University of Reading Business School Organizational Behavior Coursework Essay 1 What are the benefits and dangers of motivation

n theory for contemporary managerial practice? TO: Ismael Al-Amoudi FROM: STUDENT NAME STUDENT NUMBER Submitted: Wednesday 7th March 2007, 12:00 Word Count: 2,658 (Including abstract Excluding bibliography)

Davide Serafini 15019699

Abstract In order to analyse the impact of benefits and dangers motivational theory exerts on contemporary managerial practice, it is important to analyse what is meant by contemporary managerial practice in the first place. Ok Once the background analysis as to what contemporary managerial practice is, the essay will develop in the attempt of analysing the benefits and dangers mainstream motivational theories cause on modern management. The contemporary managerial practice will be depicted mainly through the Marxist and Taylorist perspective. However in order to portray a rather more modern view, an interview by George Harris (2005) with Peter Drucker, will be used to extract certain elements of twenty-first century management. Mainstream motivational theories will, above all, be exposed through the concepts portrayed by Maslow, Vroom and McGregor. The essay will ultimately hypothesize that the danger of motivational theories is not in the theoretical aspect itself, but in the practical application of the theories adopted by management.

In the attempt of analysing the benefits and dangers of motivational theory causes to contemporary managerial practice, the essay will evolve by analysing two central arguments. Primarily a discussion will aim at portraying what the contemporary managerial practice really is. Once the contemporary managerial practice has been analysed, motivational theory will be analysed within that context, trying to unveil the benefits and dangers the theories exert. The essay will adopt a contemporary time frame, ranging from the works on Scientific Management by Taylor at the start of 20th Century to the modern application of motivation theories at the dawn of the 21st Century. Good. You are right to define the time frame corresponding to what you mean by contemporary. Marx states that workers experience alienation, other theorists acknowledge the fact that a distinct separation between workers and managers exists. This separation between the two employee categories creates the need for managers to motivate, in order to achieve the best possible output from their labor power (Knights et all, 2007). The essay will, therefore be based on the conception that motivation is an empowering tool (Harris, 2005), and from this conception it will analyse the two central arguments previously mentioned.

Davide Serafini 15019699

Karl Marx famously stated that men make history, but not under conditions of their own choosing (Knights et al, 2007, pg. 58), through Marxs quotation the core conception of contemporary managerial practice can be portrayed: people need coordination. Contemporary managerial practice developed as significant number of workers [started to become] employed by a single capitalist (Braverman, 1974, pg. 59). In order for the capitalist to achieve coordination, he needed a system of guidance and control for his labor power. However in modern managerial practice, power lies within a group of capitalists: the shareholders (Harris, 2005). It can therefore be said, that to a certain extent, twenty-first century capitalism sees the managerial force itself as part of the labor force, and the shareholders as the capitalists. Agreed. Another (post-marxist) conception is that the dichotomy worker-owner is less salient than in the 19th Century, in part because of the advent of a class of rich employees who represent the interests of owners and in part because of the mass ownership of many firms by a large amount of upper middle class people. With the large growth in organizations the US experienced during the early twentieth century, Taylorism developed as a management method and [way for] organization of labor (Braverman, 1974, pg. 85). Taylors approach was an attempt to apply the methods of science to the increasingly complex problems of the control of labor (Braverman, 1974, pg. 86). With the contemporary managerial practice becoming more complex, and with more labor power to be controlled and coordinated, new methods to do so had to be found. Taylors piece rate wage system can be said to be both a control method, as well as a motivating method. Absolutely. Therefore taken into consideration the basic conception of capitalism, expressed by Marx, and its modern prospective in the twenty-first century, it can be said that contemporary managerial practice, is the practice of control and coordination. Motivational methods derived from mainstream motivational theories, can be seen as the means to achieve coordination and efficient productivity (Knights, 2007).

Davide Serafini 15019699

Having depicted in general terms the basic structure of the contemporary managerial practice, the essay will now develop in analysing the benefits and dangers motivational theories have on it. The essay will develop through the conviction that contemporary managerial world still heavily relies upon theories exposed by Marx and Taylor in past centuries.

