Motivational Theory in Management. Transiting from theory to application & cultural hindrances to a Western approach.

The following essay will compare and contrast classical and contemporary motivational theories of management. Motivational theories of management originate from the broad category of organization behavioural management. Motivational theories are generally said to have stemmed from management theorists in the United States (Lane, Distefano & Mazneuski, 2005). This essay will also address the impediments that impact on management across National borders.

The foundations of motivational management theory address issues pertinent to employees within organizations, including but not limited to; motives, work ethics, needs, stability and intellectual stimulation (Heldman, Baca, & Jansen, 2007). As part of the complex change management approach, it is recognised that motivators in the workplace change over time.

Communication between management and subordinates is key to motivational theory success. Open lines of communication result in the dispersion of knowledge, authority and increase subordinate autonomy and supply a sense of contribution within an organization.

One of the first management theorists, Henri Fayol (1841-1925), began his management studies primarily through the mining and labour industries. He is viewed as a classical theorist, and opinion is divided on how to interpret and apply his theories. Some current researchers suggest that his approach to management lacked a humanistic approach, while others believe it utilises the correct balance of humanism and managerial superiority. Fayol remains a controversy and enigma amongst contemporary management theorists (Bagozzi, Bergami & Leone, 2003).

Fayols approach to management is in stark contrast to another theorist of his 1

time, Fredrick Taylor. Taylor had a bottom-up approach to motivation and management. By this it is meant that Taylor believed you cared for the workers first and foremost, next the task at hand, followed by supervisors and managers. Fayol on the other hand, had a top-down approach that suggested that without adequate and efficient management, neither subordinate staff or tasks at hand could function otherwise. More contemporary theorists meet on middle ground, recognising that a motivated workforce (team) is a combined effort of self-motivated staff and motivating managers (Dale, Wu, Zairi, Williams & Van Der Wiele, 2001). Regardless, both theorists agreed that managers can be made, which went against the thinking of the time, that managers are in-fact born.

Obviously what motivates subordinates and management alike is significant to the outcomes achieved within organizations. There are a variety of motivating factors that affect staff retention and high outcome achievements within organizations. It is in the interest of management to identify these stimulants within their team and to nurture and develop when required (Crawford, 2006). According to researcher Dianne Huber (2006), some of the key motivators in contemporary organizations are a pleasant work environment that provides safety and job security, the ability for staff to be challenged intellectually, adequate communication methods between management and subsidiary staff, salary, and a sense of contribution, autonomy and recognition.

It is not the purpose of this essay to transpose the above attributes into Maslows hierarchy of needs, since there is a great deal of literature available to the reader of needs as motivators. What will be said here is that ever increasingly management theorists recognise the importance of staff motivators and the direct relationship to staff performance and staff retention. Herzbergs Motivation Theory

Towards the beginning of the 1960s, a motivational approach to management 2

in organizations was developed by Herzberg (1959). Research has shown that key elements of Herzbergs approach to workplace motivation continue to be relevant today. Herzbergs theory was a two-pronged approach to motivation; firstly hygienefactors and secondly motivating factors (Gardner & Shah, . Herzbergs hygiene theory discredited much of the existing theory surrounding motivation to work at the time. This point of his theory disregarded the importance of financial gain as a motivator to work. It was found that there was a weak correlation between financial reward and sustained, motivated effort in the work place, along with a zero correlation between wage and job satisfaction. This revelation catalysed one of the most strenuously contested areas of motivational theory at the time. These findings are continually used to discredit economical rational theories to date. What was found was that the second component to motivational theory (the innate desire to perform a task well) was the primary factor in a motivated workforce. Herzbergs study inspired a plethora of replicated studies, all of which determined the original findings to be accurate. This was revolutionary in organizational approaches and conduct at the time.

In context, this theory was developed at the end of Western industrial endeavour. There was a significant drop off in the market place for on-mass produced products. Workers were beginning to inquire as to their own inherent motivators and began to seek out work that was both less repetitive and less mindless. Contemporary work practice continues to provide opportunities for innovation and creative freedom, which not only act as motivators but also provide organizations with a leading market edge. The application of these findings to applied motivation theory, is that the ability for management to recognise individual innovation within their organization, and to nurture this approach in workers distinguishes organizations that are leaders in their field from those who stagnate in out-dated motivational practices.

