Leadership

Leadership and management are commonly seen as the same, but in reality, they are not. Leadership can be defined as setting a vision or new direction for a group of people for them to follow (Team Technology Business Resources, 2011). It can also be regarded as the act of inducing people to be aware or conscious of what they feel – to feel their true needs so strongly, to define their values so meaningfully, that they can be moved to purposeful action (Burns, 1978). It is a dynamic relationship that, at its best, finds leaders engaged in a process of raising the consciousness of followers, or, at a minimum, engages both leaders and followers in a common enterprise. Leadership is thus, meaningless, without its connection to common purposes and collective needs. People in charge of spearheading leadership are called leaders.

Management, on the other hand, is the process of planning, organsing, directing and controlling resources such as labour, money and equipments to achieve a particular set of objectives (Simpson, 2011). In other words, management is usually concerned with putting measures in place to achieve organizational goals and plans or implementing policies by directing and controlling group effort. Managers are responsible for ensuring the entire process of management is successful.

From the above elaborations, the following are some of the differences between leadership and management

•  Leadership works through influence, while management works through decision making. For example, according to Kotter (1990), leaders motivate and inspire other people to achieve their ambitions.  Thus, leaders are people who are able to think and influence the actions, beliefs and feelings of others. Management by contrast direct, control and ensure everything is going according to plan in an organisation.
• Leadership is responsible for producing change or movement while management can be said as being responsible for maintaining order within an organisation (Kotter, 1990).
•   Management process reduces uncertainty and provides stability; on the other hand, the act of leadership creates uncertainty as it focuses on pursuing opportunities and therefore results in change.
•   Management controls or directs people and resources in a group according to principles or values that have already been established in contrast to leadership which gives room for the application of individual innovation devoid of established principles.
•  Another striking difference between leadership and management is that, leadership may be summarized as activities of vision and judgement, which results in what is termed as effectiveness (“doing the right things” by constantly measuring if the actual output meets the desired output) while management is associated with activities of mastering routines which produces efficiency (“doing things right” by focusing on getting the maximum output with minimum resources).

The difference between leadership and management can be summarised by considering what happens when you have one without the other as outlined below.

Leadership without management

...sets a direction or vision that others follow, without considering too much how the new direction is going to be achieved. Other people then have to work hard in the trail that is left behind, picking up the pieces and making it work. E.g. A Company might decide to expand its business by deciding to open more outlets by the end of 2012 - this becomes the vision but management of resources to achieve this vision comes from others outside that outfit.

Management without leadership

...co-ordinates resources to ensure things happen according to already-established rules. E.g. a referee manages a sports game, but does not usually provide "leadership" because there is no new change, no new direction - the referee is controlling resources to ensure that the laws of the game are followed and status quo is maintained.

Prior to undertaking my A level exams at college, my year tutor, who I consider as the leader in charge of my class, played a significant role in ensuring that each and every one in her class worked hard to achieve our various educational goals. She was very lovely and adorable especially in my Science class considering the fact that none of my colleagues and I was interested in the subject. She encouraged everyone to do well and get good grades. She had an affable personality that made all students from every year group feel more comfortable to speak to her about any issue. We got motivated through her words of encouragement which later on imbued in us the “you can all do it” spirit. Owing to her inability to inspire us, at the end of the academic year, majority of my classmates ended up earning good grades in Science and other subjects which led to most of her students gaining entry into the University such as the one I find myself in today.

From this experience, I can relate the Trait approach theory to my class tutor. The trait theory of leadership is the view that people are born with inherited traits - and that some traits are particularly suited to leadership (Warrilow, 2011).  Early research on leadership - which was a development of the Great man theory of leadership - was based on the psychological focus of the day, which was of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was thus put on identifying these traits, often by studying successful leaders. The focus was not on finding way of teaching these "skills" to people to "develop" leaders, but was on finding other people with these traits who could also become great leaders (ibid.). Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioural characteristics shared by leaders.