For the man who is extremely and dangerously hungry, no other interest exists but food (Maslow, 1987, pg. 37), if this quotation is taken literally, then it has little significance. However if it is interpreted as a metaphor for human behavior, then its application is immense, because humans seem to be motivated solely by their needs (Maslow, 1987). Ok Maslows theory implies that human needs must be satisfied (Maslow, 1987). If managers know the basic needs that must be guaranteed satisfaction for their workers then most likely they will act to provide human needs satisfaction, this can be considered a benefit for managerial practice. However according to Maslow, if workers are guaranteed a particular need, then they will develop the necessity to satisfy another need, most likely even more demanding for management to guarantee than the previous. If the physiological needs are relatively well gratified, there then emerges a new set of needs (Maslow, 1987, pg. 39), in a modern workplace environment, basic needs, such as physiological and safety needs tend to be satisfied. However the importance for managerial practice resides in attempting to deliver satisfaction of the more complex needs, belongingness esteem and self-actualization needs. If the need for belongingness where to be analysed, it might be said that this need might never be reached at lower levels of an organisation. According to Marx at a blue-collar worker level, alienation from others might be experienced; therefore, management will not be able to provide means to encourage the satisfying of belongingness needs. Therefore, although Maslows theory might bring the benefit of knowing certain needs exist, one danger management might encounter, is that it will be hard to apply this theory to all levels of an organization. The achievement of human needs also vary according to which cultural background a person might belong to. Therefore the idea
Davide Serafini 15019699

that human needs are standard between all people, is too simplistic, and could become a danger for contemporary managerial practice. Yes. This is convincing. A common danger of motivational theories, is that of cultural boundaries. Maslows theory certainly can be afflicted by such dangers. Two different cultures may provide two completely different ways of satisfying a particular desire (Maslow, 1987, pg. 22). In a global economy, if a multinational organization adopts similar motivational techniques in every nation it operates in, then it risks to create a malfunctioning method of motivation. However some research seems to suggest that differences in desire of needs is not as different as it could be thought to be. Hair, Ghiselli and Porter (1963) conducted a cultural study to demonstrate how managers from different cultural backgrounds rate needs on Maslows hierarchy of needs. The results were striking: Spanish managers were nor appreciably different from German managers or English managers their reports of their motivations (Vroom, 1965, pg. 22). Therefore, although, there is research, which seems to suggest that cultural differences might not be present at a high degree, I believe that how managers implement methods of exploiting human needs is significantly different according to culture. The danger, for example, is that the actual meaning of self-actualization might differ according to cultural background. This has a significant impact on managerial practice, and if not managed correctly it could present a danger to the organisation. Ok. Am I right to guess that you use danger in inverted comas to suggest that it may be identified as a danger by some groups but not others? A further danger, which Maslows theory may exert on modern managerial practice, is that it disregards, to a certain degree, the effect of the environment on human motivation. Human motivation rarely actualised itself in behavior except in relation to the situation and to other people (Maslow, 1987, pg. 28). The effect of workplace relationships differs greatly from the type of organization one analyses. Therefore if the organization in question is a small or medium enterprise (SME), employees might experience greater belongingness, because of more frequent and closer contacts with co-workers. However if the organization in question is a large multinational
Davide Serafini 15019699

corporation, then belongingness needs might be harder to achieve, and alienation might be experienced even at managerial level (Knights, 2007). Therefore the danger for managerial practice resides in how theories are applied to practice. Motivational theories will be adopted differently in a SME than they would in a large multinational corporation. Maslows theory provides a core foundation for understanding motivation through human needs. However, although it can be used as a fundamental theory, its dangers are evident, since it seems to be too generic for effective implementation in managerial practice. However it is hard to find mainstream motivational theories, which do not exceed in generalisation, for obvious practical reasons.

