INTRODUCTION
Organizational environment has been among the most widely assessed discipline in the management sciences domain. Role and behavior of employer and employee, being the central players in organization, affects the organizational environment significantly. The discussion in the underlying case study revolves around the four main characters including two employees and two managers. The leadership approaches of managers’ and the employees’ level of motivation in the presence of those leadership styles have been central theme in this discussion. Alex and Stephanie are the state’s university students both work in the local super market to make ends meet and help pay for the university. Stephanie works under the management of Jonathan. Jonathan is a specialized manger and working as a manager for the last ten years in the super market. Jonathan has got a very appealing and friendly leadership approach to manage the employees. Alex works under the management of Dan. Dan has got autocratic leadership approach in running the management. Dan emphasizes on the concept of specialization in a single work. Dan assigns same duties and responsibilities to the employees every week so the employees get bored. The good side of this approach is the specialization in the same work which increases the effectiveness and efficiency of work.
Path Goal Theory Of Leadership:
The path goal leadership theory is a goal oriented theory. It was developed to describe the technique that leaders give confidence and help their employees in accomplishing the objectives and tasks. The leaders set the path for them to take easy and quick steps to achieve the goal. The characteristics of this approach are:
- Make clear the path so employees identify which way to use.
- Eliminate barriers that are stopping them for reaching the destination.
- Increasing the number of rewards throughout the time (Hackman, & Johnson, 2004).
Leaders can get a well-built or restricted approach from this theory. In clarifying the path to the subordinates, they possibly will provide unclear hints. In eliminating barriers, they might clean the path or assist the subordinate shift the bigger barriers. By increasing rewards and incentives, they might provide infrequent encouragement or pave the way with gold.
This deviation in this style of leadership will vary from situation to situation, including the employee’s ability and motivation, in addition to the complexity of the work and other relative factors.
Leaders who demonstrate the method and help out subordinates all along the path are successfully 'leading'. This leadership style supposed that there is only one correct technique of attaining an objective and that only manager can see it and the employees cannot. This directs the manager as the only meaningful person or decision maker and the follower as completely dependent on him. It also presumes that the subordinates are totally rational and that the suitable techniques can be deterministically chosen depending on the circumstances.
Application of Path Goal theory of leadership on the case:
The path goal theory or approach reflects in the leadership style of Dan’s management. Dan was a completely task oriented manager. Under the presence of Dan’s leadership he was the only person who makes decisions and all the employees just follow him. Dan’s concept was the repeated tasks would make works specialized in the pattern of their work which would increase the productivity. Dan was succeeded in increasing productivity by specializing the workers in the same kind of work but failed to maintain the satisfaction of employees. Alex was completely dissatisfied with the Dan’s approach and he was ready to switch the job if he would get an opportunity of a new job. Retaining of productive employees is very important for every business and manager. So there is a strong need of motivating the employees by satisfying them with the organizational environment. Dan’s management style gives enhanced productivity but for a short term period until the employee gets the new opportunity to switch the job. Employee satisfaction increases the productivity in the long run because employee would become loyal with the organization if organization takes cares about the rights of employees.
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory Of Leadership:
The contingency theory of leadership was presented by Fielder and it demonstrates the connection between the leader’s direction and approach and collective performance in work below differing situational circumstances. The contingency theory is based on determining the direction of the manager (relationship or mission), the essentials of the circumstances (relationship of leaders and members, structure of task, and position power of leader), and the manager direction that was established to be most effectual as the circumstances changed from low to moderate to high control. Fiedler established that task oriented managers were more successful in low and moderate control conditions and relationship oriented managers were more successful in moderate control conditions.
Fielder classifies the three factors that had to be considered in understanding the situation:
- Manager-subordinates relationship - extent to which a manager is accepted and supported by the subordinates.
- Position power - The capability of a leader to manage workers through incentive and punishment.
Fiedler's theory gives a few very attractive inferences for the organization of leaders in association:
1. The favorableness of management circumstances must be evaluated using the tools developed by Fiedler.
2. Applicants for management places should be assessed by the LPC scale.
3. If a manager is being wanted for a particular management place, a manager with the suitable LPC profile should be selected.
4. If a management circumstances is being selected for an exacting applicant, a situation (work team, department, etc.) must be selected which contrast the applicant LPC profile.
Application of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of leadership on the case:
The reflection of this leadership approach can be found in Jonathan leadership style. Jonathan has been focusing throughout his career on motivation of employees. Jonathan believes that the satisfaction of employees is based on their motivational level. Jonathan has got a very appealing and attractive leadership approach to manage the employees and most of the employees of the store wish to work under the leadership of Jonathan. The cheerful attitude of Stephanie verifies that the working conditions in super market for the employees under the leadership of Jonathan are very pleasant. Jonathan assigns different duties and responsibilities to its staff every week so the staff or workers do not get bored with the job.
Jonathan regulates such activities to motivate the employees and allows the employees to find out their potentials by assigning different duties. The motivation of the Jonathan’s employees makes them creative enough to successfully work for the new marketing activities of the super market. This seems that the motivation of employees makes them satisfied with their duties and responsibilities. Along with all these activities Jonathan also focused on the relationship with the employees and understands the needs to satisfy the employees to retain them for a long term. This approach creates the leadership and management qualities among the employees of the organization.