Stogdill (1974) established that the Trait theory of leadership identifies the following traits and skills as critical to leaders:

Traits

• Adaptable to situations
• Alert to social environment
• Ambitious
• Assertive
• Cooperative
• Decisive
• Dependable
• Dominant (desire to influence others)
• Persistent
• Tolerant of stress
• Willing to assume responsibility

Skills

• Clever (intelligent)
• Conceptually skilled
• Creative
• Diplomatic and tactful
• Fluent in speaking
• Knowledgeable about group task
• Organised (administrative ability)
• Persuasive
• Socially skilled

My tutor’s leadership can be associated with this theory because from my point of view, she possessed many of the traits and skills outlined above such as being very accommodative and persistent in ensuring that we all put in our best effort to achieve the goal of furthering our education coupled with the fact that she was able to tolerate the stress we sometimes gave her. She was also socially adaptive and also very intelligent and fluent in speaking which ensured effective communication between the students and her.

In conclusion, it can be stated that, not all managers are leaders, and similarly, not all leaders are managers. Both management and leadership skills are very important because their absence in an organisation can prove costly to its success. The importance of both management and leadership within an organisation is illustrated in Figure 1 below which depicts the results they both produce when synergised.

Figure1:Leadership- Management role synergy  Source:http://www.1000ventures.com/design_elements/selfmade/leadership_management_synergy_6x4.png

Thus, although both leadership and management are different terms as discussed above, both processes complement each other as institutions need to be both effective (leadership) and efficient (management) in order to be successful. A combination of both leadership and management within an organisation sets a new direction and manages the resources to achieve it.

Also, it is worth mentioning that, although the trait theory is often regarded as complex and also raises some level of disagreement over which traits are the most important for an effective leader, the theory gives constructive information about leadership (Management Study Guide, 2008). It can be applied by people at all levels in all types of organisations. Managers can utilize the information from the theory to evaluate their position in the organisation and to assess how their position can be made stronger in the organization. This theory makes the manager aware of their strengths and weaknesses and thus they get an understanding of how they can develop their leadership qualities.

REFERENCES

Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Kotter, J. P. (1990) ‘What leaders really Do?’, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 103-11.

Management Study Guide (2008) Trait Theory of Leadership. Available at:http://www.managementstudyguide.com/trait-theory-of-leadership.htm (Accessed: 25 October 2011).

Simpson, M. (2001) ‘Leadership’. MG 402 People and Organisations [Online]. Available at: http://blackboard.bucks.ac.uk (Accessed: 25 October 2011).

Stogdill, R.M. (1974) Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press.

Team Technology Business Resources (2011) Leadership and Management. Available at: http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/leadership-basics.html (Accessed:25 October 2011)

Warrilow, S. (2011) Trait theory of leadership. Available at: http://www.strategies-for-managing-change.com/trait-theory-of-leadership.html (Accessed: 24 October 2011).

http://www.1000ventures.com/design_elements/selfmade/leadership_management_synergy_6x4.png (Accessed: 23 October 2011).

Organisation Culture

Visible aspects of culture can simply be defined as what people can see within an organisation (Schein, 1992). It usually forms the outer boundary of culture within an organisation, encircling basic assumptions (inner layer) and values and beliefs (middle layer) (Simpson, 2011). Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that, while visible aspects emerge as consequences of basic assumptions and values and beliefs, they also reinforce and further embed basic  assumptions  within the core of culture (Dooley,1995).

Outlined below are some examples of the visible aspects of culture at Next, where I am currently a part-time employee.


i)    A typical example of the visible aspects of culture in Next, is the manner in which all the staff are clothed in new season’s attire which makes them look smart and presentable to customers while offering staff a sense of pride in the products sold by the organisation at the onset of every season. All the staffs also have name tags which make it easier for customers to identify them and ask for assistance when needed.


ii)  Another example is the atmosphere experienced when shopping in Next. All the employees are well trained to use the tills available, as well as being conversant with the location of items. This is visible from the customer point of view because they feel relaxed to shop in the friendly environment provided as they receive good customer service while getting assistance from staff whenever needed in finding products. The experience of the staff in this aspect also ensures work is done at a quicker pace. I think the atmosphere is positive because we do get less complains and more compliments which is vital in moving the business forward. Furthermore, the music playing in the background in the shop also creates a friendly, tranquil and comfortable atmosphere convenient for shopping.


iii)   The general layout in the Next shop is another visible aspect of the organisation. All Departments have labels to assist customers in locating items when shopping while various signposts such as directional markings are at various spots in the shop to also guide customers familiarise themselves with each section of the shop.