Vroom states that motivation in essence is the moment in which the person is able to perform or not perform the act at will (Vroom, 1965, pg. 7) [sounds very much like (a certain conception of) freedom to me]. Motivational theories seem to all derive from general generalizations about human behavior, Maslow seems to suggest that human needs are innate, on the other hand Vroom suggests that motivation is achieved through interaction, as well as through valence expectancy and instrumentality (Knights, 2007). I believe the greatest beneficial effect of Vrooms theory on managerial practice, is the concept of valence (Vroom, 1992). The benefit would consist in the fact that if management knows people are driven by what they expect the outcome to be, then a method might be conceived to encourage employees in believing their actions will be ultimately rewarded. By doing so employees will be motivated, according to Vroom, only the expectations they develop about their work (syntax?). This concept guarantees a great benefit for managerial practice, mainly because motivation can be achieved through little managerial effort. For example motivation could be achieved via great encouragement speeches, and reward systems.

Davide Serafini 15019699

However the danger for managerial practice, exposed by Vrooms theory, is immense. If employees develop low expectations from their work, then they will be unmotivated, and productivity will ultimately drop (Knights, 2007). Vrooms theory seems to suggest that every individual has an individualistic approach on motivation; in other words, individuals drive their own motivation. However this is not always the case in mainstream motivational theories. Douglas McGregor, on the other hand, seems to suggest that management has the stronger impact on employee motivation, or in more general terms: some people have a significant impact on other people (Knights, 2007).

McGregor tries to analyse how to tap the unrealised potential present in human resources (McGregor, 1960, pg. 4). McGregors Theory X and Theory Y can be said to be a beneficial tool for managerial practice, because it essentially portrays what can be expected from employees, and managerial practice styles can consequently be derived from what is expected. Theory Xs is based upon the general assumption that the average worker is passive, requires intervention from management to be persuaded and motivated (Knights, 2007). In the modern managerial environment theory X can be said to still have a strong influence on managerial decisions, to a certain extent. In fact, if the incentive schemes used to persuade employees in achieving target goals are analysed, they are merely objectives set by management in order to direct and coordinate the workers efforts. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all (McGregor, 1960, pg. 34). If these beliefs McGregor exposes in his Theory X are taken into account in the modern workplace, then it might seem that managerial practice has the complete responsibility of directing and controlling the labor force. However evidence also tends to demonstrate that twenty-first century managerial practice is moving more towards a position of individual empowerment (Harris, 2005). Therefore a modern manager might be described more as a Theory Y type of individual rather than a Theory X, and if
Davide Serafini 15019699

managerial practice were to relay upon Theory X assumptions too heavily it could comprise danger for the whole enterprise. However if some of the aspects expressed in McGregors Theory X were not true, then managerial control systems would not be present in companies (McGregor, 1960). Therefore the benefits, which could be derived from McGregors mainstream theory is that it enforces management not to completely bypass the assumption that some employees might need and want guidance and coordination. However it should also create awareness that some employees might be more ambitious, and require a degree of freedom to work at their best. McGregors theory therefore greatly benefits managerial practice, in that it provides a core knowledge for managers, so that they can direct their managerial style in accordance to the type of employee they are faced with (Al-Amoudi, 2007). However, I believe, that evidence exists which suggests that in the modern organisation Theory X beliefs are still present yes. An example would be stock option plans for managers. If Theory Y completely dominates, then theoretically there will not be the need to encourage managers work via stock option plans. Therefore the benefit in knowing the application of McGregors theories, relies on the fact that it allows management to make better decision-making in regard of which motivational method to choose. However the danger might consist in relaying too heavily upon one of the two theories more than the other. This would compromise the stability or performance of the company, because it would not take into consideration that both Theory X and Theory Y types of employee exist, and that both require different styles of managerial style. Ultimately, it is also true, that the needs at different levels of the organisation are extremely different (Knight, 2007). In fact, a production worker will have different needs, and ambitions, then a top manager, and if management generalizes McGregors theories, this could consist in an enormous danger for the entire organization. I agree. In your view, what causes these differences in needs?