Cynics continue to argue that people are motivated by monetary gain and that 3

Herzbergs results may be impinged by factors such as personality and a turn in the market place, from when the study was conducted. Herzberg was given the opportunity to address critics, by going on to say that there is a distinction between motivators andmovers. Motivators were defined as deep-seated, innate longings for internal satisfaction, while movers were identified as external factors that cause transit in the workplace, whereby often a person will move to a higher paying position only when there motives arent being met. Herzberg drew from a diverse series of studies across Japan, South Africa, India, Italy and Israel, determinedly arguing that motivation originates from the need for growth, which negates the need for individuals to seek incremental incentives to drive their internal desires for accomplishment. A motivated leader is recognised as a visionary, that engages in partnership with subordinates for the greater value of both organizational outcomes and individual goals and fulfilment (Sorrentino & Higgins, 1996). Such a leader is able to identify end-points and goals, inspire effort towards achieving outcomes, discard, extend, introduce and reintroduce ideas as limitations or altered values of existing ideas become apparent. Along with these qualities, a visionary manager must recognise individual motivators of staff, maintain open means off communication and most importantly recognise future visionaries and innovators and use those people to the organizations advantage. Motivational management is a complex structure that is the leading feature of change management (including other more general management components).

Regardless of the value of theoretical motivational concepts, tangible behaviours are required to transit theory into application. The main dilemma experienced by the dedicated motivational manager, is that there are many poorly assembled motivational theories that continue to surface. The benefit of returning to the classical theorists and advocates of their approach, is that tried and tested theories can form the basis of contemporary motivational exploration.

Cross-cultural motivational management theories 4

As mentioned earlier, motivational theories pertaining to management and organizational aptitude have been largely developed in the United States. The above-mentioned motivating factors within organizational behaviour are relatively particular to the United States and Western organizational culture per-say. Cultural cognition has been an under-valued characteristic throughout motivational management theory (Steers & Porter, 1991). Motivation attributes that are socially and therefore culturally constructed, which affect the workplace include some of the following; competitiveness, engaged and disengaged emotions, autonomy, co-operative work ethic and intrinsic values that affect a persons approach to work (Weiner, Freedheim, Milton & Learner, 2003).

Where most research discusses motivational theories of management, they forget to consider the multicultural nature of the workforce, which is especially pertinent in Australia. Some of the more contemporary research into motivation concerns itself with such issues, for example Steers & Porter (1998) look at the difference between Asian and European work motivators. They found that Asian-Americans tend to perform better at workplace tasks when there is are clear management expectations placed upon the performance of and outcome of a work-related task. European-Americans on the other hand, work better towards outcomes when they are left to set their own tasks within the perimeter of managed guidelines relevant to their organizations expectations.

Concerning motivational theory another distinctive feature that is noticeable in various cultural settings is the attachment to particular emotions (Walker, Schmita & Brake, 2007). This expression and attachment to particular emotions can have a startling impact on motivational management theory when it is applied. An example of distinguishing emotional attachment is as follows; in the United States it is a given that both managers and subordinates take pride in their work. Pride within a motivational context is considered a disengaged emotion. In Japanese work culture, pride is seen as a emotion that doesnt serve the workers or the workplace. Rather a unassuming 5

approach to work is expected and is seen as a motivator, since this approach to work ethics is identified as a positive attribute.

If the above example is transposed into the applied model of the theoretical motivation approach, it means that a common Western method to motivating staff, such as positive feedback and recognition would place a Japanese worker in an uncomfortable position resulting in a reduction in intrinsic motivation (Weiner, Freedheim, Millon & Lerner, 2003).

Cross-cultural motivation theory in management is a pertinent point of further research, since multicultural workplaces are becoming the norm, and travel related work ventures into different cultures is also on the increase. It is important to recognise that what motivates on group of workers in a particular culture may disengage another group of workers elsewhere. TABLE Cultural patterns of differentiation in motivators applied in the workplace.