A power culture: This type of culture can be described as a business culture where by one person makes and gives most decisions if not all. An example of power culture will be an independent small business like a Taxi Company such as Budget Cars. For example, the owner will make decisions on how many holidays an employee will be having, employees’ wages, breaks and hours to work as well as rate to charge for commuting passengers from one place to another. The communication cycle is usually short since the employee, in the case of the Taxi company, the driver, has to directly report to the owner of the cab about his/her whereabouts and subsequently respond to the request of the owner or employer when called upon to pick up a passenger at a specified time.  Thus, this type of culture is characterised by a rapid decision making process considering the fact that the communication cycle is short.
Handy (1999) illustrates the power culture as a spider’s web as shown in Figure 1 below, with the all-important spider sitting in the centre.

            Figure 1: A web representation of power culture

Source: The Open University (2011)

This is because the key to the whole organisation sits in the centre, surrounded by ever-widening circles of intimates and influence.

A Role culture: Role culture is one in which a business is typified by hierarchy levels. An example will be an organisation that has different departments. At Next, for example, role culture is evident because there are different departments such as men’s, women, children wear and home wares with each department having their own manager to report any issues or concern. Each department has its own hierarchical level. For example, the hierarchy at the women’s wear department is made up of the Sales manager, Supervisors, Merit Staff and Sales Assistant. Even though there are different positions, it is the Sales Manager who controls the entire sale floor housing women’s wear and assigns job description to the other staff in the Department. Additionally, each department operates by specific rules and regulations due to the differing products they offer to customers. Unlike power culture, the decision making process in role culture can be slow depending on the level of hierarchy. Therefore, role culture can be illustrated as a building supported by columns and beams (see Figure 2 below): each column and beam has a specific role to playing keeping up the building; individuals are role occupants but the role continues even if the individual leaves.

Figure 2: The building representation of role culture

Source: The Open University (2011)

A Task culture: Task culture is based on working as a team in order to complete an activity. In other words, task culture is exemplified by a team or group of people working together in order to achieve a specific or common purpose rather than working as individuals. The theory behind task culture is to have the same belief and to integrate together. A typical example of task culture is shown by a sport team such as the Arsenal Football Club whereby eleven players are going to be on the pitch and they all have to work hard together in order to defend their club and score a goal to win trophies. The main component of task culture is to get the task done by providing a great deal of freedom and innovation from individuals to accomplish the set mission.

The culture is represented best by a net or lattice work (Sherwin, 2009) as depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The lattice work representation of Task culture

Source: Sherwin (2009)

Some of the strands of the lattice are thicker or stronger than others, and much of the power and influence is located at the interstices of the net, at the knots. Task cultures are often associated with organisations that adopt matrix or project-based structural designs. The emphasis is on getting the job done, and the culture seeks to bring together the appropriate resources and the right people at the right level in order to assemble the relevant resources for the completion of a particular project (Business Open Learning Archive, 2005). 

A Person culture: Person culture, in my own words, is simply the culture whereby individuals have the right to make their own decisions regarding a specific duty or job. In this culture the individual is the focal point; if there is a structure or an organisation, it exists only to serve and assist the individuals within it, to further their own interests without any overriding objective. The theory underpinning person culture is that, power is spread out from the group. It is usually associated with a group of specialists who work as individuals and retain their position but they share the cost of administration together. An example of person culture is evident in the work of specialists in organisations, such as computer people in a business organisation, consultants in a hospital, architects in local government and university teachers who benefit from the power of their professions. Such people are not easy to manage. Being specialists, alternative employment is often easy to obtain, and they may not acknowledge anyone as being in a position to exercise expert power greater than their own. With the central focus on individuals, there is an elimination of the hierarchy that characterises role culture.