Davide Serafini 15019699

Taken Taking into consideration all the benefits and dangers which have been analyzed, I believe a common danger to managerial practice, is found in all theories. Motivational methods tend to be dictated from top management. Therefore, I believe a great danger resides in the fact that when management turnover takes place, for example a change in the CEO of the company, all the motivational methods knowledge leaves with him. Well, in big firms, CEOs are often trained in similar ways. If this is the case, chances are that the next CEO will use the same recipes. Motivational theories in fact, do not provide practical applications; therefore if the previous management leaves no practical knowledge, the new management taking over the position might dramatically restructure motivation methods based on completely new motivational theories. This would consist in a great danger for the organisation. Therefore the greatest danger might reside in the fact of basing a practical discipline as management is, on theoretical approaches, and leaving it up to the present management at the time to develop practical applications of those theories. It can therefore be speculated that the danger for managerial practice, is not in the theories themselves, but rather in the practical application by the managerial force, which adopts them (Best, 2000). Yes. Another aspect of the gap between the theory and practice of motivation is that theories can at best complement, without replacing, the tacit knowledge of her employees that a (paternalist) manager may have.

Possibilities are not recognized, innovating efforts are not undertaken, until theoretical conceptions lay a groundwork for them (McGregor, 1960, pg. 54). The essay could be easily summarized through McGregors quotation. In fact, motivational theories seem to have benefited contemporary managerial practice through the provision of a groundwork from which management styles can develop in motivating employees. However the dangers seem to derive when the theoretical background is not applied in accordance with the managerial environment it is established in. Nikolas Roses statement, based on Marxist beliefs, that: in work, it would appear, the
Davide Serafini 15019699

worker is no more than a factor of production, just one factor among many caught up in a process whose sole rationale is profit (Rose, 1989, pg. 55), seems to be slowly(?)ing fading as a conception. In twenty-first century management, although Taylorist and Marxist beliefs are still present, the emphasis seems to have shifted more towards employee empowerment, namely McGregors Theory Y, as a means of motivation (Harris, 2005). Ultimately I believe that the benefits and dangers do not reside in the motivational theories themselves, but in how management applies the theories to everyday managerial practice. Therefore it can be said that it is up to managerial practice to avoid the dangers motivational theories can cause, and seek to achieve the benefits they might bring to the enterprise.

70% This is a very good essay. Clear. Well-structured. Nicely written. You address the question and have skilfully avoided drawing an empty catalogue of theories of motivation.

References & Bibliography

ALVESSON, M and Willmott, H, 1992, Critical Management Studies, Sage, London AL-AMOUDI, I., 2007, Lectures: Motivation, and Leadership, Organizational Behaviour module, University of Reading, UK BEST, M.H., 2000, The New Competition, Harvard University Press, US BRAVERMAN, H., 1974, Labor and Monopoly Capital The Degradation of Work in the 20th Century, Monthly Review Press, London
Davide Serafini 15019699

10

CAREY, A., 1987, The Hawthorne Studies: A Radical Criticism, American Sociological Review, 32(4) pages 403 416 EDWARDS, R., 1979, Contested Terrain The Transformation of the Workplace in the 20th Century, Basic Books Inc., New York FILLER, L., There's No Better Time Than the Present to Consider Offering Commuter Benefits, Benefits & Compensation Digest; Jan2007, Vol. 44 Issue 1, p40-43, 4p HARRIS, G., The Post capitalist Executive: An Interview with Peter F. Drucker, in Jossey Bass Reader, Management Skills, 2005, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, USA KNIGHTS, D., and Willmott, H., et al, 2007, Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management, Thomson Learning, London MASLOW, A.H., 1987, Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York MCGREGOR, D., 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw Hill Education, New York ROSE, N., 1989, Governing the Soul The Shaping of the Private Self, Routledge, London SNAPE, E., and Redman, T., 1994, Managing Managers: Strategies and Techniques for Human Resource Management, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK VROOM, V.H., and Deci, E.L., 1992, Management and Motivation, Penguin Education, New York

Davide Serafini 15019699

11