Assignment writers in Sri Lanka

Management and Organizational Change

For any organization to become successful following aspects are essentially needed. Such as Management, Leadership, Motivation .Throughout this assignment mainly focus to evaluate definitions, theories and how those aspects are practically applies. Change management is another critical area in modern organization than the past. Secondly tried to Concern about change management, theories, Soft and hard systems ect. Finally tried to give a conclusion based on findings from this assignment.

Motivation is a theoretical construct used to explain behavior. It shows the reasons for people’s actions, desires, and needs. Motivation can also be defined as one’s direction to behavior or what causes a person to want to repeat a behavior and also true in the opposite order. A motive is what prompts the person to act in a certain way or at least develop an inclination for specific behavior. For example, when someone takes food to satisfy the need of hunger, or when a student does his/her work in school because he/she wants a good grade. Both show a similar relationship between what we do and why we do it.

According to Maehr and Meyer, “Motivation is a word that is part of the popular culture as few other psychological concepts are”.

Source- Maehr, Martin L; Mayer, Heather (1997). “Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go”  Educational Psychology Review 9 (44)

Figure 2.1 shows the basic process of motivation and expresses the idea that there is a driving force within individuals that prompts them to achieve a goal of some sort. This is triggered by comparison between self and ideal self. All humans have a self-identity (Rogers 1961) which consists of their view of what they are in terms of such things as, strengths and weaknesses, abilities, beliefs and feelings. An individual also has a conception of self the person he or she would like to be. This is usually somewhat different from the actual self and even small differences usually give rise to a desire to bring actual and ideal selves into closer alignment (Leonard et al. 1999) and this has strong motivational implications.

Management in businesses and organizations is the function that coordinates the efforts of people to accomplish goals and objectives by using available resources efficiently and effectively. Management consists  planningorganizingstaffingleading or directing, and controlling an organization to accomplish the goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of financial resources, human resources, natural resources, and technological resources. Management is also an academic discipline, a social science whose objective is to study social organization

  • According to Henri Fayol, “to manage is to forecast and to plan, to organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control.”
  • Fredmund Malik defines it as “the transformation of resources into utility.”
  • Management included as one of the factors of production – along with machines, materials and money.
  • Peter Drucker (1909–2005) saw the basic task of a management as twofold: marketing and innovation. Nevertheless, innovation is also linked to marketing (product innovation is a central strategic marketing issue). Peter Drucker explains marketing as a key essence for business success, but management and marketing are generally understood  as two different branches of business administration knowledge.

The task of management is carried out in the context of an organisation. Over the past 80 years or so the development of coherent theories to explain organisational performance has moved away from approaches that relied purely on a consideration of structural or human relations issues in favour of much comprehensive perspectives. Early ideas about management were propounded at a time when organisations were thought of as machines requiring efficient systems to enable them to function effectively. The emphasis, therefore, was on the efficient use of resources, especially human resources, in the service of a mechanistic model of organisations. Later theorists developed this approach by taking account of social and environmental as well as technical factors in the workplace.

Leadership can be hard to define and it means different things to different kind of people. In the transformational leadership model, leaders set direction and help themselves and others to do the right thing to move forward. To do this they create an inspiring vision, and then motivate and inspire others to reach that vision.

Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task“. Such as, some understand a leader simply as somebody whom people follow or as somebody who guides or directs others, while others define leadership as “motivating and organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal“.

Source- Management by Patrick J.Montana, Bruce H.Charnov-(2008)

Leadership Theories

Reemergence of trait theory

New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers’ use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:

Behavioral and style theories

In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Management_Grid.PNG/200px-Management_Grid.PNG

A graphical representation of the managerial grid model

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision makingpraise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritariandemocratic, and laissez-faire.

The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders’ concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.

Situational and contingency theories.

Main articles

  • R.H.G field,”A critique of the vroom-Yetton Contingency model of the leadership behavior,”academy of m,anagemet review 4(1979),pp.249-251
  • “Reactions to prescribed Leader Behaviou as a function of role of perspective :the case of the vroom yettonModel,” Journal of applied psychology (February 1984)

Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men asCarlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, “what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions.”

Transactional and transformational theories

Bernard Bass and colleagues developed the idea of two different types of leadership, transactional that involves exchange of labor for rewards and transformational which is based on concern for employees, intellectual stimulation, and providing a group vision.

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached.

Content theories

The content theory was one of the earliest theories of motivation. Content theories can also be referred to needs theories, because the theory focuses on the importance of what motivates us (needs). In other words, they try to identify what our “needs” are and how they relate to motivation to fulfilled those needs. Another definition could be defined by Pritchard and Ashwood, is the process used to allocate energy to maximize the satisfaction of needs.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Aspiration_Management.jpg/120px-Aspiration_Management.jpg

Maslow’s Pyramid ( Maslow, A (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. p. 236. ISBN 0-06-041987-3.)

Content theory of human motivation includes both Abraham Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs and Herzberg‘s two-factor theory. Maslow’s theory is one of the most widely discussed theories of motivation. Abraham Maslow believed that man is inherently good and argued that individuals possess a constantly growing inner drive that has great potential. The needs hierarchy system, devised by Maslow(1954), which is a commonly used scheme for classifying human motives.

Herzberg’s two-factor theory

(Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471373893)

Frederick Herzberg‘s two-factor theory concludes that certain factors in the workplace result in job satisfaction, but if absent, they don’t lead to dissatisfaction but no satisfaction. The factors that motivate people can change over their lifetime, but “respect for me as a person” is one of the top motivating factors at any stage of life.

He distinguished between:

  • Motivators  which give positive satisfaction, and
  • Hygiene factors  that do not motivate if present, but, if absent, result in demotivation.

Herzberg concluded that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the products of two separate factors: motivating factors (satisfiers) and hygiene factors (dissatisfiers). Some motivating factors (satisfiers) were: Achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth. Some hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) were: company policy, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, status, job security, and personal life.

The name hygiene factors is used because, like hygiene, the presence will not improve health, but absence can cause health deterioration.
Herzberg’s theory has found application in such occupational fields as information systems and in studies of user satisfaction such as computer user satisfaction.

Alderfer’s ERG theory

Source- ERG Theory of Motivation – Clayton P. Alderfe 1969)

Alderfer, expanding on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, created the ERG theory. This theory posits that there are three groups of core needs — existence, relatedness, and growth, hence the label: ERG theory. The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements. They include the items that Maslow considered to be physiological and safety needs. The second group of needs are those of relatedness- the desire we have for maintaining important personal relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow’s social need and the external component of Maslow’s esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs as an intrinsic desire for personal development. Maslow’s categories are broken down into many different parts and there are a lot of needs.

Acquired Needs Theory (mcclellan)

Some needs are acquired as a result of life experiences need for achievement, accomplish something difficult. as kids encouraged to do things for themselves, need for affiliation, form close personal relationships. as kids rewarded for making friends, need for power, control others. as kids, able to get what they want through controlling others.

