Describe two factor theory of work motivation.

Briefly explain the practical

explanation of the theory in the work setting.
In 1959, Frederick Herzberg, a behavioural scientist proposed a two-factor theory or
the motivator-hygiene theory or intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation . According to
Herzberg, there are certain factors in the workplace that can cause job satisfaction
and a separate set of factors that can cause dissatisfaction. It is critical to
emphasize that this is not a linear relationship: the factors that cause satisfaction
do not necessarily negate those that cause dissatisfaction; one does not necessarily
increase exactly as the other decreases.
Herzberg classified these job factors into two categoriesExtrinsic Motivators (Hygiene factors): - Hygiene factors are those job factors
which are essential for existence of motivation at workplace. These do not lead to
positive satisfaction for long-term. But if these factors are absent / if these factors
are non-existant at workplace, then they lead to dissatisfaction. In other words,
hygiene factors are those factors which when adequate/reasonable in a job, pacify
the employees and do not make them dissatisfied. These factors are extrinsic to
work. Hygiene factors are also called as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors as
they are required to avoid dissatisfaction. These factors describe the job
environment/scenario. Extrinsic motivators include status, job security, salary, and
fringe benefits. Managers must realize that not providing the appropriate and
expected extrinsic motivators will sow dissatisfaction and
unmotivated behavior among employees.

Intrinsic Motivators (Motivational factors):- According to Herzberg, the

hygiene factors cannot be regarded as motivators. The motivational factors yield
positive satisfaction. These factors are inherent to work. These factors motivate the
employees for a superior performance. These factors are called satisfiers. These are
factors involved in performing the job. Employees find these factors intrinsically
rewarding. The motivators symbolized the psychological needs that were perceived
as an additional benefit. Intrinsic motivators include challenging work, recognition,
relationships, and growth potential. Managers must recognize that while these
needs may be outside the more traditional scope of what the workplace should
provide, they are absolutely critical in empowering strong individual
and team performance.

Herzberg's Theory in Context

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, McClelland's Need Theory, and Maslow's Hierarchy of
Needs all talk about higher-level psychological needs such as achievement,

recognition, responsibility, and advancement. The key factor that differentiates TwoFactor Theory is the idea of expectation.
According to Herzberg, intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators have an inverse
relationship. This is to say that intrinsic motivators tend to inspire motivation when
they are present, while extrinsic motivators tend to reduce motivation when they
are absent. This is because of expectation. Extrinsic motivators (e.g., salary,
benefits) are expected and so will not increase motivation when they are in place,
but they will cause dissatisfaction when they are missing. Intrinsic motivators (e.g.,
challenging work), on the other hand, can be a source of additional motivation.
If management wants to increase employees' job satisfaction, they should be
concerned with the nature of the work itselfthe opportunities it presents
employees for gaining status, assuming responsibility, and achieving selfrealization. If, on the other hand, management wishes to reduce dissatisfaction,
then it must focus on the job environmentpolicies, procedures, supervision, and
working conditions. To ensure a satisfied and productive workforce, managers must
pay attention to both sets of job factors.
In 1968 Herzberg stated that his two-factor theory study had already been
replicated 16 times in a wide variety of populations including some in Communist
countries, and corroborated with studies using different procedures that agreed with
his original findings regarding intrinsic employee motivation making it one of the
most widely replicated studies on job attitudes.
One such replication was done by George H. Hines and published in December 1973
in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Hines tested Herzberg's two-factor motivation
theory in New Zealand, using ratings of 12 job factors and overall job satisfaction
obtained from 218 middle managers and 196 salaried employees. Contrary to
dichotomous motivator-hygiene predictions, supervision and interpersonal
relationships were ranked highly by those with high job satisfaction, and there was
strong agreement between satisfied managers and salaried employees in the
relative importance of job factors. Findings are interpreted in terms of social and
employment conditions in New Zealand

What is leadership? Explain the charismatic and transformational theories of

leadership with suitable examples.
A simple definition of leadership is that leadership is the art of motivating a group of
people to act towards achieving a common goal. Put even more simply, the leader is
the inspiration and director of the action. He or she is the person in the group that
possesses the combination of personality and skills that makes others want to follow
his or her direction.

Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an

objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and
coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes,
such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Leadership is the
ability to influence a group towards the achievement of a vision or set of goals.
1. Leadership is interpersonal influence exercised in a situation and directed
through communication process, towards the attainment of a specified goal or
goals.
2 It is the quality of the
behaviour of the individuals whereby they guide people or their activities in an
organized effort.
3. It is the ability to shape the attitude and beahviour of others, whether in formal or
informal situations.
Charismatic leadership theory:
One particular kind of leadership is charismatic leadership. Like leadership in
general, charismatic leadership has a wide range of definitions, especially since
charisma has varied meanings in different cultural and temporal settings. Setting
aside normative judgments about whether a leader is good or bad, just or not, and
moral or immoral, one might say that there is something about certain leaders that
make them unique and exceptional. This something has been the subject of
serious intellectual debates and Max Weber paved much of the way in terms of
identifying this special something as charisma. His theories laid important
groundwork for how we might think about and understand charismatic leadership.
The charismatic leadership theory is a style of leadership in which followers make
attributions of heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when they observe certain
behaviors. Charismatic leaders have vision, are willing to take personal risks to
achieve their vision, they are sensitive to followers needs, and exhibit behaviors
that are out of the ordinary. It is safe to say that charismatic leaders are born, and
they are made. Some examples of charismatic leaders are: Martin Luther King, Jr.,
John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. There is an increasing body of research
indicating that strong correlation between charismatic leadership and high
performance and satisfaction among followers. Those working for charismatic
leaders are more motivated and put in extra effort because of the high level of
respect for their charismatic leader. The downside of charismatic leaders is that
those who are larger than life charismatic leaders dont always act in the best
interest of their organizations and can use their power to enhance their own image
within the company. They sometimes do not know how to separate their personal
interests from the organizations interests
Charisma in this context is value-free, however. Weber was more concerned with
whether leaders proved their charisma in the eyes of their adherents than value
judgments. Weber continues his chapter by outlining the precise features of
charismatic leadership. He notes that charisma is often most evident in the

religious realm, but not exclusively found there. Charisma knows no formal and
regulated appointment or dismissal, no career, advancement, or salary, no
supervisory or appeals body, no local or purely technical jurisdiction, and no
permanent institutions in the manner of bureaucratic agencies. Furthermore,
charisma is a highly individual quality. Robert Tucker adds that in Webers usage,
the possessor of charismatic authority, who may be a religious, political, military,
or other kind of leader, is in essence a saviorleader or one perceived as such
(1977). Tucker explains that a leader who comes forward in a distressful situation
and presents himself or herself in a convincing way to the sufferers as one who can
lead them out of their distress by virtue of special personal characteristics or
formula for salvation may arouse their intense loyalty and enthusiastic willingness
to take the path the leader is pointing out. Furthermore, charismatic leadership
carries potential hazards as well as benefits depending on the time, place, and
what means and ends are involved. This is because for Weber, the charismatic
leader goes against tradition, generates new things, and changes points of
reference or frameworks, but can also be subversive, irrational, and unstable. In
addition, there is a focus on the present moment. Charismatic leadership therefore
carries within itself its own demise for it cannot last forever. There are eventually
problems with the routinization and succession of charisma. In order to understand
charismatic leadership more fully beyond what has been presented so far,
particularly with regard to its appeal and limitations, the next section delves more
deeply into the psychological, social, and arismatic leadership. relational dimensions
of charismatic leadership

