Motivation and leading are the most of import countries where administration and practicing directors look in to understand internal behavior of administration. In the current hard economic state of affairs, each administration has a million dollar inquiry “ How to develop & amp ; actuate bing employees, and develop leaders ”. Harmonizing to Katz & A ; Kahn, 1978 ( Richard, Lyman, & A ; Gregory, 1996 ) had raised the following behavioral demands for any administration:
Peoples non merely should be interested to fall in the administration but besides remain with administration for longer clip.
Employees perform their occupations along-with duty.
Employees should travel beyond their normal everyday occupation function and convey some signifier of creativeness and advanced thoughts at work.
Initially Leadership was non taken as an of import function in administrations but now yearss it is the most critical map of modern administrations. Harmonizing to Ralph Stogdill, 1950 ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ), Leadership has three constituents:
As an inter-personal procedure in which one person seeks to determine and direct the behavior of others.
In a societal context, in which other members of the group to be influenced are subsidiaries or followings.
Standards in footings of end accomplishment.
Great Man Theory:
To manage such state of affairs, a individual must hold certain features as defined in Great Man Theory of Ralf Stogdill who reviewed 100s of trait surveies ( 1948 ). ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 )
Strong thrust for duty
Focus on finishing undertaking
Readiness to absorb interpersonal emphasis
Ability to act upon the behavior of other
At present, when I am analyzing my state of affairs, I found that Mr. X have all these features in his personality. He is a really responsible individual and has belief that duty ca n’t be given it should be taken. He ever keeps an oculus on the undertaking deadlines and continuously analyzing advancement through assorted team meetings. Mr. X has an ability to act upon others via accomplishing high criterions and self subject which inspires others to follow him. Apart from the above mentioned accomplishments Mr. X had some more accomplishments which made him a good leader like
It is the most of import accomplishment for any leader, you do n’t necessitate to be a leader to larn it but if you have this accomplishment you would go a good leader. Mr. X had this accomplishment set. His communications build trust and inspire all squad members & A ; stakeholders.
Ability to judge other people ‘s quality
Mr. X has this characteristic as a God ‘s gift. He knows his squad members really good. He knew that the best quality in each squad member and how to use in the current concern. He ever assigned a role/project to a individual who can present at best. I would wish to portion one of my experiences as:
Our administration entered into partnership with another administration named as EastNets to present Anti-Money washing solutions to our clients in Asia Pacific and Oceania beginning. Bing merely 8 months old in Mr. X ‘s squad, he had given me this undertaking despite the handiness of senior members in squad who were working more than 5 old ages with him. He besides maintains the outlook of each squad member in such a manner that there no differences arise in squad. During my term of office, I had successfully delivered more than four undertakings of EastNets in Australia and India.
The major drawback of Trait descrying theory is that leaders were selected based on predefined features.
To exchange attending from choosing leaders on personality traits, Michigan and Ohio surveies known as Style Counselling Katz, Maccoby & A ; Morse, 1950 ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ) investigated the direction manner of leaders at International Harvester Company. The surveies identified two dimensions of leadings as:
I found that Mr. X falls under both classs because he ever focussed on relationships and employee demands which helped him construct a strong squad. This is the chief ground that no 1 had left his squad in the past 5 old ages. Mr. X is ever interested in and listens to his squad, encourages squad to take part in decision-making. He is really friendly and accessible. He made himself available to all squad in any state of affairs either you were on client site or in office. Due to this behavior he builds up trust, regard and resonance with whole squad which encouraged the development of communicating and relationship in group. Therefore, I found him under Employee-centred class.
He structures undertakings, assigns work, do his outlook clear to all squad, much accent on deadlines which is a portion of scientific direction system but have a positive purpose and motive. Therefore, I put him under Job-centred class.
Harmonizing to Robert Tannenbaum & A ; Warren H. Schmidt, each leader must make up one’s mind the leading behavior as per state of affairs because a similar manner ca n’t suit in all state of affairss.
Fig 1: The Tannenbaum-Schmidt continuum of leading behavior
[ Beginning: ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ) pp. 710 ]
So a leader should be able to name the context and so choose the best behavior to manage such context. This theory is known as Context Fitting ( shown in Fig 1 ) which led to development of Fiedler ‘s Contingency Theory of Leadership. ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 )
Fiedler ‘s theory is a systematic attack to naming contextual factors. It shows the importance of contextual factors to find leading behavior and its effectivity. While reading this theory, I realise that Mr. X has a new manner of leading on different state of affairss like sometime he acts as Expert function and sometimes as Doctor-patient function. But in Fiedler ‘s theory, there was no function of other squad couples or subsidiaries, so it was unable to suit to my state of affairs.
