 2011).
Reference List
Aworemi, Abdul-Azeez, Durowoju (2011), An Empirical Study of the Motivational Factors of Employee in Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 3, No. 5.
Bao, C, Analoui, F (2011). An Exploration Pf The Impact Of Strategic International Human Resource Management On Firm Performance: The Case Of Foreign MNCs In China. International Journal of Management & Information Systems Vol. 15, No. 4, 2011. ABI/INFORM.
Boss, Jeff (2014). 3 Principles Leaders Must follow to Build Employee Engagement. http://forbes. com/sites/jeffboss/2014/10/27/3-principles-leaders-must-follow-to-build-employeeengagement/.
Gupta.M, Ganguli, S, & Ponnam,A. (2015). Factors Affecting Employee Engagement in India: A Study on Offshoring of Financial Services. The Qualitative Report 2015 Volume 20, Number 4, Article 8, 498-515. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/4/gupta8.pdf.
Herzberg, F (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Co.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kenichi,A & Kreitner, R (2003). Organizational Behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (international ed). Nwe York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Kwenin, Muathe & Nzulwa (2013). The Influence of Employee Rewards, Human Resourse Policies and Job Satisfaction on the Retention of Employees in Vodafone Ghana. European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5, No. 12, 2013.
Van Marrewijk. M.V and Timmers.J (2003), Human Capital Management: New Possibilities in People Management. Journal of Business Ethics, May 2003; 44, 2/3 ABI/INFORM.
Markos, S & Sridevi, MS (2010). Employee engagement: the key to improving performance. International journal of business and management. Vol. 5. No. 12, Dec 2010.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality, New York: McGraw-Hill.
McMullen (2013). Reward Strategy and Practice: Eight recommendations to improve Employee Engagement. Journal of Compensation and benefits. July/August 2013 Thomson Reuters.
Purcell, J. (2006). Change agenda, reflections on employee engagement. London: CIPD.
Ram, P & Prabhakar, G.V (2011). The role of employee engagement in work-related outcomes. Interdisciplinary journal of research in business. Vol. 1 March 2011.
Reilly, Robyn (2014). Five ways to improve Employee Engagement Now. Business Journal GALLUP.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Siddanta & Roy (2010), Employee Engagement – Engaging the 21st century workforce. Asian Journal of Management Research. 2010.
Truss, C; Shantz, A; Soane, E; Alfes, K & Delbridge, R (2013). Employee engagement, organizational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory. The international journal of human resource management, 2013.
Uzonna, U.R (2013). The impact of the motivation on the employee’s performance: a case study of creditwest bank Cyprus. Journal of economics and international finance. Vol. 5 August 2013.
Why employee motivation important (2020) [Video].Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyEpGMNjtdk&t=126s [Accessed on 04 December 2022]
Zameer, Hashim; Ali, Shehzad; Nisar, Waqar & Amir, Muhammad (2014). The impact of the motivation on the employee’s performance in beverage industry of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic in Accounting. Finance and Management Sciences. Vol. 4 No. 1 Jan 2014.
Zuriekat, M,, Salamah R, & Alrawashdeh S (2011). Participation in Performance Measurement Systems and Level of Satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 8 May 2011.
Vroom‟s expectancy theory (1964) is different from other motivation theories such as Maslow‟s and Alderfer‟s, in the sense that Vroom‟s theory provides the cognitive process of variables according to individual differences in the work place rather than mentioning what exactly motivates members of an organization. Moreover, Vroom (1964) was the first scholar who developed an expectancy theory with direct implications in workplace settings based on employees‟ beliefs. In any work environment, people believe that there is a direct correlation between the effort they put into performing their best at work, the reward they receive from their hard work, and their final performance. As educational leaders who hold administrative positions, Vroom‟s expectancy theory can best explain motivating factors affecting employees by taking into account three main factors of “effort-to-performance expectancy, performance-to reward expectancy, and reward valences” (Lunenburg, 2011a).