Again similar to Maslow and alderfer.

These needs can be measured using the TAT (thematic apperception test), which is a projection-style test based on interpreting stories that people tell about a set of pictures.

Process theories

Equity Theory

Suppose employee X gets a 20% raise and employee Y gets a 10% raise. Will both be motivated as a result? Will  X be twice as motivated? Will be Y be negatively motivated?

Equity theory says that it is not the actual reward that motivates, but the perception, and the perception is based not on the reward in isolation, but in comparison with the efforts that went into getting it, and the rewards and efforts of others. If everyone got a 5% raise, Y is likely to feel quite pleased with her raise, even if she worked harder than everyone else. But if X got an even higher raise, Y perceives that she worked just as hard as Y, she will be unhappy.

In other words, people’s motivation results from a ratio of ratios:  a person compares the ratio of reward to effort with the comparable ratio of reward to effort that they think others are getting.

Of course, in terms of actually predicting how a person will react to a given motivator, this will get pretty complicated:

  1. People do not have complete information about how others are rewarded. So they are going on perceptions, rumors, inferences.
  2. Some people are more sensitive to equity issues than others
  3. Some people are willing to ignore short-term inequities as long as they expect things to work out in the long-term.

Expectancy Theory (Vroom)

This theory is meant to bring together many of the elements of previous theories. It combines the perceptual aspects of equity theory with the behavioral aspects of the other theories. Basically, it comes down to this “equation”:

M = E*I*V

or

motivation = expectancy * instrumentality * valence

M (motivation) is the amount a person will be motivated by the situation they find themselves in. It is a function of the following.

E (expectancy) = The person’s perception that effort will result in performance. In other words, the person’s assessment of the degree to which effort actually correlates with performance.

I (instrumentality) = The person’s perception that performance will be rewarded/punished. I.e., the person’s assessment of how well the amount of reward correlates with the quality of performance. (Note here that the model is phrased in terms of extrinsic motivation, in that it asks ‘what are the chances I’m going to get rewarded if I do good job?’. But for intrinsic situations, we can think of this as asking ‘how good will I feel if I can pull this off?’).

V(valence) = The perceived strength of the reward or punishment that will result from the performance. If the reward is small, the motivation will be small, even if expectancy and instrumentality are both perfect (high).

Difference between Leadership & Management

Adapted from “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” by Alan Murray, published by Harper Business.

Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate. In his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,” Warren Bennis composed a list of the differences:

ManagerLeader
AdministersInnovates
is a copyis an original
MaintainsDevelops
focuses on systems and structurefocuses on people
relies on controlinspires trust
has a short-range viewhas a long-range perspective
asks how and whenasks what and why
has his or her eye always on the bottom lineleader’s eye is on the horizon.
ImitatesOriginates
accepts the status quoleader challenges it
is the classic good soldieris his or her own person
does things rightdoes the right thing

Change Management

Change and change management

Business organisations operate in a rapidly-changing environment and marketplace. To remain successful, they must adapt by responding to the changes and taking advantages of any strategic opportunities that may arise. However when major changes are required, there will often by strong resistance from employees and the existing culture of the organisation. To overcome resistance to change may require skilled ‘change managers’ as well as effective leadership from the top of the organisation.

The subject of organisational change and change management is fairly complex,and only a brief introduction is given here. The key points to understand are that:

(a) Major changes are more difficult to introduce than small changes: major changes are those that will have a big impact on the way that many employees do their work.

(b) There will often be strong resistance to change, which must be overcome if the change is to happen successfully.

(c) The organisation’s leaders have an important role to play in persuading employees to accept the change.

(d) Major change should be planned and managed carefully An organisation may use specialist ‘change managers’ – perhaps a firm of management consultants – to advise on and assist with the implementation of the change.

Hard and Soft System: The Differences

Systems Thinking uses a variety of techniques that may be divided into hard systems and soft systems.

Hard systems (HS) involves simulations, often using techniques and the computers used in operations research. Hard systems look at the “How?” meaning, how to best achieve and test the selected option of development and analysis. Hard systems methodologies are useful for problems that can justifiably be quantified. However, it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable variables (opinions, culture, politics, etc), and may treat people as being passive, rather than having complex motivations.

HS have an explicit objective governed by fixed rules such as those encountered in decision making.

Operational Research is a hard, well defined system. Examples of areas that apply hard systems methodology are:

• Project Management

• Forecasting

• Simulation

• Mathematical Programming

• Decision Theory

Another characteristic of hard systems that it is:

• Stochastic – Statistically based on probability.

• Deterministic – fixed inputs and known outputs

Soft systems methodologies (SSM) are used to tackle systems that cannot easily be quantified, especially those involving people interacting with each other or with “systems”. Useful for understanding motivations, viewpoints, and interactions but, naturally, it doesn’t give quantified answers. Soft systems is a field that the academic Peter Checkland has done much to develop.

Soft systems looks at the “What?” of the system; What to do to achieve an improvement, Usually analysis before application or implementation

SSM Considers the following:

• Systems that could be envisaged

• Human activity

• Clarification of the problem

• Improve the understanding

• Based on Ideas:

• Examine

• Learn about and Study

• Understand

• Select and Focus

Managing change is tough, but part of the problem is that there is little agreement on what factors most influence transformation initiatives. Ask five executives to name the one factor critical for the success of these programs, and you’ll probably get five different anstheyrs. That’s because each manager looks at an initiative from his or her viewpoint and, based on personal experience, focuses on different success factors. The experts, too, offer different perspectives. A recent search on Amazon.com for books on “change and management” turned up 6,153 titles, each with a distinct take on the topic. Those ideas have a lot to offer, but taken together, they force companies to tackle many priorities simultaneously, which spreads resources and skills thin. Moreover, executives use different approaches in different parts of the organization, which compounds the turmoil that usually accompanies change.

In recent years, many change management gurus have focused on soft issues, such as culture, leadership, and motivation. Such elements are important for success, but managing these aspects alone isn’t sufficient to implement transformation projects. Soft factors don’t directly influence the outcomes of many change programs. For instance, visionary leadership is often vital for transformation projects, but not always. The same can be said about communication with employees. Moreover, it isn’t easy to change attitudes or relationships; they’re deeply ingrained in organizations and people. And although changes in, say, culture or motivation levels can be indirectly gauged through surveys and interviews, it’s tough to get reliable data on soft factors.

The Four Key Factors

If you think about it, the different ways in which organizations combine the four factors create a continuum—from projects that are set up to succeed to those that are set up to fail. At one extreme, a short project led by a skilled, motivated, and cohesive team, championed by top management and implemented in a department that is receptive to the change and has to put in very little additional effort, is bound to succeed. At the other extreme, a long, drawn-out project executed by an inexpert, unenthusiastic, and disjointed team, without any top-level sponsors and targeted at a function that dislikes the change and has to do a lot of extra work, will fail. Businesses can easily identify change programs at either end of the spectrum, but most initiatives occupy the middle ground where the likelihood of success or failure is difficult to assess. Executives must study the four DICE factors carefully to figure out if their change programs will fly—or die.