On the other hand, Transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their own
self-interests for the good of the organization and are capable of having a profound
and extraordinary effect on their followers. They pay attention to the concerns and
needs of individual followers, promote intelligence, provide vision and a sense of
mission, communicate high expectations, and can change followers awareness of
issues by helping them to look at older issues in new ways. They are also able to
excite, arouse, and encourage followers to put extra effort into achieving group
goals .They encourage their followers to be more innovative and creative.
According to Bass (1990), transformational leadership is characterized by several
patterns of behavior. First, transformational leadership employs the charisma of
leaders in order to gain the respect and trust of stakeholders and to instill pride in
the latter. In addition, charisma underlines the provision of a common vision and
sense of mission necessary for the transformation. The second characteristic is
inspiration through which leaders employ symbols to redirect followers efforts; they
express in a simplistic manner the fundamental purpose of the transformation
process, and clearly communicate the accompanying higher expectations. The third
characteristic is intellectual stimulation. Leaders intellectually stimulate employees
by emphasizing rationality and creativity in problem-solving situations. Finally,

transformational leadership offers individualized consideration: leaders treat

employees individually offering them personal attention and, whenever necessary,
they provide coaching and advise to those employees.
Wang and Howell (2010) argue that transformational leadership can be focused on
the individual and group levels. In the first instance, the aim is to empower
individuals in order to develop their full potential, enhance their abilities and skills,
and improve their self-efficacy and self-esteem. The influence of the leaders is
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP strengthened by their interest in the followers as
individuals. Transformational leaders strive to understand employees abilities,
skills, and needs, and offer them coaching and mentoring to overcome any
weaknesses. At the group level, transformational leadership develops common
values and beliefs, and inspires unity in order to reach group goals. In this situation,
leaders behave equally toward all members of the organization, and the latter have
a common perception about the leaders behavior. Scholars make further
distinctions in leadership styles by elaborating on some of the components of Bass
taxonomy. Chu et al. (2009), for example, elaborate the concept of charismatic
leadership. This is a value-based style that leads to emotional bonds between
leaders and followers. The latter transcend their self-interests because of their belief
in a collective purpose. Such transcendence results from the followers identification
and internalization of the vision and values of the leader. A charismatic relationship
thus implies trust, respect, admiration and commitment to the leader. Charismatic
leadership is an empowering style with a view to the future of the organization
(Conger and Kanungo, 1998; cited in Eagly et al., 2003). According to Murphy and
Ensher (2008) charismatic leaders achieve targeted transformation because of the
following characteristics: strategic visioning and communication behavior,
sensitivity to the environment, unconventional behavior, personal risk, sensitivity to
organizational members needs, and deviation from the status quo. Similarly, Eagly
et al. (2003) further distinguish laissez-faire leadership and indicate that this type of
leadership is characterized by the avoidance of any involvement in critical
situations and the general failure to take responsibility for managing. For Bass
(1990), self-determination and self-confidence characterize transformational
leaders. Leaders are successful at influencing followers because followers have
trust, admiration, loyalty and respect for the transformational leader; and because
of the qualities of the latter, followers are willing to work harder for the achievement
of objectives (Geib and Swenson, 2013). Transformational leaders motivate the
members of the organization to transcend their self-interests in order to achieve
collective objectives. The leader thus can be said to be a model of integrity and
fairness, setting clear goals, having high expectations, encouraging people and
providing support and recognition, stirring the emotions and passions of people, and
getting people to look beyond their own self-interests and reach for higher goals
(Warrick, 2011). Transformational leaders are able to articulate the organizations
common purpose in a way that emphasizes the social dimension of the process: the
impact of one individuals actions on the greater group beyond the firm. The vision

thus clearly accentuates the meaningfulness of the consequences of each action for
the organization and its stakeholders (Grant, 2010). In so doing, the
transformational leader encourages others to adopt the transformation process as
their-own and thus allows for the attainment of the targeted transformation. To put
it sharply, the success of the transformational leaders is defined by their ability to
offer others something that goes beyond self-interest: they provide other with an
inspiring mission and vision and give them an identity (Geib and Swenson, 2013).
Some people argue that charisma is a part of transformational leadership, while
others believe charisma by itself is too broad and insufficient to account for the
transformational process. Some may believe charismatic leaders may want
followers to adopt the charismatic world view and go no further while the
transformational leader will attempt to implant the ability to question established
views and those established by the leader. Though researchers believe
transformational leadership is broader than charismatic leadership, tests indicate
that leaders who score higher in transformational leadership are also likely to score
high in charisma. So, in practice transformational and charismatic leadership are
more or less equal.
Charismatic and transformational leaders are from all walks of life. In addition to
business, this leadership style can be found in religious institutions and political and
social movements.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a charismatic leader who used powerful oratory, an
engaging personality, and unwavering commitment to positive change in the lives
of millions of people.
Born in 1929, Dr. King followed in the footsteps of his father as a Baptist minister.
He started his civil rights career as the leader of the bus boycott the night that Rosa
Parks was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama. Dr. Kings powerful speeches and
belief in peaceful protest put energy into the civil rights movement. In January 1957,
he and several others founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In
1960, Dr. King gained national notoriety for his arrest at a lunch counter sit-in,
which came to the attention of presidential candidate John F. Kennedy. He was soon
released and went on to have even greater influence in the fight for civil rights.
Martin Luther King, Jr.s speeches ignited smaller movements for equal rights
through the American South and beyond. Dr. King is best known for the August 28,
1963, march on Washington that drew more than 200,000 people. At that march, he
delivered his famous I Have a Dream speech. The following year, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was passed