More about Vrooms Expectancy Theory simply explain below video
Vrooms Expectancy Theory (Source: Vrooms Expectancy Theory , 2019)
This practical viewpoint is based on four assumptions. One assumption describes people’s motivation to joining an organization based on how they react to the organization considering their needs, motivations, and past experience. A second assumption focuses on individual conscious choices, which are people’s own expectancy calculations. The third assumption is that each individual demand different things from the organization, such as job security and higher monetary compensation. The last assumption of Vroom is that people have the tenancy to pick alternative choices among available options in order to increase their personal outcomes. Vroom believed that motivation is the amount a person will be driven to do or not to do something depending on the situation they find themselves in. To sum up, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory has three key factors: Expectancy (individual’s estimate of the results of the job-related effort), Instrumentality (the extent an achieved task will lead to expected result(s)), and Valance (the reward of the archived task) (Vroom, 1964) (Figure 4).
Expectancy is the likelihood that a person will succeed on a given task, and it is associated with the risk that is intertwined with carrying out the task. If the task involves higher risk of failure, there will be lower motivation to invest in no chance of accomplishment. Surprisingly, the same will happen if the tasks involve low risk of failure. In this instance, no significant result is foreseen and therefore the task would not be worth investing in. On the other hand, if there is only some risk involved with carrying out a task, there will be optimal motivation since success is likely in such task. In the first two scenarios, the doer of the task will experience failure identity associated with apathy, insecurity, and indifference, whereas in the later situation, the doer of the task will experience self-worth along with feelings of confidence, effort, and interest. At any task, the value that comes with accomplishment is the other important entity. The value may trigger intrinsic (personal) or extrinsic (social) factors. One may find a task worthy of accomplishment because of personal likes and dislikes, needs and drives, or to satisfy social approval, acquire status, power, or recognition. All above factors are intricately related and combined to influence the development of a goal.
In other words, according to Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory, when an individual indicated that he/she can do a task, Ability Beliefs and Expectancy for success will be differentiating factors which determine final achievement of the task (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). Ability belief refers to “a person‟s current sense of competence in being able to complete a task” and expectancy for success is “how successful an individual believes he or she can continue to be in the future” (Macdonald et al., 2014: 76) which is the “expectancy” section of Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory. Furthermore, each task comes with a value, or as Eccles et al. (1998) categorized the factors of an individual‟s engagement, intrinsic value, utility value, attainment value and cost. The first three types of values influence an individual‟s desire to complete a task positively and has direct relationship between increases value and motivation, whereas the last factor, cost, is the negative aspect of engaging in a task.
There are first and second order outcomes in Vroom‟s Expectancy Theory. First order outcomes refer to results which are directly related to employees‟ behaviors, such as performance at work, showing creativity in doing one‟s job, being punctual and meeting deadlines, and representing oneself as a reliable individual at work. On the other hand, second order outcomes are any positive or negative result of the first order outcomes; e.g. while high performance at work would lead to the boss‟s praise and would result in salary increase; being tardy and not meeting project deadline may result in demotion and losing one‟s job security and acceptance by co-workers (Small et al., 2010).
Components of Vroom’s expectancy theory Expectancy Expectancy is “a person‟s estimate of the probability that job-related effort will result in a given level of performance” (Lunenburg, 2011b: 127). In other words, in a workplace environment, employees‟ expectancy is fulfilled when there is probability that their effort will result in their ideal level of performance and, on the contrary, may not be satisfied if employees know that despite their effort, they will not reach the preferred outcome. It is the perception that “effort will result in performance” (Lunenburg, 2011: 127) and has a direct correlation with performance. Hence, the value of expectancy resonates between 0 and 1. In this study the expectancy for nontenured faculty is to gain tenured status by activity engaged in academic productivity. Efforts in this component will lead to first order outcomes.
Vroom‟s expectancy theory was later expanded and refined by Porter and Lawler (1968) and others (Pinder, 1987) (Lunenburg, 2011: 127). Figure 5 depicts the first and second order outcomes according to Small et al. (2010).
Reference list
Eccles JS, Wigfield A, Schiefele U (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, New York: Wiley. 3:1017-1095.
Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of psychology 53(1):109-132.
Lunenburg FC (2011). Expectancy theory of motivation: motivating by altering motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 5(1):1-5.
Lunenburg FC (2011). Decision making in organizations. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 15(1):1-9
MacDonald SK, Williams LM, Lazowski RA, Horst SJ, Barron KE (2014). Faculty Attitudes Toward General Education Assessment: A Qualitative Study about Their Motivation. Research and Practice in Assessment 9:74-90.
Pinder CC (1987). Valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory. Motivation and Work Behavior 4:69-89.
Porter LW, Lawler EE (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.
Small R, Chauncey S, McKenna P (2010). Motivation at a Glance: An 100 Int. J. Educ. Admin. Pol. Stud. ISchool Collaborative. Retrieved from: http://sites.google.com/site/motivationataglanceischool/
Vroom V (1964). Expectancy theory. Work and motivation.
Vrooms Expectancy Theory (2019) [Video].Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpnzW06shsM [Accessed on 03 December 2022]
Based on McGregor’s (1960) theorizing, managers possessing Y-type managerial X/Y attitudes will enact more Y-type managerial behaviors. More specifically, managers with a positive view of human nature will act in accordance with these beliefs, and will show higher levels of Y-type behaviors, providing higher levels of encouragement, delegation, autonomy, responsibility, and more general rather than close supervision. Per McGregor’s (1960) cosmology, managers with more Y-type attitudes would enact behaviors which reflect these fundamental assumptions. Accordingly it is posited:
Hypothesis 1: Manager X/Y attitudes are positively related to manager X/Y behaviors.
McGregor’s (1960) third assertion was the most powerful one. In essence, he argued that a manager’s cosmology (i.e., assumptions about people at work) was potentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, the manager who adopted practices consistent with Theory X would find that employees had little motivation or interest in the work performed—caring only about their (typically meager) paychecks. The manager would then turn to a colleague and complain that “you cannot get good help nowadays”— completely unaware that the lamented low level of employee motivation was engineered by the manager him/herself. This supreme irony made Theory X/Y intriguing, if not compelling. If a manager’s cosmology is positive and rooted in assumptions that employees can enjoy work and make meaningful contributions, then employees would fulfill these assumptions. Thus, it is predicted.
Hypothesis 2: Manager X/Y attitudes are positively related to subordinate performance.
Importantly, McGregor (1957; 1960) concluded that there was a vast untapped potential for employee motivation and achievement which managers could obtain with more accurate assumptions about people at work. In his words: “We are becoming quite certain that, under proper conditions, unimagined resources of creative human energy could be available in the organizational setting” (McGregor, 1957: 22). McGregor (1960) postulated that if managers enacted practices consistent with Theory Y behaviors, employee motivation would increase, thereby increasing employee job performance. Hence it is predicted:
Hypothesis 3: Manager X/Y behaviors are positively related to subordinate performance.
A manager’s X/Y attitudes should be a precursor of and be aligned with X/Y behaviors which, in turn, should directly affect subordinate performance. Thus, manager X/Y behaviors should mediate the relationship between manager X/Y attitudes and subordinate performance. Therefore, it is predicted:
Hypothesis 4: Manager X/Y behaviors mediate the relationship between manager X/Y attitudes and subordinate performance.
Performance is both an individual- and group-level phenomenon, the two facets being interdependent. From McGregor’s (1960) perspective, managerial attitudes will affect the larger organization by influencing shared norms and knowledge bases that affect workgroup performance. The manager’s attitudes toward work will set the overall climate for the work group (Chen et al., 2007). Therefore it is posited:
Hypothesis 5: Manager X/Y attitudes are positively related to an overall assessment of workgroup performance as provided by the manager.
Consistent with McGregor’s (1960) cosmology, a manager of a workgroup will behave in a similar fashion toward most workers and thereby influence overall workgroup performance. Group performance can be attributed to group factors including shared group behaviors and the norms of team members regarding work (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). Therefore, it would be expected that the manager’s X/Y behaviors would positively affect the group’s shared behavioral processes and lead to higher levels of group performance. Accordingly, it is predicted:
Hypothesis 6: Manager X/Y behaviors are positively related to an overall assessment of workgroup performance as assessed by the manager.