Based on Mr. X different leading manner, I feel that he is following the Goleman ‘s Leadership Theory. As per Goleman ‘s there are six different manners of leading which have an impact on work and public presentation of squad which are shown as:
Fig 2: Goleman ‘s Six Leadership manners
Beginning: ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ) pp. 715
Mr. X implemented all of the above manners. When I joined his squad, he had given a batch of inputs to better my cognition, communicating accomplishments through his Coaching Style. Mr. X is in this concern for more than 10 old ages ; hence he had achieved and set certain criterions and committedness for his squad. As I discussed earlier he allows squad to take part to plan schemes to accomplish stat mi rocks and assorted aims like how to turn over out messages criterions executions etc. Mr. X is an Employee centred individual, therefore whole squad Acts of the Apostless as household.
With Goleman ‘s leading manner makes Mr. X as a good leader and inspires others including me to go a director like him. I found myself lucky to hold an chance to work with him over two and half old ages.
Motivation represents a really complex phenomenon that affects, and affected by assorted factors of work & A ; organisation civilization. Initially there was really small interaction between Motivation and Leadership. But the globalisation of the universe ‘s market, progresss in information engineerings had changed the earlier perceptual experience. Now, we can exemplify the nexus between these subjects ( Leadership & A ; Motivation ) by their interaction which is impacting about all administrations with the development in engineerings. While engineering can merely supply a base for superior public presentation but it is up to the human resources to utilize its highest degree to assist administration to accomplish their ends & A ; aims.
McGregor ‘s Theory ‘X ‘ and Theory ‘Y ‘
Harmonizing to Mr. Douglas McGregor, 1960 ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ), there are two cardinal attacks to pull offing people as shown below:
Fig 3: McGregor ‘s Theory ‘X ‘ and Theory ‘Y ‘
Beginning: ( www.vectostudy.com )
As per above diagram, directors who follow Theory ‘X ‘ ( Authoritarian direction manner ) by and large gets hapless consequences and there was no manner for people to grow-up. On the other manus, directors who follow Theory ‘Y ‘ ( Participative direction manner ) to acquire better public presentation and consequences allow people to turn and develop.
While in my administration, sometimes I found that senior direction follows Theory ‘X ‘, so there were different issues between center and senior degree direction. But in my state of affairs, Mr. X ever followed Theory ‘Y ‘. He had created an environment where squad can portion their thoughts ; each person has an chance to turn higher in his calling. Therefore, with merely 10 people on board, he was able to accomplish all mileposts, aims of administration and more than 100 satisfied clients.
In my state of affairs, Maslow ‘s Theory is unable to suit because in twenty-first century people neglect lower demands in chase of higher 1s.
This theory is based on our perceptual experiences of just intervention. In conformity with Mr. Adams, 1963 ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ), people are motivated in state of affairss which we perceive to be unjust or unjust like public presentation assessment systems. Inequity occurs when people get rewarded either more or less than their outlooks.
This theory was applicable to my organisation where based on one-year public presentation we get our salary hiking, public presentation fillip, publicities etc. In the first twelvemonth of my assessment, I had non expected any salary hiking but I got a public presentation fillip which was unexpected to me. This incidence motivated me to work harder and grow in my calling. In order to avoid salary comparing between employees, my administration had on wage secretiveness policy. The perceptual experience of unfairness could besides make tenseness between whole squad.
Herzberg ‘s Two Factor Theory of Motivation:
Mr. Herzberg, 1966 ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ) had found the factors which influenced occupation satisfaction and dissatisfactions. These two sets of factors classified as Motivator factors ( occupation satisfaction ) and Hygiene factors ( occupation dissatisfaction ) are shown as:
Fig 4: Herzberg ‘s Two Factor Motivation Theory
Beginning: ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ) pp. 258
To avoid tenseness between squad and administration, a new construct was implemented by HR Manager and Mr. X, where Mr. X had distributed duties within his squad like senior member will work on planing and developing service degree understandings etc. Mr. X had redesigned the occupation profile of each squad member like few member involved in proficient preparation, for me a new undertaking to pull off EastNets merchandises etc. Redesigning of occupations had increased motive and public presentation of whole squad. The redesigning of occupations is linked with assorted wagess factors:
When few of my teammates went for certain enfranchisements ( for educational preparation ) at Belgium, they came out with winging colorss. It gives each person an internal satisfaction and achievement. They got an extra rubric as “ SWIFT Certified Instructor ” which motivates them and others besides. I would wish to foreground that whenever any member from this squad went for any sort of enfranchisements, he/she ever came winning.
