Features of Mcgregor’s Theory X and Theory Y of Motivation

Features of Mcgregor’s Theory X and Theory Y of Motivation!

Prof. Douglas McGregor has developed a theory of motivation of the basis

of hypotheses relating to human behaviour.

According to McGregor, the function of motivating people involves certain

assumptions about human nature. There are two alternative sets of
assumptions which McGregor has described as Theory X and Theory Y.

Theory X:
Theory X of motivation is based on the following assumptions:

1. The average individual is by nature indolent and will avoid work if he can.

2. The average person lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility, and prefers to

be led.

3. An average human being in inherently self-centred, and indifferent to

organisational goals.

4. Most people are by nature resistant to change and want security above
all.

5. The average individual is gullible, not very bright, the ready victim of the
schemer.

On the basis of these assumptions, the conventional view of

management puts forward the following propositions:

1. Management is responsible for organising the elements of productive

enterprise—money, materials, equipment, people—in the interest of
economic gain.

2. With respect to people, management involves directing their efforts,

motivating them, controlling their actions and modifying their behaviour to
fit the needs of the organisation.

3. Without active intervention by management, people would be passive—

even resistant to organisational needs. They must, therefore, be persuaded,
rewarded, punished and controlled.
The above assumptions are negative in nature. Therefore, Theory X is a
conventional or traditional approach to motivation. External control is
considered appropriate for dealing with unreliable, irresponsible and
immature people. According to McGregor, an organisation built upon
Theory ‘X’ notions will be one in which there is close supervision and
control of subordinates and high centralisation of authority.

Leadership in such an organisation will tend to be autocratic, and workers

will have very little (if any) say in decisions affecting them. The climate in a
Theory X organisation tends to be impersonal and the theory suggests
carrot and stick approach to motivation.

Theory Y:
Theory Y is based on a faulty conception of human nature. McGregor
recognised certain needs that Theory X fails to take into account. These
relate to self-fulfillment, ego satisfaction and the I social needs of individual
workers. To meet these human needs in business, McGregor suggested a
counter approach to management which he called Theory Y.

This theory proposes that:

1. Management is responsible for organising the elements of productive

enterprise in the interest of economic and social ends.

2. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organisational needs.

They become so 3 as a result of experience.

3. Motivation, potential for development, capacity for assuming

responsibility and readiness to direct behaviour towards organisational
goals are present in people, management does not put them there. It is the
responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognise
and develop these characteristics for themselves.

4. The essential task of management is to arrange organisational conditions

and methods of operations so that people can achieve their own goals best
by directing their own efforts towards organisational goals.

Theory Y is based upon the following assumptions:

1. The expenditure of physical and mental efforts in work is an natural as

play and rest. The average human being has no inherent dislike for work.
Work, if meaningful, should be a source of satisfaction and it can be
voluntarily performed.
2. Man will exercise self-control and self-direction in the service of
objectives to which he is committed. External control or threat of
punishment is not the only means of motivating people to work and achieve
organisational goals.

3. Commitment to objectives is a result of the rewards associated with their

achievement. The most significant of such rewards, e.g., the satisfaction of
ego and self-development needs, can be the direct result of effort directed
towards the organisational objectives. Once the people have selected their
goal, they will pursue it even without close supervision and control.

4. The average human being, under proper conditions, does not shun
responsibility. He is ready not only to accept responsibility but to seek it.
Avoidance of responsibility, lack of ambition, etc. are consequences of
experience rather than being inherent in human nature.

5. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity

and creativity in the solution of organisational problems is widely, not
narrowly, distributed in population.

6. Under conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities

of people are only partially utilised. In reality, people have unlimited
potential.

Theory Y represents a modern and dynamic nature of human beings. It is

based on assumptions which are nearer to reality. An organisation designed
on the basis of Theory Y is characterised by decentralisation of authority,
job enrichment, participative leadership and two-way communication
system.

The focus is on self-control and responsible jobs. Theory X places exclusive

reliance on external control of human behaviour while Theory Y relies on
self-control and self-regulation, “The difference is the difference between
treating people as children and treating them as mature adults. After
generations of the former cannot expect to shift to the latter overnight.”

William Ouchi’s Theory Z of Motivation: Features and

Limitations!

William Ouchi developed Theory Z after making a comparative study of

Japanese and American management practices. Theory Z is an integrated
model of motivation. Theory Z suggests that large complex organisations
are human systems and their effectiveness depends on the quality of
humanism used. A type Z organisation has three major features—trust,
subtlety and intimacy.

Mutual trust between members of an organisation reduces conflict and

leads to team work. Subtlety requires sensitivity towards others and yields
higher productivity. Intimacy implies concern, support and disciplined
unselfishness.

The distinguishing features of Theory Z are as follows:

1. Mutual Trust:
According of Ouchi, trust, integrity and openness are essential ingredients
of an effective organisation. When trust and openness exist between
employees, work groups, union and management, conflict is reduced to the
minimum and employees cooperate fully to achieve the organisation’s
objectives.