Likewise, manager X/Y attitudes should lead to the enactment of aligned manager X/Y behaviors, which directly affect workgroup performance. Therefore, it is posited that
manager X/Y behaviors will mediate the relationship between manager X/Y attitudes and workgroup performance. More formally stated:
Hypothesis 7: Manager X/Y behaviors mediate the relationship between manager X/Y attitudes and an overall assessment of workgroup performance as assessed by the manager.
However, despite the appeal of McGregor’s (1960) Theory X/Y, as noted above, no evidentiary support has been found pertinent to McGregor’s (1960) theorizing and job performance. The present research seeks to make that connection by using multisourced data and employing a multilevel design which incorporates the three requisite elements—manager X/Y attitudes, manager X/Y behaviors, and individual level and workgroup level measures of performance. Additionally, employee attitudes regarding work need to be considered part of a meso-organizational model (cf., Ostroff and Bowen, 2000). Employee attitudes toward work affect how managers’ behaviors are perceived by the employee (Fiman, 1973) along with the quality of the relationship between the manager and the employee (Sahin, 2012). In the present research, employee attitudes towards work were controlled for, thereby isolating the effects of manager X/Y behaviors on performance.
Motivating People Using Theory X and Theory (Source: Motivating People Using Theory X and Theory , 2018.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjvWicDVv_Y
Reference List
Chen, G., B. L. Kirkman, R. Kanfer, D. Allen, and B. Rosen. 2007. “A Multilevel Study of Leadership, Empowerment, and Performance in Teams.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 331-346.
DeChurch, L. A. and J. R. Mesmer-Magnus. 2010. “The Cognitive Underpinnings of Effective Teamwork: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 32-53.
Fiman, B. G. 1973. “An Investigation of the Relationships among Supervisory Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outputs: An Examination of McGregor’s Theory Y.” Personnel Psychology 26: 95-105.
McGregor, D. M. 1957. “Human Side of Enterprise.” Management Review 46: 622-628
McGregor, D. M.. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McGregor, D. M. 1967. The Professional Manager. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Motivating People Using Theory X and Theory (2018) [Video]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjvWicDVv_Y [Accessed on 30 November 2022]
Ostroff, C. and D. E. Bowen. 2000. “Moving HR to a Higher Level: HR Practices and Organizational Effectiveness.” Chapter in Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. Ed. K. J. Klein and S. W. J. Kozlowski. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sahin, F. 2012. “The Mediating Effect of Leader-Member Exchange on the Relationship between Theory X and Y Management Styles and Affective Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis.” Journal of Management and Organization 18: 159-174.
These theories attempt to explain the specific things which actually motivate the individual at work. These theories are concerned with identifying people’s needs and their relative strengths and the goal they pursue in order to satisfy these needs. These theories place emphasis on the nature of the needs and what motivates individuals. The basis of these theories is the belief that the content of motivation consists of needs (Mullin, 2005)
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory Maslow (1943) made a basic proposition that people are wanting beings. This proposition was based on the way people are always looking for more wants, and their wants are dependent on what they already have. With this, he suggested that human needs are arranged in a series of levels, a hierarchy of importance. He identified eight innate needs of man, including the need to know and understand, aesthetic needs, and the need for transcendence. However the hierarchy is usually shown as ranging through five main levels from the lowest need being physiological, through safety needs, love needs and esteem needs to the highest level of needs being self-actualization (Mullins, 2005) (Figure 3).
This theory states that when a lower need is satisfied, it is no longer a strong motivator and hence the demand for the next higher need becomes dominant and the individual’s attention is turned towards satisfying this higher need. It states that only unsatisfied needs motivate an individual (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006). Irrespective of the demand for satisfaction of higher needs, it has been established that self actualization being the highest level can never be satisfied (Armstrong, 2006).
