A Question of Motivation: Leadership and Motivation Theories - Essay Example

? “A Question of Motivation Leadership and Motivation Theories Case Study 13 April Stephanie and Alex both work as full-time workers in a supermarket. They have different bosses that have similarities and differences in their motivation and leadership styles. Stephanie works for Jonathan, who has a more relaxed approach to management, while Alex works for Dan, a strict manager with a controlling leadership approach. This paper aims to understand the underlying motivation and leadership theories that shape the motivation and behaviors of employees. It applies Herzberg’s theory of human needs and Taylor’s scientific management theory for the motivation theories, while it uses LMX theory and transactional leadership for the leadership theories. Jonathan and Dan both have LMX and transactional leadership elements, but Jonathan’s human needs approach motivates Stephanie to enjoy her job and to be dedicated to it, while Dan’s scientific management thinking with lack of satisfiers and hygiene factors dissatisfies and demotivates Alex. Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene model, also called the two-factor theory, relies on the analysis that intrinsic factors are related to motivation and job satisfaction, while the absence or poor quality of some extrinsic events are related to job satisfaction (Worthley et al., 2009, p.1507). Motivating factors or satisfiers are intrinsic factors that enhance job satisfaction and are usually connected to the work itself, but they cannot be attained without reaching satisfaction with hygiene or extrinsic factors (Gitman, & McDaniel, 2008, p.329). Some examples are achievement, the job itself, recognition, and growth (Gitman, & McDaniel, 2008, p.329). Hygiene factors are external work characteristics that can reduce or remove job dissatisfaction because they can facilitate motivation (Worthley et al., 2009, p.1507). A number of hygiene factors are company policies, relationship with supervisors, salary and benefits, and job security (Gitman, & McDaniel, 2008, p.329). Herzberg argues that only intrinsic factors can produce high motivation levels, and while extrinsic factors do not directly motivate workers, managers that do not respond to them creates an environment of low-quality work performance (Worthley et al., 2009, p.1507). Jonathan responds to both satisfiers and hygiene factors. He motivates employees through providing a good and friendly working environment and building a trusting relationship with his subordinates. He is described as being friendly and relaxed in managing his people. Furthermore, Jonathan provides fair wages and bonuses. He promised Stephanie a $75 bonus, if she could sell ten bottles of truffle oil next week, and he is involved in any unfair wage practices (Robbins, & Judge, 2006, p.713). Because of these hygiene factors, Stephanie feels satisfied with her job. Aside from hygiene factors, Jonathan ensures satisfiers for his employees. He allows his people to grow skills and knowledge through job rotation. He also makes the work challenging by setting different goals for every subordinate. Hence, Stephanie feels motivated to do her job and to give her best at the culinary center, where she is recently assigned. Dan, on the contrary, does not provide satisfiers and hygiene factors. He has poor hygiene factors. He does not treat his employees kindly, such as when he berated Alex for eating lunch for thirty minutes, when employees are officially allowed forty-five minutes of lunch break. He uses demeaning words and shames Alex in public, thereby damaging his relationship with the latter. He also does not pay wages fairly because he pays a newbie employee $2 more than Alex (Robbins, & Judge, 2006, p.713). Because of the absence of hygiene factors, Alex is severely dissatisfied with his job. Moreover, Dan does not offer satisfiers in the job. Alex finds the work boring because it is monotonous and has not opportunity for growth. He is not recognized for his hard work and he feels being criticized all the time. He is not motivated to work for Dan and to stay with the company. Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory is another useful motivation theory for this case study. It is based on the belief that economic incentives motivate people and there is only one best way to do the job (Gitman, & McDaniel, 2008, p.329). The scientific approach is applied to each element of a person’s job, where training and development follow a scientific basis too (Gitman, & McDaniel, 2008, p.329). Cooperation, not collaboration, is promoted between managers and workers, so that the best scientific way to the job is attained (Gitman, & McDaniel, 2008, p.329). Efficiency is important, where division of labor tends to be rigid (Gitman, & McDaniel, 2008, p.329). Taylor integrated cost management into daily planning and control (Kulesza, Weaver, & Friedman, 2011, P.108). Managerial control of the whole production process is critical. Jonathan and Dan have aspects of scientific management in their motivation approach, but Jonathan mixes it with humanistic management thinking. These supervisors both control different domains of the workplace through job design and workplace policies. They also use economic incentives to impact performance levels and to enhance productivity. The main difference is that Jonathan promotes work variety and empowerment to some extent, while Dan severely controls workers in an authoritarian manner. Dan focuses on efficiency through job repetition, and not variety and growth through job rotation. This essay proceeds to leadership theories, starting with the LMX theory. The LMX theory asserts that different leader-member treatment and relations affect the quality of member performance (van Breukelen et al., 2012, p.44). Each pair of leader and member or dyads can have different linkages, which affect employee motivation and performance (Gill, 2011, p.77). Those who are part of the inner circle with the leader enjoy access to more information and this enhances their quality of work. They have better work relations, and so they are motivated and have good performance levels. Outsiders do not have the same access and become less motivated with their jobs. The LMX theory is best applied to Dan, although Jonathan also exhibits it. Dan gives Denise $2 more per hour than Alex because she is part of the inner circle. Alex comments that Denise constantly praises Dan, something he would not do to get better pay. Alex is then part of the outer circle. He does not enjoy the benefits that Denise accesses because he is not close to his supervisor. Jonathan has close relations with all his employees. He treats them as integral to the inner cycle and he allows them do their jobs in an autonomous level, as long as specific and clear performance goals are established. His LMX dyads motivate his employees. The final leadership theory is transactional leadership, which has the elements of management-by-exception and contingent award (Gill, 2011, p.83). Management-by-exception has two forms, passive and active, where passive managers react, when problems arise, while active managers monitors deviations and mistakes for immediate correction (Gill, 2011, p.83). Contingent rewards rely on assigning work goals and performance objectives, providing feedback, and giving proper financial and psychological rewards for every goal achieved (Gill, 2011, p.83). Dan and Jonathan are transactional leaders, although Jonathan is a passive leader with fair contingent awards, while Dan is an active manager with unfair rewards. Jonathan does not breathe on Stephanie’s neck as she does her job, while Dan monitors even Alex’s lunch break. Dan does not pay his employees fairly, while Jonathan ensures that rewards are contingent on actual performance. The case study shows that Dan and Jonathan are both transactional and LMX leaders, but Dan uses them with an authoritarian and strict scientific management approach. Jonathan values satisfiers and hygiene factors for his employees to motivate them. He focuses on managing people, but mostly through clear goals and standards, as well as salaries and bonuses. Because of Dan’s leadership style, Alex is dissatisfied and not motivated to work hard, while Jonathan’s leadership approach satisfies Stephanie and makes her motivated in her job. References Gill, R. (2011). Theory and practice of leadership (2nd ed.). California: SAGE. Gitman, L.J., & McDaniel, C.D. (2008).The future of business: The essentials (3rd ed.). Ohio: Thomson. Kulesza, M.G., Weaver, P.Q., & Friedman, S. (2011). Frederick W. Taylor's presence in 21st century management accounting systems and work process theories. Journal of Business & Management, 17(1), 105-119. Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2006). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall Publishing. van Breukelen, W., van der Leeden, R., Wesselius, W., & Hoes, M. (2012). Differential treatment within sports teams, leader-member (coach-player) exchange quality, team atmosphere, and team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 43-63. Worthley, R., MacNab, B., Brislin, R., Ito, K., & Rose, E. (2009). Workforce motivation in Japan: An examination of gender differences and management perceptions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(7), 1503-1520. Read More