This type of culture is illustrated by a loose cluster or a constellation of stars as illustrated in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: The cluster representation of Person culture

Source: The Open University (2011)

In my opinion l think the main problem of trying to classify culture into the four types as described above (power, role, task and person culture) is that, some businesses might find it difficult to fit into only one type of culture due to the extent of their business. For example, Next as a company, might have one department exhibiting role culture (e.g. Promotion department), another department characterised by person culture (e.g. Account department), with yet another department portraying task culture (e.g. Production line) and a department exemplifying power culture (e.g. Human Resources department). I think as a result of business that has many different departments it would be difficult to fit specific culture into the organisation. Thus, an organisation can exhibit all the forms of culture identified above due to the dynamic nature of business.

A cooperative may strive for the person culture in organisational form, but as it develops it often becomes, at best, a task culture, or often a power or role culture. The cultures can therefore be described as not being independent of each other within an organisation.

A difficulty for examining and understanding the levels of culture in an organisation is that rarely are all three levels out in the open. Certainly the level of visible aspects is observable as above; it contains the manifestations of culture that we see around us, the things, adornments, relations, and ways of speaking and address, that characterize tangible life in an organization. But when we attempt to look beneath the visible aspects to find out why they are there, we enter a realm that is often at least partially hidden from conscious thought, even among members of the organization (Dooley, 1995).

        

In general, it seems that, different businesses have different cultures in which they operate. For example, a barrister might have a person culture because of the nature of the business. Also some businesses have stronger cultures than others so it will be difficult to compare some organisations on the same scale.

REFERENCES

Business Open Learning Archive (BOLA) (2005) Harrison: Typologies of Organisational Culture. Available at: http://www.bola.biz/culture/harrison.html (Accessed: 17 October 2011)

Dooley, J. (1995) Cultural Aspects of Systemic Change Management. Available at: http://www.well.com/user/dooley/culture.pdf (Accessed: 17 October 2011)

Handy, C. (1999) Understanding Organisations. 4th edn. London: Penguin.

Schein, E. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sherwin, L. (2009) Managing Change Toolkit: Culture-Handy. Available

at:http://www.lindsaysherwin.co.uk/guide_managing_change/html_overview/05_culture_handy.htm  (Accessed: 20 October 2011)

Simpson, M. (2011) ‘Exploring Organisational Culture’.  Leading and managing change [Online]. Available at: http://blackboard.bucks.ac.uk (Accessed: 17 October 2011)

The Open University (2011). Management: Perspective and Practice- Handy’s four types of organisational cultures. Available at: 

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=403948&section=3.5.2 (Accessed: 18 October 2011)

Improving Staff Performance

Motivational theories can be classified in two categories: content theories and process theories. Content theories revolve around the identification of inward needs e.g. Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs theory, whereas process theories revolve primarily around why people behave as they do; incorporating such factors as perception and learning (Mescon et.al., 1985). In other words, content theories focus on personal needs that workers aim to satisfy. In contrast, process theories focus on how different variables can combine to influence the amount of effort put forth by employees (Mensah, 2009). Basically, content theories deal with “what” motivates people and it is concerned with individual needs and goals while process theories deal with the “process” of motivation and is concerned with “how” motivation occurs. Common process theories include the Vroom expectancy theory, the Adam’s equity theory, and Locke’s goal setting theory (Romero, 2011). However, for this discussion, I have chosen to outline the Adam’s Equity theory

The Equity Theory was developed by John Stacey Adams in 1963 (Mind Tools, 2011). Equity theory assumes that one important cognitive process involves people looking around and observing what effort other people are putting into their work and what rewards follow them. This social comparison process is driven by the concern for fairness and equity. Research by Adams (1965) and others confirms equity theory as one of the most useful frameworks for understanding work motivation.

Adams' Equity Theory calls for a fair balance to be struck between an employee's inputs (hard work, skill level, tolerance, enthusiasm, and so on) and an employee's outputs (salary, benefits, intangibles such as recognition, and so on) as shown in Figure 1 below.

 Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of Adam’s Equity Model

        Source: www.businessballs.com/adamsequitytheory.pdf

According to the theory, finding this fair balance serves to ensure a strong and productive relationship is achieved with the employee, with the overall result being contented, motivated employees

Google Incorporated is a technology company focused on providing web search and advertising. It was ranked by Fortune magazine as the best place in the U.S. to work in 2009, and it has reached another zenith by becoming the most popular Web site. The company offers a brand portfolio of web-based products and services, which are classified into six categories: Google.com, applications, client, Google GEO, Google Mobile and Android, Google Checkout, and Google labs. Google is one of the premier internet brands in the world. The company is ranked among the top brands worldwide. The company generates 97% of revenue from its advertising (Datamonitor, 2009).