COUNTRY Engaged Approach Disengaged Approach Outcome in a Western (Australian) Context Deutschland Individual approach to motivation in the workplace. A high dependency on reporting individual KPIs Fits in relatively well in Australian workplace culture, although Australia tends to place more emphasis on a balance between team work and autonomy. Turkey Large focus on teamwork most tasks are approached as a group. Group work is identified as a motivator within this culture.Little relevance is given to individual KPIs. Australia places a larger emphasis on motivating the individual, which it is believed results in a conducive team with a good balance of team work and individual competitiveness. Japan Pride in the workplace is seen as a negative attribute. This impacts on the way in which staff are motivated. Friendliness is seen as the highest attribute a Japanese worker can display. In contrast to Japanese work culture, Australian Motivation Theorists place an emphasis on communication and transparency regarding staff and their ability to express 6

themselves genuinely in the workplace. Asian-Americans Perform better on tasks when the task is designed and delivered by someone other than the staff member themselves. A mix of both external and internal contribution to tasks at hand is a motivator for most Australian workers. EuropeanAmericans Are motivated to complete tasks when much of the tasks parameters are set by themselves, rather than by an external source. See above. The table above is a collection of reference material from mentioned authors, which offers a summary of cross-cultural differences in motivation in the workplace.

Conclusion

This essay has looked at both classical motivation theory and contemporary theory that aims to determine the best way to provide motivating forces to workers in organizations generally via management. The economic rationale approach is generally seen as the most flawed method of motivating in the workplace, while practices that address both management style/delivery and worker satisfaction appear to be of best value.

Pertinent to Australian work culture, the study of cultural diversity and motivation should remain a priority for researchers and theorists alike. The encouragement of tangible action based on applied theory is paramount to successfully motivating the workforce. Continued study into cultural differences is an exciting and current field of motivational science and should play a forefront role in human resource management and business studies.

References:

Bagozzi, R.P., Bergami, M., & Leone, L. (2003). Hierarchical representation of motives in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 88. No. 5 pp. 915944. 7

Crawford, L. (2006) Developing Organizational Project Management Capability: Theory and Practice. Project Management Journal. August 2006. Volume, 38. No. 3, pp 74-97.

Dale, B.G., Wu, P.Y., Zairi, M., Williams, A.R.T., & Van Der Wiele, T. (2001). Total quality management and theory: An exploratory study of contribution. Total Quality Management, Vol 12. No.4. pp 439-449.

Gardner, W.L. &Shah, J.Y. Handbook of Motivation Science.

Heldman, K., Baca., & Jansen, P.M. (2007) Project Management Professional Exam Study Guide. John Wiley & Sons: NY.

Huber, D. (2006). Leadership and Nursing Care Management. Elsevier Health Sciences: US.

Lane, H.W., Distefano, J.T., & Mazneuski, M.L. (2005). International Management Behavior: Texts, Readings and Cases. Blackwell Business Press: US.

Sorrentino, R.M. & Higgins, E.T. (1996). Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of social behaviour. Guilford Press: UK.

Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1998). Motivation and Work Behaviour. The Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Volume 26.

Walker, D., Schmitz, J., & Brake, T. (2007). Doing Business Internationally. McGraw-Hill Professional: US.

Weiner, I.B., Freedheim, D.K., Millon, T., & Lerner, M.J. (2003). Handbook of Psychology and Social Psychology. John Willey & Sons: NY

Bibliography 8

Alexander Haslam, S. (2001). Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach. SAGE Publications: UK.

Bridges, W. (2003). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: UK. Pp. 84, 153.

Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol 7, issue 2, pp. 7390.

Elliot, A.J. & Dweck, C.S. (2005). Handbook of Competence and Motivation. Guilford Press: UK

Graetz, F., Rimmer, M., Lawrence, A., & Smith, A. (2006). Managing Organisational Change. Wiley Press: Australia. Pp. 276-277.

Sinclair, A. (1998). Doing Leadership Differently: Gender, Power and Sexuality in a Changing Business Culture. Melbourne University Press: Australia.