Hygiene Motivation Theory By Herzberg:
Herzberg established that workers are not motivated by being booted (figuratively talking), or by being provided extra money or benefits, a relaxed surroundings or falling time spent at job can also be helpful in motivating them. These essentials were entitled 'hygiene factors' by Herzberg for the reason that they concern the circumstances or surroundings in which an individual works (Kramar, Mcgrew, & Schuler. 1997).
Hygiene factors contain:
- Corporation guiding principles and management
- Supervision
- Functioning relationships
- Position and security.
Hygiene factors do not in themselves promote job satisfaction. However these factors give out first and foremost to stop work dissatisfaction. Good hygiene factors do not in themselves create good healthiness, but if these are short then it will be a reason to dissatisfaction. Herzberg also talks about them as displeasing or continuation factors, as it is their nonappearance or insufficiency which basis displeasure at job. A few factors are not accurate motivators as they require regular strengthening. In addition, such factors more and more come to be looked upon as human rights to be expected, relatively than incentives to better satisfaction and attainment (Kramar, Mcgrew, & Schuler. 1997).
Application of Hygiene motivation theory by Fredrick Herzberg on the case:
Stephanie’s high motivational level to achieve the goal has been achieved as defined by Frederick Herzberg’s theory. The job of Stephanie has been made attractive with adding elements of enlargements and empowerment. Jonathan had an attractive leadership approach. He knew how to manage the employees and most of the employees of the store wish to work under the leadership of Jonathan. Stephanie daily comes on work with a cheerful smile on her face and get back from work with a smiley face as well. The cheerful attitude was one of the main reasons why people wanted to work with Jonathan. Jonathan used to assign diverse duties to its staff regularly so the staff of the store does not get bored with the job. Jonathan provided the employees some space for utilizing their potential skills and generating the element of creativity in their working style. This attitude of Jonathan reflects in the employees work and started some new marketing activities in the organization by utilizing the skills of same employees. This seems that the motivation of employees makes them satisfied with their duties and responsibilities. All this also encouraged employees to be more creative in their style and it helped in successfully work for the new marketing activities of the super market. Jonathan provides an incentive of bonus for those employees who are engaged in the new marketing plan of super market, for example, Stephanie in the culinary center.
Motivation Theory By Frederick Winslow Taylor: (1856 – 1917)
Frederick Winslow Taylor put onward the thought that employees are motivated mostly by pay. His Theory of Scientific Management argued the following:
- Employees do not naturally take pleasure in work and so require close management and control
- Consequently managers must split down work into a chain of small tasks
- Employees must then be provided proper guidance and tools so they can be able to work as competently as possible on single set duty.
- Employees are then salaried according to the quantity of items they manufacture in a set time period-this is known as piece-rate pay.
- Accordingly employees are encouraged to work hard and make the most of their output (Jackson, Schuler, & Werner, 2009).
Taylor’s techniques were extensively taken up as companies saw the advantages of better output levels and lesser unit cost. The mainly markedly promoter was Henry Ford who used them to plan the foremost manufacturing line up of Ford cars. This was the beginning of the age of high level manufacturing. Taylor’s motivation approach has close relations with the theory of an autocratic leadership approach (leaders take all the decisions and just present instructions to persons under them). Conversely employees shortly came to detest Taylor’s style as they were only specified boring, repetitive everyday jobs to perform and were being treated little superior than human machines.
Application of Motivation theory by Frederick Winslow Taylor on the case:
This theory is applied on the situations faced by the Alex under the leadership of Dan. Alex’s de-motivation can be defined in accordance with factors defined by Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856 – 1917) where manager takes all decisions and are dictated to employees. The resulting boredom from the breakdown of jobs and employees being required to performed similar task on regular basis is mitigated by paying additional in accordance with productivity. Alex’s peer despite doing same job has been receiving additional amount but lacking of such compensation to Alex has increased the boredom from doing similar job and has increasingly resulted in dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction led Alex to get out of this exhausted environment but it was not possible for him to leave the job because of the present issues with him. This situation of Alex verifies that in today’s working environment, it is necessary for the managers to build good relationship with employees and understand their needs and wants to satisfy them. This satisfaction will increase the productivity of employees and it will also rise up the loyalty of employees with the organization along with the dedication of work in the work place.
CONCLUSION
The two leadership theories and two motivational theories are used to discuss the case. Now it can be concluded that the hygiene motivation theory by Fredrick Winslow Taylor is helpful in motivating employees and in satisfying them and in retaining them for a longer period of time. This theory of motivation lies under the Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of leadership. One manager of the store used this approach of leadership and he became successful in satisfying the employees and their desire along with creating some new skills in them. On the other side, the second manager in the same store used another approach of leadership that is Path Goal theory of leadership. The store manger used this approach to increase the productivity of employees by assigning them same duties all the time. This approach resulted in declining the employee’s satisfaction. Motivation theory by Frederick Winslow Taylor lies under this leadership approach and motivates the employees only with monitory benefits. This concept is applicable only few circumstances and only on low level employees and mangers motivate with this approach.
References
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Jackson, S., Schuler, R., & Werner, S. (2009). Managing Human Resources. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Kramar, R., Mcgrew, P., & Schuler. R. (1997). Human Resource Management in Australia. 3rd edition. Longman: Australia.