2. Strong Bond between Organisation and Employees:

Several methods can be used to establish a strong bond between the
enterprise and its employees. Employees may be granted lifetime
employment which leads to loyalty towards the enterprise. During adverse
business conditions shareholders may forgo dividends to avoid
retrenchment of workers. Promotions may be slowed down.

As against vertical movement of employees greater emphasis should be

placed on horizontal movement which reduces stagnation. A career
planning for employees should be done so that every employee is properly
placed. This would result in a more stable and conducive work
environment.

3. Employee Involvement:
Theory Z suggests that involvement of employees in related matters
improves their commitment and performance. Involvement implies
meaningful participation of employees in the decision-making process,
particularly in matters directly affecting them. Such participation generates
a sense of responsibility and increases enthusiasm in the implementation of
decisions, Top managers serve as facilitators rather than decision-makers.

4. Integrated Organisation:
Under Theory Z, focus is on sharing of information and ‘ resources rather
than on chart, divisions or any formal structure. An integrated organisation
puts emphasis on job rotation which improves understanding about
interdependence of tasks. Such understanding leads to group spirit.

5. Coordination:
The leader’s role should be to coordinate the efforts of human beings. In
order to develop common culture and class feeling in the organisation, the
leader must use the processes of communication, debate and analysis.

6. Informal Control System:

Organisational control system should be made informal. For this purpose
emphasis should be on mutual trust and cooperation rather than on
superior-subordinate relationships.

7. Human Resource Development:

Managers should develop new skills among employees. Under Theory’ Z,
potential of every person is recognized and attempts are made to develop
and utilise it through job enlargement, career planning, training, etc.

Thus, Theory Z is a hybird system which incorporates the strengths of

American management (individual freedom, risk taking, quick decision-
making, etc.) and Japanese management (job security, group decision-
making, social cohesion, holistic concern for employees, etc.) systems.

Japanese companies operating in the United State have successfully used

Theory Z. After collaboration between Japanese and Indian companies,
some experts have suggested application of this theory in India, in Maruti
Udyog, which has collaboration with Suzuki motors of Japan an attempt
has been made to apply Theory Z.

The workplace has been designed on the Japanese pattern, which involves
open offices. The same uniform has been introduced for all employees
irrespective of their designation. Similarly, there is a common canteen for
all. These practices are expected to avoid status differentials and class
feeling among employees and thereby facilitate teamwork in the company.

Limitations of Theory Z:
Theory Z suffers from the following limitations:

(i) Provision of lifetime employment to employees to develop a strong bond

between organisation and employees may fail to motivate employees with
higher level needs. It merely provides job security and may fail to develop
loyalty among employees.

An employee may leave the organisation when better employments are

offered to him by some other enterprise. Moreover, complete security of job
may create lethargy among many employees. Employers also do not like to
retain inefficient employees permanently.
(ii) Participation of employees in the decision-making process is very
difficult. Managers may dislike participation as it may hurt their ego and
freedom. Employees may be reluctant to participate due to fear of criticism
and lack of motivation. Even if they sit along with management they may
contribute little unless they understand the issues and take initiative.
Involvement of all employees may also slow down the decision-making
process.

(iii) Theory Z suggests organisation without any structure. But without

structure there may be chaos in the organisation as nobody will know who
is responsible to whom.

(iv) It may not be possible to develop a common culture in the organisation

because people differ in their attitudes, habits, languages, religions,
customs, etc.

(v) Theory Z is based on Japanese management practices. These practices

have been evolved from Japan’s unique culture. Therefore, the theory may
not be applicable in different cultures.

Thus, Theory Z does not provide complete solution to motivational

problems of all organisations operating under different types of
environment. However, it is not merely a theory of motivation but a
philosophy of managing.

Porter and Lawler Model of Motivation (With Diagram)

Article shared by Venkatesh
Porter and Lawler Model of Motivation: Assumptions, Elements
and Significance!
Lyman Porter and Edward Lawler came up with a comprehensive theory of
motivation, combining the various aspects that we have so far been
discussing and using two additional variables in their model. Though built
in large part on Vroom’s expectancy model. Porter and Lawler’s model is a
more complete model of motivation. This model has been practically
applied also in their study of managers. This is a multi variate model which
explains the relationship that exists between job attitudes and job
performance.

Assumptions:
This model is based on four basic assumptions about human
behaviour:
(i) As mentioned above, it is a multi variate model. According to this model,
individual behaviour is determined by a combination of factors in the
individual and in the environment.
(ii) Individuals are assumed to be rational human beings who make
conscious decisions about their behaviour in the organisations.

(iii) Individuals have different needs, desires and goals.

(iv) On the basis of their expectations, individuals decide between alternate

behaviours and such decided behaviour will lead to a desired outcome.