At Google Incorporated, innovation and creativity keeps their projects changing and improving. Their consistency comes from their staff who are popularly referred to as ‘Googlers’ – smart, amazing people who foster an environment of collaboration and fun (Google, 2011a).

 Figure 2: A section of staff at Google Incorporated

Source:http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/index.html 

In order to maintain the services and contribution of its staff, Google  Incorporated rewards staff in order to keep them motivated in the job they do.This was summed up by Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google when he commented that:

The goal is to strip away everything that gets in our employees’ way. We provide a standard package of fringe benefits, but on top of that are first-class dining facilities, gyms, laundry rooms, massage rooms, haircuts, carwashes, dry cleaning, commuting buses – just about anything a hardworking employee might want. Let’s face it: programmers want to program, they don’t want to do their laundry. So we make it easy for them to do both (Google, 2011b).

 Some of the ways they motivate staff are as follows

EAP – Employee Assistance Program: Services for employees and their dependents include free short-term counseling, legal consultations, financial counseling, child care referrals, pet care referrals, and more (Google, 2011b).

Life and AD&D Insurance: Automatic coverage at 2 times annual salary (Google, 2011b).

Short Term and Long Term Disability: Short Term Disability Insurance coverage provided at approximately 100% of take-home pay. Long Term Disability coverage provided at 60% of salary once Short Term Disability is exhausted (Google, 2011b).

Google 401(k) Plan: Employees may contribute up to 60% and receive a Google match of up to the greatest of (a) 100% of their contribution up to $3,000 or (b) 50% of their contribution up to $8,250 per year with no vesting schedule! Google offers a variety of investment options to choose from through Vanguard, their 401(k) Plan Administrator. To help employees with those tough investment decisions, employees can access Financial Engines to receive personalized investment advice (Google, 2011b).

529 College Savings Plan: This plan provides employees with a way to save money for post-secondary education (Google, 2011b).

Holidays: 12 paid holidays (sick days taken as necessary) (Google, 2011b).

Take-Out Benefit: To help make things easier, new moms and dads are able to expense up to $500 for take-out meals during the first 3 months that they are home with their new baby (Google, 2011b).

Employee Referral Program: Good people know other good people. Google’s best employees have been hired through referrals. Google encourages its staff to recommend candidates for opportunities and awards them a bonus if their referral accepts the offer. Google pays out these bonuses a month after the referral starts at Google (Google, 2011b).

Gift Matching Program: Google matches contributions of up to $12,000 per year from eligible employees to approved non-profit organizations. Bolstering employee contributions to worthy causes with matching gifts does not just mean helping hundreds of organisations, both locally and globally; it is also a tangible expression (Google, 2011b).

Food: Google offers out free lunch and dinner – their gourmet chefs create a wide variety of healthy and delicious meals every day. Google also offers snacks to help satisfy staff in between meals (Google, 2011b).

Financial Planning Classes: Google provides objective and conflict-free financial education classes. The courses are comprehensive and cover a variety of financial topics (Google, 2011b).

In my opinion, I think it is in recognition of the Equity theory that Google ensures that, the inputs of its employees are always in a fair balance with the outputs through the provision of attractive salary packages and an equal environment for staff to use their own innovative ideas in addition to the training that they have received to ensure that, the business continues to thrive.

Other On-Site Services: At Google headquarters in Mountain View, there is an on-site oil change and car wash services, dry cleaning, massage therapy, gym, hair stylist, fitness classes and bike repair (Google, 2011b).

For example in order to ensure that the inputs of all staff are fairly balanced with the output (rewards) various motivation variables have been put in place for equal access by all members of staff. Google by rewarding employees with perks like onsite swimming pools, allowing employees to bring their pets to work, providing onsite child care, and all the free food employees want, as outlined above, ensure that employees stay motivated to perform their job. One way of maintaining Google, Inc.’s culture and keeping employees happy is administering the best perks and rewards.  Along with its compensation and traditional extrinsic benefits such as free health and dental benefits, flex spending accounts, 401K plans, insurance, tuition reimbursement, and vacation packages, they also have very unique benefits. These unique benefits include maternity benefits up to 18 weeks off at approximately 100% pay.