The Four Factors

Source-( Banhegyi, Stephen George and Eugenie May (April 2007). The Art and Science of Change. STS Trust. p. 97. ISBN 0-9802550-3-1)

These factors determine the outcome of any transformation initiative.

D. The duration of time until the change program is completed if it has a short life span; if not short, the amount of time between reviews of milestones.

I. The project team’s performance integrity; that is, its ability to complete the initiative on time. That depends on members’ skills and traits relative to the project’s requirements.

C. The commitment to change that top management (C1) and employees affected by the change (C2) display.

E. The effort over and above the usual work that the change initiative demands of employees.

 

Duration.

Companies make the mistake of worrying mostly about the time it will take to implement change programs. They assume that the longer an initiative carries on, the more likely it is to fail—the early impetus will peter out, windows of opportunity will close, objectives will be forgotten, key supporters will leave or lose their enthusiasm, and problems will accumulate. However, contrary to popular perception, our studies show that a long project that is reviewed frequently is more likely to succeed than a short project that isn’t reviewed frequently. Thus, the time between reviews is more critical for success than a project’s life span.

Integrity.

By performance integrity, we mean the extent to which companies can rely on teams of managers, supervisors, and staff to execute change projects successfully. In a perfect world, every team would be flawless, but no business has enough great people to ensure that. Besides, senior executives are often reluctant to allow star performers to join change efforts because regular work can suffer. But since the success of change programs depends on the quality of teams, companies must free up the best staff while making sure that day-to-day operations don’t falter. In companies that have succeeded in implementing change programs, we find that employees go the extra mile to ensure their day-to-day work gets done.

Since project teams handle a wide range of activities, resources, pressures, external stimuli, and unforeseen obstacles, they must be cohesive and well led. It’s not enough for senior executives to ask people at the watercooler if a project team is doing well; they must clarify members’ roles, commitments, and accountability. They must choose the team leader and, most important, work out the team’s composition.

Commitment.

Companies must boost the commitment of two different groups of people if they want change projects to take root: They must get visible backing from the most influential executives (what we call C1), who are not necessarily those with the top titles. And they must take into account the enthusiasm—or often, lack thereof—of the people who must deal with the new systems, processes, or ways of working (C2).

Effort.

When companies launch transformation efforts, they frequently don’t realize, or know how to deal with the fact, that employees are already busy with their day-to-day responsibilities. According to staffing tables, people in many businesses work 80-plus-hour weeks. If, on top of existing responsibilities, line managers and staff have to deal with changes to their work or to the systems they use, they will resist.

Project teams must calculate how much work employees will have to do beyond their existing responsibilities to change over to new processes. Ideally, no one’s workload should increase more than 10%. Go beyond that, and the initiative will probably run into trouble. Resources will become overstretched and compromise either the change program or normal operations. Employee morale will fall, and conflict may arise between teams and line staff. To minimize the dangers, project managers should use a simple metric like the percentage increase in effort the employees who must cope with the new ways feel they must contribute. They should also check if the additional effort they have demanded comes on top of heavy workloads and if employees are likely to resist the project because it will demand more of their scarce time.

References

  1. R.H.G field,”A critique of the vroom-Yetton Contingency model of the leadership behavior,”academy of m,anagemet review 4(1979),pp.249-251
  2. McElroy W. Implementing strategic change through projects. Int J Project Manage1996;14(6):32 5–9.
  3. Thiry M. For DAD: a programme management life-cycle process. Int J ProjectManage 2004;22
  4. 245–52.[3] Yeo KT. Critical failure factors in information system projects. Int J ProjectManage 2002;20(3):241–6.
  5. Fernie S, Green S, Weller S, Newcombe R. Knowledge sharing: context,confusion and controversy. Int J Project Manage 2003;21(3):177–87.
  6. Crawford P, Bryce P. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancingthe efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int J Project Manage2003;21
  7. “Reactions to prescribed Leader Behaviou as a function of role of perspective :the case of the vroom yettonModel,” Journal of applied psychology (February 1984)
  8. ( Maslow, A (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. p. 236. ISBN 0-06-041987-3.)
  9.  Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471373893.
  10. Maehr, Martin L; Mayer, Heather (1997). “Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go”  Educational Psychology Review 9 (44)
  11. Banhegyi, Stephen George and Eugenie May (April 2007). The Art and Science of Change. STS Trust. p. 97. ISBN 0-9802550-3-1

Management and Organizational Change

For any organization to become successful following aspects are essentially needed. Such as Management, Leadership, Motivation .Throughout this assignment mainly focus to evaluate definitions, theories and how those aspects are practically applies. Change management is another critical area in modern organization than the past. Secondly tried to Concern about change management, theories, Soft and hard systems ect. Finally tried to give a conclusion based on findings from this assignment.

Motivation is a theoretical construct used to explain behavior. It shows the reasons for people’s actions, desires, and needs. Motivation can also be defined as one’s direction to behavior or what causes a person to want to repeat a behavior and also true in the opposite order. A motive is what prompts the person to act in a certain way or at least develop an inclination for specific behavior. For example, when someone takes food to satisfy the need of hunger, or when a student does his/her work in school because he/she wants a good grade. Both show a similar relationship between what we do and why we do it.

According to Maehr and Meyer, “Motivation is a word that is part of the popular culture as few other psychological concepts are”.

Source- Maehr, Martin L; Mayer, Heather (1997). “Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go”  Educational Psychology Review 9 (44)

Figure 2.1 shows the basic process of motivation and expresses the idea that there is a driving force within individuals that prompts them to achieve a goal of some sort. This is triggered by comparison between self and ideal self. All humans have a self-identity (Rogers 1961) which consists of their view of what they are in terms of such things as, strengths and weaknesses, abilities, beliefs and feelings. An individual also has a conception of self the person he or she would like to be. This is usually somewhat different from the actual self and even small differences usually give rise to a desire to bring actual and ideal selves into closer alignment (Leonard et al. 1999) and this has strong motivational implications.

Management in businesses and organizations is the function that coordinates the efforts of people to accomplish goals and objectives by using available resources efficiently and effectively. Management consists  planningorganizingstaffingleading or directing, and controlling an organization to accomplish the goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of financial resources, human resources, natural resources, and technological resources. Management is also an academic discipline, a social science whose objective is to study social organization

  • According to Henri Fayol, “to manage is to forecast and to plan, to organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control.”
  • Fredmund Malik defines it as “the transformation of resources into utility.”
  • Management included as one of the factors of production – along with machines, materials and money.
  • Peter Drucker (1909–2005) saw the basic task of a management as twofold: marketing and innovation. Nevertheless, innovation is also linked to marketing (product innovation is a central strategic marketing issue). Peter Drucker explains marketing as a key essence for business success, but management and marketing are generally understood  as two different branches of business administration knowledge.