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Wilson Reagan was born in 1911. He gained fame as an actor after signing a
seven-year movie contract with Warner Brothers in 1937. During World War ll, he
made training films for the military. Although he served as president of the Screen
Actors Guild, a labor union, Reagans political views shifted from liberal to
conservative in the 1950s.
He began giving motivational talks to businesses and moved to the national stage in
1964, when he gave a well-received televised speech for Barry Goldwater. He ran
for president beginning in 1968 and won in 1980. President Reagan was able to
articulate his political vision in ways that appealed to his followers. Along with Teddy
Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, Reagan is recognized as one of the most charismatic
American presidents of the 20th century.

Write a short note on implicit leadership theory.

Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) is a cognitive theory of leadership developed by
Robert Lord and colleagues. It is based on the idea that individuals create cognitive
representations of the world, and use these preconceived notions to interpret their
surroundings and control their behaviors. ILT suggests that group members have
implicit expectations and assumptions about the personal characteristics, traits, and
qualities that are inherent in a leader. These assumptions, termed implicit
leadership theories or leader prototypes, guide an individuals perceptions and
responses to leaders. The term implicit is used because they are not outwardly
stated and the term theory is used because it involves the generalization of past
experiences to new experiences. ILTs allow individuals to identify leaders and aid
them in responding appropriately to leaders in order to avoid conflict.
Although ILTs vary between individuals, many overlap in terms of the task skills and
relationship skills that leaders should possess in order to be successful. In terms of
task skills, most people seek a leader that is in control, determined, influential, and
continuously involved in the group activities. When considering relationship skills,
most people tend to prefer a leader who is caring, honest, open to new ideas, and
interested in the group work. In a study by Offermann, Kennedy, and Wirtz (1994),
the content and factor structure variation of male and female ILTs were compared
across three stimuli, being leaders, effective leaders, and supervisors. They found
that eight factors of the ILTs were rather stable across all participants, between
males and females, and across the three stimuli. These eight factors were charisma,
sensitivity, dedication, intelligence, attractiveness, masculinity, tyranny, and

strength. The results from this study suggest that, although ILTs differ depending on
the individual, this variation may be systematic and, at times, predictable.

Define Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Briefly discuss the contemporary

challenges faced by I/O or organizational psychology.
Industrial psychology is concerned with people's work-related values, attitudes and
behaviours, and how these are influenced by the conditions in which they work. The
term 'Industrial Psychology' is a combination of two words 'Industrial' and
'Psychology'. Industrial is that part of social life whose function is to provide civilized
man with the material goals that his condition of life demand. Psychology is the
science of behaviour in relation to environment. Thus industrial psychology is the
systematic study of the behaviour of the people at work. It studies how the social,
industrial, economic, political and other factors affect the behaviour of the people at
work.
According to C.S. Myres, The aim of industrial psychology is primarily not to obtain
greater production or output but to give the worker greater ease at his work.
According to Thomas W. Harrell, Industrial psychology may be defined as the study
of people as individuals and in groups and of the relationship between individual
and group.
According to Tiffin and McCormick, 'Industrial psychology is concerned with the
study of human behaviour in those aspects of life that are related to production,
distribution and use of goods and services of our civilization.