Equity is again evidenced in the institution as hierarchy levels are kept to the barest minimum to allow employees use their own creative and innovative ideas, in addition to the training they have received to help achieve the overall goal of the organisation. This provides a relaxed environment where group thinking is elevated and teamwork is central to invent the next product that could change the next generation. The organisation also provides individually-tailored compensation packages that can be comprised of competitive salary, bonus, and equity components, along with the opportunity to earn further financial bonuses and rewards.

The fascinating aspect of Google as an organisation can therefore be mentioned as being their intrinsic rewards and how it allows employees to operate with freedom and respect, allowing them control of their own time, and empowering them to have a united common goal, which is to invent products and ideas that will change the world for good. At Google, every employee has something important to say, and that makes every employee an integral part of their success.

Google is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and is an affirmative action employer (Google, 2011c) that benefits from the Equity Theory by ensuring that the inputs of is staff such as their skill, commitment, loyalty, enthusiasm and personal sacrifices and the output of the organisation which include financial rewards (benefits, salaries and perks) and intangibles such as job security, sense of achievement and recognition are in a fair balance.

Much like the five levels of needs determined by Maslow and the two factors of motivation as classified by Herzberg (intrinsic and extrinsic), the Adams' Equity Theory of motivation states that positive outcomes and high levels of motivation can be expected only when employees perceive their treatment to be fair. An employee's perception of this may include many factors as outlined above with the example of Google Incorporated. The idea behind Adams' Equity Theory is to strike a healthy balance, with outputs on one side of the scale; inputs on the other – both weighing in a way that seems reasonably equal.

If the balance lies too far in favour of the employer, some employees may work to bring balance between inputs and outputs on their own, by asking for more compensation or recognition. Others will be demotivated, and still others will seek alternative employment (Mind Tools, 2011). 

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965) ‘Inequity in social exchange’, Adv. Exp. Soc. Psycho, 62, pp.335-343.

Datamonitor (2009) Google, Inc. Available at: http://datamonitor.com (Accessed: 14 October 2011)

Google (2011a). Let’s work together. Available at: http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/index.html (Accessed: 14 October 2011)  

Google(2011b).Benefits.Availableat:http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/lifeatgoogle/benefits/index.html (Accessed: 14 October 2011)

Google(2011c)LifeatGoogle.Available at:http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/lifeatgoogle/index.html (Accessed: 15 October 2011)

Mensah, R. (2009). Motivation theories. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/rely/motivation-presentation-713825 (Accessed: 20 October 2011)

Mescon, M.H., Albert, M., and Khedouri, F. (1985) Management. New York:

Harper and Row.

Mind Tools (2011). Adams’ Equity Theory Balancing Employee Inputs and Outputs. Available at:http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_96.htm  (Accessed: 15 October 2011)

Romero, J.L (2011) Process Theories of  Motivation. Available at:

http://www.skills2lead.com/process-theories-of-motivation.html (Accessed: 15 October 2011)

www.businessballs.com/adamsequitytheory.pdf (Accessed: 15 October 2011)

Motivation

Motivation can simply be defined as the driving force by which humans achieve their goals 

(Gardener and Lambert, 1972).It is said to be intrinsic - that is, motivation driven by an interest in a task, and exists within the individual rather than relying on any external pressure or extrinsic which  comes from the external environment such as competition from opponents (ibid.). There are three types of content theories namely the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the Aldefer's (ERG) theory and Herzberg's two-factor theory (Simpson,2011). Although, all the three theories are associated with what motivates people to pursue their goals, the Herzberg's two-factor theory, is what I consider most relevant to my experiences and shaping of my future endeavours as  explained below. Herzberg's Two Factor Theory (also known as Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory) was developed by Frederick Herzberg, a psychologist who found that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction acted independently of each other (Psychology Wiki,2011). Two Factor Theory states that there are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of factors cause dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al.,2009).