The task of management is carried out in the context of an organisation. Over the past 80 years or so the development of coherent theories to explain organisational performance has moved away from approaches that relied purely on a consideration of structural or human relations issues in favour of much comprehensive perspectives. Early ideas about management were propounded at a time when organisations were thought of as machines requiring efficient systems to enable them to function effectively. The emphasis, therefore, was on the efficient use of resources, especially human resources, in the service of a mechanistic model of organisations. Later theorists developed this approach by taking account of social and environmental as well as technical factors in the workplace.

Leadership can be hard to define and it means different things to different kind of people. In the transformational leadership model, leaders set direction and help themselves and others to do the right thing to move forward. To do this they create an inspiring vision, and then motivate and inspire others to reach that vision.

Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task“. Such as, some understand a leader simply as somebody whom people follow or as somebody who guides or directs others, while others define leadership as “motivating and organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal“.

Source- Management by Patrick J.Montana, Bruce H.Charnov-(2008)

Leadership Theories

Reemergence of trait theory

New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers’ use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:

Behavioral and style theories

In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Management_Grid.PNG/200px-Management_Grid.PNG

A graphical representation of the managerial grid model

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision makingpraise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritariandemocratic, and laissez-faire.

The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders’ concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.

Situational and contingency theories.

Main articles

  • R.H.G field,”A critique of the vroom-Yetton Contingency model of the leadership behavior,”academy of m,anagemet review 4(1979),pp.249-251
  • “Reactions to prescribed Leader Behaviou as a function of role of perspective :the case of the vroom yettonModel,” Journal of applied psychology (February 1984)

Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men asCarlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, “what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions.”

Transactional and transformational theories

Bernard Bass and colleagues developed the idea of two different types of leadership, transactional that involves exchange of labor for rewards and transformational which is based on concern for employees, intellectual stimulation, and providing a group vision.

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached.

Content theories

The content theory was one of the earliest theories of motivation. Content theories can also be referred to needs theories, because the theory focuses on the importance of what motivates us (needs). In other words, they try to identify what our “needs” are and how they relate to motivation to fulfilled those needs. Another definition could be defined by Pritchard and Ashwood, is the process used to allocate energy to maximize the satisfaction of needs.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Aspiration_Management.jpg/120px-Aspiration_Management.jpg

Maslow’s Pyramid ( Maslow, A (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. p. 236. ISBN 0-06-041987-3.)

Content theory of human motivation includes both Abraham Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs and Herzberg‘s two-factor theory. Maslow’s theory is one of the most widely discussed theories of motivation. Abraham Maslow believed that man is inherently good and argued that individuals possess a constantly growing inner drive that has great potential. The needs hierarchy system, devised by Maslow(1954), which is a commonly used scheme for classifying human motives.

Herzberg’s two-factor theory

(Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471373893)

Frederick Herzberg‘s two-factor theory concludes that certain factors in the workplace result in job satisfaction, but if absent, they don’t lead to dissatisfaction but no satisfaction. The factors that motivate people can change over their lifetime, but “respect for me as a person” is one of the top motivating factors at any stage of life.

He distinguished between:

  • Motivators  which give positive satisfaction, and
  • Hygiene factors  that do not motivate if present, but, if absent, result in demotivation.

Herzberg concluded that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the products of two separate factors: motivating factors (satisfiers) and hygiene factors (dissatisfiers). Some motivating factors (satisfiers) were: Achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth. Some hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) were: company policy, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, status, job security, and personal life.

The name hygiene factors is used because, like hygiene, the presence will not improve health, but absence can cause health deterioration.
Herzberg’s theory has found application in such occupational fields as information systems and in studies of user satisfaction such as computer user satisfaction.

Alderfer’s ERG theory

Source- ERG Theory of Motivation – Clayton P. Alderfe 1969)

Alderfer, expanding on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, created the ERG theory. This theory posits that there are three groups of core needs — existence, relatedness, and growth, hence the label: ERG theory. The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements. They include the items that Maslow considered to be physiological and safety needs. The second group of needs are those of relatedness- the desire we have for maintaining important personal relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow’s social need and the external component of Maslow’s esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs as an intrinsic desire for personal development. Maslow’s categories are broken down into many different parts and there are a lot of needs.

Acquired Needs Theory (mcclellan)

Some needs are acquired as a result of life experiences need for achievement, accomplish something difficult. as kids encouraged to do things for themselves, need for affiliation, form close personal relationships. as kids rewarded for making friends, need for power, control others. as kids, able to get what they want through controlling others.

Again similar to Maslow and alderfer.

These needs can be measured using the TAT (thematic apperception test), which is a projection-style test based on interpreting stories that people tell about a set of pictures.

Process theories

Equity Theory

Suppose employee X gets a 20% raise and employee Y gets a 10% raise. Will both be motivated as a result? Will  X be twice as motivated? Will be Y be negatively motivated?

Equity theory says that it is not the actual reward that motivates, but the perception, and the perception is based not on the reward in isolation, but in comparison with the efforts that went into getting it, and the rewards and efforts of others. If everyone got a 5% raise, Y is likely to feel quite pleased with her raise, even if she worked harder than everyone else. But if X got an even higher raise, Y perceives that she worked just as hard as Y, she will be unhappy.

In other words, people’s motivation results from a ratio of ratios:  a person compares the ratio of reward to effort with the comparable ratio of reward to effort that they think others are getting.

Of course, in terms of actually predicting how a person will react to a given motivator, this will get pretty complicated:

  1. People do not have complete information about how others are rewarded. So they are going on perceptions, rumors, inferences.
  2. Some people are more sensitive to equity issues than others
  3. Some people are willing to ignore short-term inequities as long as they expect things to work out in the long-term.

Expectancy Theory (Vroom)

This theory is meant to bring together many of the elements of previous theories. It combines the perceptual aspects of equity theory with the behavioral aspects of the other theories. Basically, it comes down to this “equation”:

M = E*I*V

or

motivation = expectancy * instrumentality * valence

M (motivation) is the amount a person will be motivated by the situation they find themselves in. It is a function of the following.

E (expectancy) = The person’s perception that effort will result in performance. In other words, the person’s assessment of the degree to which effort actually correlates with performance.

I (instrumentality) = The person’s perception that performance will be rewarded/punished. I.e., the person’s assessment of how well the amount of reward correlates with the quality of performance. (Note here that the model is phrased in terms of extrinsic motivation, in that it asks ‘what are the chances I’m going to get rewarded if I do good job?’. But for intrinsic situations, we can think of this as asking ‘how good will I feel if I can pull this off?’).

V(valence) = The perceived strength of the reward or punishment that will result from the performance. If the reward is small, the motivation will be small, even if expectancy and instrumentality are both perfect (high).