Physiological needs: It is the basic need of life. It comprises the need for relief from thirst, hunger, physical drive, oxygen, sexual desire. (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).
Safety needs: This includes safety and security, freedom from pain or threat of physical attack, protection from danger or deprivation, the need for predictability and orderliness. (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).
Love: It is sometimes referred to as social needs and includes affection, sense of belonging, social activities, friendship, and both the giving and receiving of love. (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).
Esteem: It is also often referred to as ego and includes self respect which involves the desire for confidence, strength, independence and freedom. In addition is esteem of others which involves reputation or prestige, status, recognition, attention and appreciation. (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).
Self-actualization: This is the development and realisation of one’s full potential. Maslow saw this level as what humans can be, they must be, or becoming everything that one is capable of becoming. It is the need to develop potentials and skills, to become what one is believes he/she is capable of becoming (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).
The hierarchy of needs theory is relevant to this study as the theory is applicable to organizational orientation and employee motivation (Greenberg & Baron, 2003). They further argue that the theory is able to suggest how managers can lead their employees or subordinates to become self-actualized. The idea implies the dual role of the theory first to organizations and second to employees on the basis that both the organization and the employees must decide on the performance of their organization, and that when employees put in their best in the service of the organization, the culture and human resource practice should also ensure that the employees’ level of needs are reflected in the values the organization holds with high esteem (Greenberg & Baron, 2003).
The cultural framework of the organization should reflect the fact that employees’ physiological and security needs are paramount; therefore, when such needs became culturally focused, performance will be improved tremendously in that organization (Maslow, 1954).
Above mentioned needs applied in IT Industries employees as well. According to the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs how can motivates with five needs others work life, for more details go through this below link
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - What motivates us
(Source: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - What motivates us, 2018)
Reference List
Armstrong M (2006). Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page, Pp. 251-269.
Greenberg, J., and Baron, R. A.( 2003). Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.
Maslow AH (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50(4):370-396
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - What motivates us (2018) [Video].Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IETlvTNWhPg&list=PPSV [Accessed on 29 November 2022].
Mullins LJ (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour. Prentice hall. UK 7th Ed. 88(431):1052-1058.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Herzberg’s et al. (1959) motivation-hygiene theory, also referred to as the two factor theory or dual-factor theory, was the conceptual framework for this study. Employee job satisfaction is necessary for employee retention and the reduction of employee turnover in organizations (Lu et al., 2016; Torres, 2014). Bryant and Allen (2016) and Franco (2016) noted that employee job dissatisfaction negatively affected the retention of an organization’s workforce. Herzberg et al. noted there are two separate continua; job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, in the motivation-hygiene theory, and different factors distinctly influence job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Herzberg reviewed motivation factors and hygiene factors in relation to employee job satisfaction Workplace motivators are factors that relate employees to the content of their jobs (Herzberg, 1974). Motivators, otherwise known as satisfiers, include (Herzberg, 1974; Vijayakumar & Saxena, 2015).
(a) recognition,
(b) growth opportunity,
(c) achievement,
(d) advancement, and
(e) responsibility.
Workplace hygiene factors include the treatment of employees related to the context of their job and represent environmental and preventive safety conditions of work (Herzberg, 1974).
Hygiene factors, otherwise referred to as dissatisfiers, include (Herzberg, 1974; Vijayakumar & Saxena, 2015).
(a) salary,
(b) interpersonal relationships at work,
(c) company policies,
(d) organizational administration,
(e) working conditions,
(f) supervision, and
(g) job security
Herzberg suggested that satisfiers increase employee retention, whereas dissatisfiers (e.g., low salary or poor working conditions) increase employee turnover.