In other words, the theory suggests that there are two factors affecting how people felt at work.These factors which Herzberg distinguished as motivators and hygiene factors are briefly explained below. Two Factor Theory distinguishes between:

• Motivators: These are the factors which give positive satisfaction (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility) , and

• Hygiene factors:These are the factors  which do not give positive satisfaction, although dissatisfaction results from their absence (e.g. status, salary, and fringe benefits).

Essentially, hygiene factors are needed to ensure an employee is not dissatisfied. Motivation factors are needed in order to motivate an employee to higher performance (Psychology Wiki, 2011).

In a nutshell, Herzberg’s theory did not define satisfaction and dissatisfaction as being at opposite ends of the same continuum. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but no satisfaction. The opposite of dissatisfaction is not satisfaction, but no dissatisfaction (King,1970). This is illustrated in Figure 1 below. 

                         Figure 1: Schematic representation of Herzberg's two-factor theory.
                         Source: http://mathehu.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/

Herzberg's factor of motivators implies to me because  for instance achievement- if l can achieve to get good grade in my first year in University, this will spur me on to continue with my three-year degree programme. Furthermore,it will encourage me to be very responsible in the management of my time for studies and also attend lectures on time while submitting all the assignments on time without missing any deadlines. This is because l will rather be in lecture room to gain some experience for now than be in a work place. However, my motivation level will be very low if the hygiene factor is missing. For instance, with regards to my relationship with my mates, if l do not get along with them, that can demotivate me as l will not feel comfortable to be in lectures. Furthermore, if my lecturers are not giving me feedback on how am doing on my assignments, which can be described as a fringe benefit as I pursue my degree, it could also lead to de-motivation.

My motivation for starting my degree is firstly to make my family proud in return for the financial investments they have made into my education; and secondly, to acquire knowledge and experience in other to cope with the responsibilities associated with working in the real world environment while providing efficient services in my workplace during and after my degree. I am currently motivated  by my part time job in Next due to the fact that l have worked in all departments and I believe this will pave way for me to climb the ladder within the organisation l have fit into as the opportunities present themselves.

l can further relate my current job at Next to Herzberg's hygiene factor, this is because I am not just a part time staff but merit from sales part time and this to me shows that, my job is secure. l have been offered to buy some shares in the company which l also did to buttress my security in the organisation. l have contributed to the organisation by participating in store target shows and in social activities such as  going out with my colleagues during their birthdays.

As outlined above, you can see that  l enjoy the work itself which relate to Herzberg's motivators. I am also given the responsibility to sometimes, train new staff which l feel proud of doing as it imbibes in me a great amount of satisfaction. However, during the sales time, l got demotivated by my managers due to the enormous pressure which I had to cope with during sales. I was asked to help out with work in different department with some strong languages which I found unacceptable. However, after the sales, l was given a good financial bonus and that re-motivated me to give my all to my job.

CONCLUSION

Although Maslow’s needs hierarchy is one of the best-known organizational behavior theories, the model is much too rigid to explain the dynamic and unstable characteristics of employee needs when compared to the Herzberg's two-factor theory. Researchers have found that individual needs do not cluster neatly around the five categories described in the model. Moreover, gratification of one need level does not necessarily led to increased motivation to satisfy the next higher need level. Although Maslow’s model may not predict employee needs as well as scholars initially expected, it provides an important introduction to employee needs and has laid the foundation for Alderfer’s ERG theory, which has better research support and is regarded as an improvement of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs model (NetMBA,2011).

However, with regards to the content theories, I consider the Herzberg's two-factor theory  to be more relevant to me as illustrated in the discussion above coupled with the fact that its enduring value is that it recognizes that true motivation comes from within a person and not from KITA factors (Psychology Wiki,2011).




REFERENCES

Garderner,R.  and Lambert,W. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (2009). 'The Motivation to Work'. New Brunswick,New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.


King, N. (1970). 'Clarification and Evaluation of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction', Psychological Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 18-31.


NetMBA (2011). ERG Theory . Available at:http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/erg/(Accessed: 4 October 2011).


Psychology Wiki (2011). Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of motivation. Available at:http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Herzberg%E2%80%99s_Two_Factor_Theory_of_motivation (Accessed: 5 October 2011).


Simpson,M. (2011). Motivation (power point presentation).