Difference between Leadership & Management

Adapted from “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” by Alan Murray, published by Harper Business.

Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate. In his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,” Warren Bennis composed a list of the differences:

ManagerLeader
AdministersInnovates
is a copyis an original
MaintainsDevelops
focuses on systems and structurefocuses on people
relies on controlinspires trust
has a short-range viewhas a long-range perspective
asks how and whenasks what and why
has his or her eye always on the bottom lineleader’s eye is on the horizon.
ImitatesOriginates
accepts the status quoleader challenges it
is the classic good soldieris his or her own person
does things rightdoes the right thing

Change Management

Change and change management

Business organisations operate in a rapidly-changing environment and marketplace. To remain successful, they must adapt by responding to the changes and taking advantages of any strategic opportunities that may arise. However when major changes are required, there will often by strong resistance from employees and the existing culture of the organisation. To overcome resistance to change may require skilled ‘change managers’ as well as effective leadership from the top of the organisation.

The subject of organisational change and change management is fairly complex,and only a brief introduction is given here. The key points to understand are that:

(a) Major changes are more difficult to introduce than small changes: major changes are those that will have a big impact on the way that many employees do their work.

(b) There will often be strong resistance to change, which must be overcome if the change is to happen successfully.

(c) The organisation’s leaders have an important role to play in persuading employees to accept the change.

(d) Major change should be planned and managed carefully An organisation may use specialist ‘change managers’ – perhaps a firm of management consultants – to advise on and assist with the implementation of the change.

Hard and Soft System: The Differences

Systems Thinking uses a variety of techniques that may be divided into hard systems and soft systems.

Hard systems (HS) involves simulations, often using techniques and the computers used in operations research. Hard systems look at the “How?” meaning, how to best achieve and test the selected option of development and analysis. Hard systems methodologies are useful for problems that can justifiably be quantified. However, it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable variables (opinions, culture, politics, etc), and may treat people as being passive, rather than having complex motivations.

HS have an explicit objective governed by fixed rules such as those encountered in decision making.

Operational Research is a hard, well defined system. Examples of areas that apply hard systems methodology are:

• Project Management

• Forecasting

• Simulation

• Mathematical Programming

• Decision Theory

Another characteristic of hard systems that it is:

• Stochastic – Statistically based on probability.

• Deterministic – fixed inputs and known outputs

Soft systems methodologies (SSM) are used to tackle systems that cannot easily be quantified, especially those involving people interacting with each other or with “systems”. Useful for understanding motivations, viewpoints, and interactions but, naturally, it doesn’t give quantified answers. Soft systems is a field that the academic Peter Checkland has done much to develop.

Soft systems looks at the “What?” of the system; What to do to achieve an improvement, Usually analysis before application or implementation

SSM Considers the following:

• Systems that could be envisaged

• Human activity

• Clarification of the problem

• Improve the understanding

• Based on Ideas:

• Examine

• Learn about and Study

• Understand

• Select and Focus

Managing change is tough, but part of the problem is that there is little agreement on what factors most influence transformation initiatives. Ask five executives to name the one factor critical for the success of these programs, and you’ll probably get five different anstheyrs. That’s because each manager looks at an initiative from his or her viewpoint and, based on personal experience, focuses on different success factors. The experts, too, offer different perspectives. A recent search on Amazon.com for books on “change and management” turned up 6,153 titles, each with a distinct take on the topic. Those ideas have a lot to offer, but taken together, they force companies to tackle many priorities simultaneously, which spreads resources and skills thin. Moreover, executives use different approaches in different parts of the organization, which compounds the turmoil that usually accompanies change.

In recent years, many change management gurus have focused on soft issues, such as culture, leadership, and motivation. Such elements are important for success, but managing these aspects alone isn’t sufficient to implement transformation projects. Soft factors don’t directly influence the outcomes of many change programs. For instance, visionary leadership is often vital for transformation projects, but not always. The same can be said about communication with employees. Moreover, it isn’t easy to change attitudes or relationships; they’re deeply ingrained in organizations and people. And although changes in, say, culture or motivation levels can be indirectly gauged through surveys and interviews, it’s tough to get reliable data on soft factors.

The Four Key Factors

If you think about it, the different ways in which organizations combine the four factors create a continuum—from projects that are set up to succeed to those that are set up to fail. At one extreme, a short project led by a skilled, motivated, and cohesive team, championed by top management and implemented in a department that is receptive to the change and has to put in very little additional effort, is bound to succeed. At the other extreme, a long, drawn-out project executed by an inexpert, unenthusiastic, and disjointed team, without any top-level sponsors and targeted at a function that dislikes the change and has to do a lot of extra work, will fail. Businesses can easily identify change programs at either end of the spectrum, but most initiatives occupy the middle ground where the likelihood of success or failure is difficult to assess. Executives must study the four DICE factors carefully to figure out if their change programs will fly—or die.

The Four Factors

Source-( Banhegyi, Stephen George and Eugenie May (April 2007). The Art and Science of Change. STS Trust. p. 97. ISBN 0-9802550-3-1)

These factors determine the outcome of any transformation initiative.

D. The duration of time until the change program is completed if it has a short life span; if not short, the amount of time between reviews of milestones.

I. The project team’s performance integrity; that is, its ability to complete the initiative on time. That depends on members’ skills and traits relative to the project’s requirements.

C. The commitment to change that top management (C1) and employees affected by the change (C2) display.

E. The effort over and above the usual work that the change initiative demands of employees.

 

Duration.

Companies make the mistake of worrying mostly about the time it will take to implement change programs. They assume that the longer an initiative carries on, the more likely it is to fail—the early impetus will peter out, windows of opportunity will close, objectives will be forgotten, key supporters will leave or lose their enthusiasm, and problems will accumulate. However, contrary to popular perception, our studies show that a long project that is reviewed frequently is more likely to succeed than a short project that isn’t reviewed frequently. Thus, the time between reviews is more critical for success than a project’s life span.

Integrity.

By performance integrity, we mean the extent to which companies can rely on teams of managers, supervisors, and staff to execute change projects successfully. In a perfect world, every team would be flawless, but no business has enough great people to ensure that. Besides, senior executives are often reluctant to allow star performers to join change efforts because regular work can suffer. But since the success of change programs depends on the quality of teams, companies must free up the best staff while making sure that day-to-day operations don’t falter. In companies that have succeeded in implementing change programs, we find that employees go the extra mile to ensure their day-to-day work gets done.

Since project teams handle a wide range of activities, resources, pressures, external stimuli, and unforeseen obstacles, they must be cohesive and well led. It’s not enough for senior executives to ask people at the watercooler if a project team is doing well; they must clarify members’ roles, commitments, and accountability. They must choose the team leader and, most important, work out the team’s composition.

Commitment.

