A FRAMEWORK FOR PAKISTANI MANAGERS
SOME MOTIVATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

Abstract           This article discusses the content and process theories of motivation and their application towards workplace. The paper argues that the basis for understanding motivation in organizations depends on understanding the needs that motivate the behavior of the people in the organizations, and educational organization is no exception. Majority of the respondents indicated that the incumbents at all levels of the hierarchy could not develop shared understanding. Managers have the opinion that differences among individual worker are relatively less important. This paper suggests that organizational goals are achieved through negotiated order that realize on the coherence of the members of the organization to perform effectively and efficiently.

 

A Framework for Pakistani Managers Some Motivational Considerations

The problem of motivating employees to strive for excellence has long been of interest to industrial psychologists and is of growing interest to educational leaders. Motivation is an inner state that activates individuals. Motivation infers from one’s behavior. The basis for understanding motivation in organizations depends on understanding the needs that motivate the behavior of the people in those organizations, and educational organization is no exception. Motivation, therefore, is an intervening variable between needs and behavior. The relationship is shown as under:

 

 

 

Figure 1:  Motivation as an intervening variable between human needs and behavior.

 

Content Vs Process Theories:

The above relationship has been the subject of intensive research since 1920s (Owens: 1981). The contributions toward motivation can be categorized as content and process theories. Briefly, the content theories describes what motivates people (needs cause to perform). The process theories examine process through which people are motivated (wijk: 1984). Theories vis-à-vis their theorists are categorized below:

 

 

Points of Similarities & Contrasts:

Some scholars have recognized an affinity between theorists. Maslow and Herzberg distinguish between higher and lower order needs and both belong to self-actualizing man approach. According to Maslow individuals have needs and act in a manner to satisfy them but there is a priority in needs. Herzberg tells needs are prime motivators (independents), certain factors (Motivators) motivates people, other factors (hygiene factors) do not (wijk: 1984).

 

 

According to Maslow and Herzberg, higher order needs are the major motivating factors those influence employees’ behavior. Maslow suggested a hierarchy of needs; when the lower order needs is satisfied, a higher order needs appears. This hierarchy applied to the total life situation. Herzberg did not mention any hierarchy of needs. Motivators and hygiene factors are independent of each other (Silver: 1983).

 

Maslow’s was a general theory of human motivation with the person’s needs 24 hours a day whereas Herzberg tried to illuminate motivation issue in the work place (Robbins: 1976). Maslow regarded needs as organismic differences and Herzberg’s reasoning belonged to biblical and other literacy references. Moreover, Maslow’s linking needs to motivation is more clearly stated than Herzberg’s reasoning.

 

Herzberg while using critical incident approach to 200 (approx.) accountants and engineers ignored blue collar employed. Maslow’s work is blamed as armchair research. The theories reveal that Maslow and Herzberg are in support to each other as both contribute for job design and payment system. These theories indicate and guide, if workers are to become motivated, it will be necessary for manager to make the alterations necessary to stimulate the motivational factors (Motivators + last three needs in the hierarchy: Social + esteem + self-actualization).

 

According to their guidance for the managers, they must fulfill the intrinsic factors more consciously than the extrinsic factors. ‘Traditional Managers’ care about number 1 & 2, ‘human relations managers’ include number 3 with 1 and 2, whereas the managers who believe in ‘human resources’ they fulfill 3 + 4 + 5 (social + esteem + self-realization). Therefore, higher order needs play vital role in the organization to have excellence out of the employees.

 

Role of Expectations

Vroom (1966) has conceptualized motivation as the combination of two factors; expectancy (perceived action-outcome relationship) and instrumentality (perceived relationship of direct & indirect outcome). VIE theory is stated as below:

 

 Expectancy            Instrumentality

 

 

 

Action                 Outcome                   Other factors

 

                        Figure 2:         Relationships between expectancy and instrumentality in the expectancy theory of motivation.

 

According to Vroom’s equation,

 

Motivation F = f (E x V)

 

                          F = Force of Motivation

E = Expectancy

V = Valence (perceived attractiveness/repulsiveness)

Expanded Model

This theory (contingency theory of motivation) is further developed by Porter and Lawler (1968). They argue effort leads to performance (E - P), and performance leads to particular outcome (P - O). They further address ability and role perception for performance. Expectancy theory suggests equity (perceived fairness) for rewards and its further performance.