My administration has three awards based on single public presentation ( on half annual footing ) :
Pat on the Back Award: When an person had achieved about all the aims
Customer Centricity Award: An person had achieved all aims and contributed significantly towards client satisfaction
Process Champion Award: An person had achieved all aims and shown extraordinary part towards clients, conveying new thoughts etc.
During Recognition and Reward ( R & A ; R ) ceremonial, the victor was announced and so their coverage director explains assorted grounds to all squad on which footing he/she was awarded.
My teammates Robin and Minal had achieved “ Pat on the Back Award ” 3 and 4 times in a row and Robin was besides awarded by “ Customer Centricity Award ”. I had besides received “ Pat on the Back Award ” for July 09-Dec 09 period.
These award ceremonials have encouraged all squad couples to work hard and accomplish these awards. It had besides been implemented as a healthy competition within squad, which improves the overall public presentation of squad. While analyzing this new construct, I found that it was really much similar to Herzberg ‘s Two Factor theory of motive.
One interesting fact to Herzberg ‘s theory that salary ( wage ) is non appeared under Motivator factors and I feel it is right. Paying people a high wage will non actuate people to work but when people get paid with less so they get dissatisfied.
Due to restriction of assorted other undertakings, there was a less chance to turn higher in my administration. There was no preparation conducted for any member during my term of office. Due to our occupation profile we had to work for late hours but there were no policy to counterbalance it, therefore no 1 willing to work after office hours.
The interpersonal dealingss with senior direction could play a major function towards dissatisfaction to employees. Due to these hygiene factors, employees quit from administration. Some organisations feel that Money is the lone incentive. But it would be merely for a really short term, therefore organisations and senior direction must understand that apart from money there are other factors which motivate people.
Summary and Recommendations
After analyzing the faculty Organisational Behaviour, I found that my old administration has a assorted work civilization where there were some good procedures and methods to develop leaders and actuate employees but largely used by in-between degree direction non from senior direction. I feel that Xchanging is engaging senior direction based on Trait descrying methods non on their direction manner. In order to develop leaders and actuate employees in my old administration, my recommendation would be as:
There should be definite way of growing for each employee through regular preparation plans.
Introduce a new manner of assessment system where employee had an chance to put his/her ends for the specified periods.
HR should look to better the interpersonal relationship between in-between degree and senior degree direction through struggle direction.
Better the Hygiene factors as defined by Herzberg, 1966 ( Andrzej & A ; David, 2007 ) which will take to cut down the dissatisfaction.
Extremums and Troughs in the concern: Either in footings of burden factor of employees, or grosss from the concern etc., it is of import to anticipate the extremums and ( rhenium ) distribute ( as much possible ) in the trough countries for uniform or more manageable concern with optimum use of the resources.
Excess and shortage: There could be some of the concern units which do non give every bit much gross but are good still from concern continuance of concern ( from the long-run focal point position ), which the director should account for and take a holistic base. Troughs or shortage countries, being thin times should be used for preparation and other back uping activities so as to be ready for the extremums or excess times.
Pull off the hazard and cover the hazard on regular footing: This is the cardinal country at every degree of direction ( when each person is considered as director, this of import duty gets dispersed across a broad subdivision of people, which itself reduces the hazard of concern ).
Believe in individuals ( to that extent he should non patrol ) : In my experience, trust and ticker are two cardinal points to be used very-very discreetly and with batch of discretion. The more appropriate you are at it, the happier but less hazardous concern groups you can make. One should maintain cheques and inquiry where needed in the involvement of concern.
Transparency and Confidentiality: This is another cardinal country which at times can be confounding. Bing crystalline makes people believe you but at all times keeping sufficient concern confidentiality is critical to the concern stableness. Merely if the lower beds of common trust are well-laid this can be best handled.
Another cardinal thing, I feel is that to guarantee that each person within his/her squad is best performed within the extendible bounds of their ain ego, without in direct rigorous comparing with others. Comparison should be used to put higher criterions and non to minimize others.