Companies must boost the commitment of two different groups of people if they want change projects to take root: They must get visible backing from the most influential executives (what we call C1), who are not necessarily those with the top titles. And they must take into account the enthusiasm—or often, lack thereof—of the people who must deal with the new systems, processes, or ways of working (C2).

Effort.

When companies launch transformation efforts, they frequently don’t realize, or know how to deal with the fact, that employees are already busy with their day-to-day responsibilities. According to staffing tables, people in many businesses work 80-plus-hour weeks. If, on top of existing responsibilities, line managers and staff have to deal with changes to their work or to the systems they use, they will resist.

Project teams must calculate how much work employees will have to do beyond their existing responsibilities to change over to new processes. Ideally, no one’s workload should increase more than 10%. Go beyond that, and the initiative will probably run into trouble. Resources will become overstretched and compromise either the change program or normal operations. Employee morale will fall, and conflict may arise between teams and line staff. To minimize the dangers, project managers should use a simple metric like the percentage increase in effort the employees who must cope with the new ways feel they must contribute. They should also check if the additional effort they have demanded comes on top of heavy workloads and if employees are likely to resist the project because it will demand more of their scarce time.

References

  1. R.H.G field,”A critique of the vroom-Yetton Contingency model of the leadership behavior,”academy of m,anagemet review 4(1979),pp.249-251
  2. McElroy W. Implementing strategic change through projects. Int J Project Manage1996;14(6):32 5–9.
  3. Thiry M. For DAD: a programme management life-cycle process. Int J ProjectManage 2004;22
  4. 245–52.[3] Yeo KT. Critical failure factors in information system projects. Int J ProjectManage 2002;20(3):241–6.
  5. Fernie S, Green S, Weller S, Newcombe R. Knowledge sharing: context,confusion and controversy. Int J Project Manage 2003;21(3):177–87.
  6. Crawford P, Bryce P. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancingthe efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int J Project Manage2003;21
  7. “Reactions to prescribed Leader Behaviou as a function of role of perspective :the case of the vroom yettonModel,” Journal of applied psychology (February 1984)
  8. ( Maslow, A (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. p. 236. ISBN 0-06-041987-3.)
  9.  Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471373893.
  10. Maehr, Martin L; Mayer, Heather (1997). “Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go”  Educational Psychology Review 9 (44)
  11. Banhegyi, Stephen George and Eugenie May (April 2007). The Art and Science of Change. STS Trust. p. 97. ISBN 0-9802550-3-1

Management and Organizational Change

For any organization to become successful following aspects are essentially needed. Such as Management, Leadership, Motivation .Throughout this assignment mainly focus to evaluate definitions, theories and how those aspects are practically applies. Change management is another critical area in modern organization than the past. Secondly tried to Concern about change management, theories, Soft and hard systems ect. Finally tried to give a conclusion based on findings from this assignment.

Motivation is a theoretical construct used to explain behavior. It shows the reasons for people’s actions, desires, and needs. Motivation can also be defined as one’s direction to behavior or what causes a person to want to repeat a behavior and also true in the opposite order. A motive is what prompts the person to act in a certain way or at least develop an inclination for specific behavior. For example, when someone takes food to satisfy the need of hunger, or when a student does his/her work in school because he/she wants a good grade. Both show a similar relationship between what we do and why we do it.

According to Maehr and Meyer, “Motivation is a word that is part of the popular culture as few other psychological concepts are”.

Source- Maehr, Martin L; Mayer, Heather (1997). “Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go”  Educational Psychology Review 9 (44)

Figure 2.1 shows the basic process of motivation and expresses the idea that there is a driving force within individuals that prompts them to achieve a goal of some sort. This is triggered by comparison between self and ideal self. All humans have a self-identity (Rogers 1961) which consists of their view of what they are in terms of such things as, strengths and weaknesses, abilities, beliefs and feelings. An individual also has a conception of self the person he or she would like to be. This is usually somewhat different from the actual self and even small differences usually give rise to a desire to bring actual and ideal selves into closer alignment (Leonard et al. 1999) and this has strong motivational implications.

Management in businesses and organizations is the function that coordinates the efforts of people to accomplish goals and objectives by using available resources efficiently and effectively. Management consists  planningorganizingstaffingleading or directing, and controlling an organization to accomplish the goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of financial resources, human resources, natural resources, and technological resources. Management is also an academic discipline, a social science whose objective is to study social organization

  • According to Henri Fayol, “to manage is to forecast and to plan, to organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control.”
  • Fredmund Malik defines it as “the transformation of resources into utility.”
  • Management included as one of the factors of production – along with machines, materials and money.
  • Peter Drucker (1909–2005) saw the basic task of a management as twofold: marketing and innovation. Nevertheless, innovation is also linked to marketing (product innovation is a central strategic marketing issue). Peter Drucker explains marketing as a key essence for business success, but management and marketing are generally understood  as two different branches of business administration knowledge.

The task of management is carried out in the context of an organisation. Over the past 80 years or so the development of coherent theories to explain organisational performance has moved away from approaches that relied purely on a consideration of structural or human relations issues in favour of much comprehensive perspectives. Early ideas about management were propounded at a time when organisations were thought of as machines requiring efficient systems to enable them to function effectively. The emphasis, therefore, was on the efficient use of resources, especially human resources, in the service of a mechanistic model of organisations. Later theorists developed this approach by taking account of social and environmental as well as technical factors in the workplace.

Leadership can be hard to define and it means different things to different kind of people. In the transformational leadership model, leaders set direction and help themselves and others to do the right thing to move forward. To do this they create an inspiring vision, and then motivate and inspire others to reach that vision.

Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task“. Such as, some understand a leader simply as somebody whom people follow or as somebody who guides or directs others, while others define leadership as “motivating and organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal“.

Source- Management by Patrick J.Montana, Bruce H.Charnov-(2008)

Leadership Theories

Reemergence of trait theory

New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers’ use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:

Behavioral and style theories

In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Management_Grid.PNG/200px-Management_Grid.PNG

A graphical representation of the managerial grid model

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision makingpraise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritariandemocratic, and laissez-faire.

The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders’ concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.

Situational and contingency theories.

Main articles

  • R.H.G field,”A critique of the vroom-Yetton Contingency model of the leadership behavior,”academy of m,anagemet review 4(1979),pp.249-251
  • “Reactions to prescribed Leader Behaviou as a function of role of perspective :the case of the vroom yettonModel,” Journal of applied psychology (February 1984)

Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men asCarlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, “what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions.”

Transactional and transformational theories

Bernard Bass and colleagues developed the idea of two different types of leadership, transactional that involves exchange of labor for rewards and transformational which is based on concern for employees, intellectual stimulation, and providing a group vision.

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached.

Content theories

The content theory was one of the earliest theories of motivation. Content theories can also be referred to needs theories, because the theory focuses on the importance of what motivates us (needs). In other words, they try to identify what our “needs” are and how they relate to motivation to fulfilled those needs. Another definition could be defined by Pritchard and Ashwood, is the process used to allocate energy to maximize the satisfaction of needs.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Aspiration_Management.jpg/120px-Aspiration_Management.jpg

Maslow’s Pyramid ( Maslow, A (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. p. 236. ISBN 0-06-041987-3.)