 

Doctrines to be followed

The aforementioned models present doctrines to be followed by good administration to create motivated organizational climate, and help job design, goal setting and performance appraisal (PA). According to these theories, motivational environments can be created by redesign jobs which will lead to responsibility and personal growth (intrinsic factor to be watched out by the leader). Professional development, therefore, satisfies individual that enhances his/her productivity.

 

Such theorists suggest numerous meaningful rewards that creative administrator can provide for excellent work, good results showing by the incumbents can be given incentive promotions. Recognizing subordinates’ accomplishments and providing opportunities for advancements might increase feelings of satisfaction. The increased feelings of satisfaction will lead to enhance students’ learning outcome; if theory is applicable to teaching-learning environments. Participative environment (mental & emotional involvement) can be created with the help of these theories which definitely help to erect better HRM & HRD systems for the whole organization.

 

A Case Study

The Japanese management has become modern legend because their productivity and quality are admired throughout the world. The secret lies in their quality control circles (QCC) and ring system of decision making. (Sergiovanni & Starrat: 1983). The QCC share responsibility with worker for locating and solving problems that interfere with organizational creativity, productivity, job satisfaction. QCC consists of 2 to 10 employees who meet regularly to see work related issues, accordingly they launch action research and make suggestions to management, which takes it seriously. QCC makes every employee a manager, with resulting motivational effects that increases interest in the enterprise - best example of participative style of management.

 

Secondly, the ring system refers to an elaborate decision making network requiring approval of new ideas throughout the organization. They circulate plans and proposals to various individuals (sources), they affix seals indicating their approval. Usually plans are prepared by individuals low in the organization. Plans are changed until they fit the organizational culture. Superiors give feedback and support to the plan. Americans make quick decisions but face difficulty in implementing and commitment problem.

 

Japanese believe in theory Z (basically Theory Y), this posits: trust, loyalty, dedication, and commitment. Infact, they have appreciated human element in organization. American follow 10-Ps but lack cultural expression.

 

It is worth to mention that modern concepts of management were introduced into Japan by American shortly after Second World War. But Japanese intended to appeal to individuals’ desire for involvement, creativity and autonomy. I think they don’t believe in pseudo-participation. They follow democratic style of leadership with a participation approach in its true sense.

 

Conclusion

We Pakistanis have the structural components for our organizations particularly the public sector. If lack, that is control mechanism in its proper shape. We follow structuralist traditions, therefore, individuals (leader and the led) behave in response to their environmental cues. The incumbents at all levels could not develop shared understanding and shared view of organizational reality. Our managers think that differences among individuals are relatively less important.

 

People at all management levels (operational, middle & top) should believe that productive environment is a mixture of material constraints and group norms. Organizational goals are not hit by preparing merely rules, structures, and procedures but through negotiated order that realize on the coherence of the members of the organization to perform effectively and efficiently.

 

Bibliography

 

Sergiovanni, T.J. Starratt, R.J. (1983). Supervision: Human Perspective. NY: McGraw Hill.

Silver, P.F. (1983). Educational Administration. London: Harper and Row.

Ownes, R.G. (1981). Organizational Behavior in Education. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Luthan, F. (1986). Organizational Behavior. NY: McGraw Hill.

Vroom, V.H. (1966). Organizational Choice: A study of Pre-and Postdecision Processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 212-225.

Maslow, A.H. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. NJ: Van Nostrand.

Porter, L.W., & Lawler, E.E. (1968). Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Ill: Irwin-Dorsey.

Chruden, H.H. & Sherman, A.W. Jr. (1984). Managing Human Resources. Cincinnati: South-Western.

Wijk, C.G., Van. (1984). Organization Theory (Eds). NY: Facts on File Publications.

Nakayama, N. (1980). Using Japanese Quality Control. NY: American Management Associations and Technology Transfer Institute.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Published:             TIU Research Journal. (1995). 72-75. Annual Publication of The International University (TIU) Lahore Campus, Pakistan.