The two-factor continuum is not designed to produce only job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). The satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels of an employee can remain neutral when the employee senses no satisfiers or dissatisfiers (Herzberg, 1968). Herzberg noted that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not the obverse of each other. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; rather, the opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction. Additionally, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but rather no job dissatisfaction. Herzberg (1968) stated “the fact that job satisfaction is made up of two unipolar traits is not unique, but it remains a difficult concept to grasp” (pp. 75–76). The concept is difficult to understand but important in the comprehension of the two-factor theory. Bell, Sutanto, Baldwin, and Holloway (2014) provided an example referencing an employee receiving a pay raise and different pay scales. Although the pay raise may assist the employee in a short-term motivation or satisfaction effect, salary (being a hygiene factor) has no capacity to alleviate any dissatisfaction. Herzberg (1968) noted that hygiene factors are incapable of providing employees with any motivation or job satisfaction.
Selesho and Naile (2014) examined the effect of satisfiers (e.g., job advancement, promotional prospect) and dissatisfiers (e.g., salaries) on employee retention using Herzberg’s two-factor theory as the framework for their study. Selesho and Naile conducted a mixed-methods study with employees from universities in South Africa to examine factors that influence retention rates. Selesho and Naile analyzed factors that are essential to retaining employees and reducing turnover. The participants indicated that the most influential factor when retaining employees is job satisfaction (Selesho & Naile, 2014). Selesho and Naile concluded that salaries, job advancement, and professional development would cause job dissatisfaction when organizational leadership does not meet these specific factors. Selesho and Naile emphasized the importance of organizational leadership’s ability to develop and execute employee retention strategies that increase job satisfaction and motivation.
Reference List
Bell, R. L., Sutanto, W., Baldwin, R., & Holloway, R. (2014). The gender inequity 110 misconception: How Texas female business school faculty are smashing the glass ceiling. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(1), 39–57. Retrieved from http://www.na-businesspress.com/jmppopen.html.
Bryant, P. C., & Allen, D. G. (2013). Compensation, benefits and employee turnover: HR strategies for retaining top talent. Compensation & Benefits Review, 45, 171–175. doi:10.1177/0886368713494342
Franco, G. E. (2016). Productivity standards: Do they result in less productive and satisfied therapists? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 19(2), 91–106. doi:10.1037/mgr0000041
Herzberg, F. (1968). Work and the nature of man. London, England: Staples Press
Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18–29. doi:10.1016/0090- 2616(74)90007-2
Selesho, J., & Naile, I. (2014). Academic staff retention as a human resource factor: University perspective. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 13, 295–304. doi:10.19030/iber.v13i2.8444
Torres, E. N. (2014). Deconstructing service quality and customer satisfaction: Challenges and directions for future research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(6), 652–677. doi:10.1080/19368623.2014.846839
Vijayakumar, V. S. R., & Saxena, U. (2015). Herzberg revisited: Dimensionality and structural invariance of Herzberg’s two factor model. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41, 291–298. Retrieved from http://www.jiaap.org
Training and development falls under HRD function which has been argued to be an important function of HRM (Weil & Woodall 2005).
It is worth nothing that, as researchers continue with their quest into the training research area, they also continue their arguments into its importance. Some of these researchers argue that the recognition of the importance of training in recent years has been heavily influenced by the intensification of competition and the relative success of organizations where investment in employee development is considerably emphasized (Beardwell et al. 2004).
As per the IT, industries training must be applied for all the employees’ technology and work-related areas enhancement.
According to Kenney & Reid (1986) planned training is the deliberate intervention aimed at achieving the learning necessary for improved job performance. Planned training according to Kenney and Reid consists of the following steps:
Identify and define training needs
Define the learning required in terms of what skills and knowledge have to be learnt and what attitudes need to be changed.
Define the objectives of the training
Plan training programs to meet the needs and objectives by using right combination for training techniques and locations.
Decide who provides the training
Evaluate training
Amend and extend training as necessary
Reference List
Armstrong, M. 1995. A handbook of personnel Management Practices. Kogan Page Limited London.
Beardwell, I., Holden, L. & Claydon, T. 2004 Human Resource Management a Contemporary Approach. 4th Ed. Harlow. Prentice Hall.
Kenney, J. & Reid, M. 1986 Training Interventions. London: Institute of Personnel Management.
Weil, A., &Woodall, J. 2005. HRD in France: the corporate perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29,7, 529–540
.png)
.png)