Content theory of human motivation includes both Abraham Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs and Herzberg‘s two-factor theory. Maslow’s theory is one of the most widely discussed theories of motivation. Abraham Maslow believed that man is inherently good and argued that individuals possess a constantly growing inner drive that has great potential. The needs hierarchy system, devised by Maslow(1954), which is a commonly used scheme for classifying human motives.

Herzberg’s two-factor theory

(Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471373893)

Frederick Herzberg‘s two-factor theory concludes that certain factors in the workplace result in job satisfaction, but if absent, they don’t lead to dissatisfaction but no satisfaction. The factors that motivate people can change over their lifetime, but “respect for me as a person” is one of the top motivating factors at any stage of life.

He distinguished between:

  • Motivators  which give positive satisfaction, and
  • Hygiene factors  that do not motivate if present, but, if absent, result in demotivation.

Herzberg concluded that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the products of two separate factors: motivating factors (satisfiers) and hygiene factors (dissatisfiers). Some motivating factors (satisfiers) were: Achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth. Some hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) were: company policy, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, status, job security, and personal life.

The name hygiene factors is used because, like hygiene, the presence will not improve health, but absence can cause health deterioration.
Herzberg’s theory has found application in such occupational fields as information systems and in studies of user satisfaction such as computer user satisfaction.

Alderfer’s ERG theory

Source- ERG Theory of Motivation – Clayton P. Alderfe 1969)

Alderfer, expanding on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, created the ERG theory. This theory posits that there are three groups of core needs — existence, relatedness, and growth, hence the label: ERG theory. The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements. They include the items that Maslow considered to be physiological and safety needs. The second group of needs are those of relatedness- the desire we have for maintaining important personal relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow’s social need and the external component of Maslow’s esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs as an intrinsic desire for personal development. Maslow’s categories are broken down into many different parts and there are a lot of needs.

Acquired Needs Theory (mcclellan)

Some needs are acquired as a result of life experiences need for achievement, accomplish something difficult. as kids encouraged to do things for themselves, need for affiliation, form close personal relationships. as kids rewarded for making friends, need for power, control others. as kids, able to get what they want through controlling others.

Again similar to Maslow and alderfer.

These needs can be measured using the TAT (thematic apperception test), which is a projection-style test based on interpreting stories that people tell about a set of pictures.

Process theories

Equity Theory

Suppose employee X gets a 20% raise and employee Y gets a 10% raise. Will both be motivated as a result? Will  X be twice as motivated? Will be Y be negatively motivated?

Equity theory says that it is not the actual reward that motivates, but the perception, and the perception is based not on the reward in isolation, but in comparison with the efforts that went into getting it, and the rewards and efforts of others. If everyone got a 5% raise, Y is likely to feel quite pleased with her raise, even if she worked harder than everyone else. But if X got an even higher raise, Y perceives that she worked just as hard as Y, she will be unhappy.

In other words, people’s motivation results from a ratio of ratios:  a person compares the ratio of reward to effort with the comparable ratio of reward to effort that they think others are getting.

Of course, in terms of actually predicting how a person will react to a given motivator, this will get pretty complicated:

  1. People do not have complete information about how others are rewarded. So they are going on perceptions, rumors, inferences.
  2. Some people are more sensitive to equity issues than others
  3. Some people are willing to ignore short-term inequities as long as they expect things to work out in the long-term.

Expectancy Theory (Vroom)

This theory is meant to bring together many of the elements of previous theories. It combines the perceptual aspects of equity theory with the behavioral aspects of the other theories. Basically, it comes down to this “equation”:

M = E*I*V

or

motivation = expectancy * instrumentality * valence

M (motivation) is the amount a person will be motivated by the situation they find themselves in. It is a function of the following.

E (expectancy) = The person’s perception that effort will result in performance. In other words, the person’s assessment of the degree to which effort actually correlates with performance.

I (instrumentality) = The person’s perception that performance will be rewarded/punished. I.e., the person’s assessment of how well the amount of reward correlates with the quality of performance. (Note here that the model is phrased in terms of extrinsic motivation, in that it asks ‘what are the chances I’m going to get rewarded if I do good job?’. But for intrinsic situations, we can think of this as asking ‘how good will I feel if I can pull this off?’).

V(valence) = The perceived strength of the reward or punishment that will result from the performance. If the reward is small, the motivation will be small, even if expectancy and instrumentality are both perfect (high).

Difference between Leadership & Management

Adapted from “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” by Alan Murray, published by Harper Business.

Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate. In his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,” Warren Bennis composed a list of the differences:

ManagerLeader
AdministersInnovates
is a copyis an original
MaintainsDevelops
focuses on systems and structurefocuses on people
relies on controlinspires trust
has a short-range viewhas a long-range perspective
asks how and whenasks what and why
has his or her eye always on the bottom lineleader’s eye is on the horizon.
ImitatesOriginates
accepts the status quoleader challenges it
is the classic good soldieris his or her own person
does things rightdoes the right thing

Change Management

Change and change management

Business organisations operate in a rapidly-changing environment and marketplace. To remain successful, they must adapt by responding to the changes and taking advantages of any strategic opportunities that may arise. However when major changes are required, there will often by strong resistance from employees and the existing culture of the organisation. To overcome resistance to change may require skilled ‘change managers’ as well as effective leadership from the top of the organisation.

The subject of organisational change and change management is fairly complex,and only a brief introduction is given here. The key points to understand are that:

(a) Major changes are more difficult to introduce than small changes: major changes are those that will have a big impact on the way that many employees do their work.

(b) There will often be strong resistance to change, which must be overcome if the change is to happen successfully.

(c) The organisation’s leaders have an important role to play in persuading employees to accept the change.

(d) Major change should be planned and managed carefully An organisation may use specialist ‘change managers’ – perhaps a firm of management consultants – to advise on and assist with the implementation of the change.

Hard and Soft System: The Differences

Systems Thinking uses a variety of techniques that may be divided into hard systems and soft systems.

Hard systems (HS) involves simulations, often using techniques and the computers used in operations research. Hard systems look at the “How?” meaning, how to best achieve and test the selected option of development and analysis. Hard systems methodologies are useful for problems that can justifiably be quantified. However, it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable variables (opinions, culture, politics, etc), and may treat people as being passive, rather than having complex motivations.

HS have an explicit objective governed by fixed rules such as those encountered in decision making.

Operational Research is a hard, well defined system. Examples of areas that apply hard systems methodology are:

• Project Management

• Forecasting

• Simulation

• Mathematical Programming

• Decision Theory

Another characteristic of hard systems that it is:

• Stochastic – Statistically based on probability.

• Deterministic – fixed inputs and known outputs

Soft systems methodologies (SSM) are used to tackle systems that cannot easily be quantified, especially those involving people interacting with each other or with “systems”. Useful for understanding motivations, viewpoints, and interactions but, naturally, it doesn’t give quantified answers. Soft systems is a field that the academic Peter Checkland has done much to develop.

Soft systems looks at the “What?” of the system; What to do to achieve an improvement, Usually analysis before application or implementation

SSM Considers the following:

• Systems that could be envisaged

• Human activity

• Clarification of the problem

• Improve the understanding

• Based on Ideas:

• Examine

• Learn about and Study

• Understand

• Select and Focus

Managing change is tough, but part of the problem is that there is little agreement on what factors most influence transformation initiatives. Ask five executives to name the one factor critical for the success of these programs, and you’ll probably get five different anstheyrs. That’s because each manager looks at an initiative from his or her viewpoint and, based on personal experience, focuses on different success factors. The experts, too, offer different perspectives. A recent search on Amazon.com for books on “change and management” turned up 6,153 titles, each with a distinct take on the topic. Those ideas have a lot to offer, but taken together, they force companies to tackle many priorities simultaneously, which spreads resources and skills thin. Moreover, executives use different approaches in different parts of the organization, which compounds the turmoil that usually accompanies change.

In recent years, many change management gurus have focused on soft issues, such as culture, leadership, and motivation. Such elements are important for success, but managing these aspects alone isn’t sufficient to implement transformation projects. Soft factors don’t directly influence the outcomes of many change programs. For instance, visionary leadership is often vital for transformation projects, but not always. The same can be said about communication with employees. Moreover, it isn’t easy to change attitudes or relationships; they’re deeply ingrained in organizations and people. And although changes in, say, culture or motivation levels can be indirectly gauged through surveys and interviews, it’s tough to get reliable data on soft factors.

The Four Key Factors

If you think about it, the different ways in which organizations combine the four factors create a continuum—from projects that are set up to succeed to those that are set up to fail. At one extreme, a short project led by a skilled, motivated, and cohesive team, championed by top management and implemented in a department that is receptive to the change and has to put in very little additional effort, is bound to succeed. At the other extreme, a long, drawn-out project executed by an inexpert, unenthusiastic, and disjointed team, without any top-level sponsors and targeted at a function that dislikes the change and has to do a lot of extra work, will fail. Businesses can easily identify change programs at either end of the spectrum, but most initiatives occupy the middle ground where the likelihood of success or failure is difficult to assess. Executives must study the four DICE factors carefully to figure out if their change programs will fly—or die.

The Four Factors

Source-( Banhegyi, Stephen George and Eugenie May (April 2007). The Art and Science of Change. STS Trust. p. 97. ISBN 0-9802550-3-1)

These factors determine the outcome of any transformation initiative.

D. The duration of time until the change program is completed if it has a short life span; if not short, the amount of time between reviews of milestones.

I. The project team’s performance integrity; that is, its ability to complete the initiative on time. That depends on members’ skills and traits relative to the project’s requirements.

C. The commitment to change that top management (C1) and employees affected by the change (C2) display.

E. The effort over and above the usual work that the change initiative demands of employees.

 

Duration.

Companies make the mistake of worrying mostly about the time it will take to implement change programs. They assume that the longer an initiative carries on, the more likely it is to fail—the early impetus will peter out, windows of opportunity will close, objectives will be forgotten, key supporters will leave or lose their enthusiasm, and problems will accumulate. However, contrary to popular perception, our studies show that a long project that is reviewed frequently is more likely to succeed than a short project that isn’t reviewed frequently. Thus, the time between reviews is more critical for success than a project’s life span.

Integrity.

By performance integrity, we mean the extent to which companies can rely on teams of managers, supervisors, and staff to execute change projects successfully. In a perfect world, every team would be flawless, but no business has enough great people to ensure that. Besides, senior executives are often reluctant to allow star performers to join change efforts because regular work can suffer. But since the success of change programs depends on the quality of teams, companies must free up the best staff while making sure that day-to-day operations don’t falter. In companies that have succeeded in implementing change programs, we find that employees go the extra mile to ensure their day-to-day work gets done.

Since project teams handle a wide range of activities, resources, pressures, external stimuli, and unforeseen obstacles, they must be cohesive and well led. It’s not enough for senior executives to ask people at the watercooler if a project team is doing well; they must clarify members’ roles, commitments, and accountability. They must choose the team leader and, most important, work out the team’s composition.

Commitment.

Companies must boost the commitment of two different groups of people if they want change projects to take root: They must get visible backing from the most influential executives (what we call C1), who are not necessarily those with the top titles. And they must take into account the enthusiasm—or often, lack thereof—of the people who must deal with the new systems, processes, or ways of working (C2).

Effort.

When companies launch transformation efforts, they frequently don’t realize, or know how to deal with the fact, that employees are already busy with their day-to-day responsibilities. According to staffing tables, people in many businesses work 80-plus-hour weeks. If, on top of existing responsibilities, line managers and staff have to deal with changes to their work or to the systems they use, they will resist.

Project teams must calculate how much work employees will have to do beyond their existing responsibilities to change over to new processes. Ideally, no one’s workload should increase more than 10%. Go beyond that, and the initiative will probably run into trouble. Resources will become overstretched and compromise either the change program or normal operations. Employee morale will fall, and conflict may arise between teams and line staff. To minimize the dangers, project managers should use a simple metric like the percentage increase in effort the employees who must cope with the new ways feel they must contribute. They should also check if the additional effort they have demanded comes on top of heavy workloads and if employees are likely to resist the project because it will demand more of their scarce time.

References

  1. R.H.G field,”A critique of the vroom-Yetton Contingency model of the leadership behavior,”academy of m,anagemet review 4(1979),pp.249-251
  2. McElroy W. Implementing strategic change through projects. Int J Project Manage1996;14(6):32 5–9.
  3. Thiry M. For DAD: a programme management life-cycle process. Int J ProjectManage 2004;22
  4. 245–52.[3] Yeo KT. Critical failure factors in information system projects. Int J ProjectManage 2002;20(3):241–6.
  5. Fernie S, Green S, Weller S, Newcombe R. Knowledge sharing: context,confusion and controversy. Int J Project Manage 2003;21(3):177–87.
  6. Crawford P, Bryce P. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancingthe efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int J Project Manage2003;21
  7. “Reactions to prescribed Leader Behaviou as a function of role of perspective :the case of the vroom yettonModel,” Journal of applied psychology (February 1984)
  8. ( Maslow, A (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. p. 236. ISBN 0-06-041987-3.)
  9.  Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471373893.
  10. Maehr, Martin L; Mayer, Heather (1997). “Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go”  Educational Psychology Review 9 (44)
  11. Banhegyi, Stephen George and Eugenie May (April 2007). The Art and Science of Change. STS Trust. p. 97. ISBN 0-9802550-3-1