Elements:
The various elements of this model are explained in the
following figure:

1. Effort:
Effort refers to the
amount of energy
which a person exerts
on a job.

2. Value of Reward:
First of all people try
to figure out whether
the rewards that are
likely to be received
from doing a job will
be attractive to them.
This is referred to as
valence in Vroom’s
theory. A person who
is looking for more
money, for example,
extra vacation time may not be an attractive reward. If the reward to be
obtained is attractive or valent then the individual will put extra efforts to
perform the job. otherwise he will lower his effort.

3. Perceived Effort Reward Probability:

In addition, before people put forth any effort, they will also try to assess
the probability of a certain level of effort leading to a desired level of
performance and the possibility of that performance leading to certain
kinds of rewards. Based on the valence of the reward and the effort reward
probability, people can decide to put in certain level of work effort.

4. Performance:
Effort leads to performance. The expected level of performance will depend
upon the amount of effort, the abilities and traits of the individual and his
role perceptions. Abilities include knowledge, skills and intellectual
capacity to perform the job. Traits which are important for many jobs are
endurance, pre-servance, and goal directedness. Thus, abilities and traits
will moderate the effort- performance relationship.

In addition, people performing the jobs should have accurate role

perception which refers to the wav in which people define for the jobs.
People may perceive their roles differently. Only those, who perceive their
roles as is defined by the organization, will be able to perform well when
they put forth the requisite effort.

5. Rewards:
Performance leads to certain outcomes in the shape of two types of rewards
namely extrinsic rewards and intrinsic rewards. Extrinsic rewards are the
external rewards given by others in the organization in the form of money,
recognition or praise. Intrinsic rewards are internal feelings of job sell
esteem and sense of competence that individuals feel when they do a good
job.

6. Satisfaction:
Satisfaction will result from both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. However,
for being satisfied, an individual will compare his actual rewards with the
perceived rewards if actual rewards meet or exceed perceived equitable
rewards, the individual will feel satisfied and if these are less than the
equitable rewards, the individual will feel dissatisfied.

Significance of the Porter and Lawler Model:

Porter and Lawler model is a departure from the traditional analysis of
satisfaction and performance relationship. In practice, we find that
motivation is not a simple cause and effect relationship rather it is a
complex phenomenon.

This model is of great significance to managers since it sensitises

them to focus their attention on the following points to keep
their employees motivated:
1. Match the abilities and traits of individuals to the requirements of the job
by putting the right person on the right job.

2. He should carefully explain to the subordinates their roles or what they

must do to be rewarded. Then he must make sure that they understand it.

3. Prescribe in concrete terms the actual performance levels expected of the

individuals and these levels should be made attainable.
4. To achieve and maintain motivation, the appropriate reward must be
associated with successful performance.

5. Make sure that the rewards dispensed are valued by the employees. Thus,
he should find out what rewards are attractive to the employee and see if
such rewards can be given to him.

Porter and Lawler model has definitely made a significant contribution to

the better understanding of work motivation and the relationship between
performance and satisfaction. But even then, to date, it has not made much
impact on the actual practice of human resource management.

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation (With Diagram)

Article shared by Khushboo Sinha

Read this article to learn about Vroom’s expectancy theory and

its evaluation.

Introduction to the Theory:

Victor Vroom made an important contribution to the understanding of the
concept of motivation and the decision processes that people use to
determine how much effort they will expend on their jobs. Criticizing
Herzberg’s two factors theory, he said that a person’s motivation towards
an action at any time would be determined by an individual’s perception
that a certain type of action would led to a specific outcome and his
personal preference for this outcome.

This model is based on the belief that motivation is determined by the

nature of the reward people expect to get as a result of their job
performance. Because man is a rational human being he will try to
maximize the perceived value of such rewards. People will be highly
motivated if they are made to believe that if they behave in a particular way,
they will receive a certain type of outcome according to their personal
preference.

There are three variables in Vroom’s model given in the form of an

equation. Since the model is a multiplier, all the three variables must have
high positive value to imply motivated performance choices. If any of the
variables is zero, the probability of motivated performance tends to be zero.

MOTIVATION = VALENCE x EXPECTANCY x INSTRUMENTALITY

All these three variables are explained as follows:

1. Valence:
Valence means the attraction (or repulsion) of an outcome to the
individual. Whenever an individual has preference for a reward valance is
the strength of that preference. The valence is something subjective and
varies from person to person. Valance is deemed to be positive for an
individual if he prefers attaining the outcome to not attaining it.

Valence is zero, if the individual is indifferent towards the outcome and the
valence will be negative if the individual prefers not attaining the outcome
to attaining it. In simple words we can say that the worker must value the
reward as desired and satisfactory. It is not the actual value of the reward,
but the perceived value of the reward in the mind of the worker which is
important. For example, a person who is more interested in getting
recognition for the hard work will not have any valence for cash reward.

2. Expectancy:
Expectancy is also referred to as the Effort-Performance Probability. It
refers to the extent to which the person believes his efforts will lead to the
first level outcome i.e., completion of the task. Expectancy is the probability
that a particular action will lead to the outcome, it is the perception in the
mind of the individual of the likelihood that a particular action or behaviour
will lead to a certain outcome.

Since it is an association between effort and performance, its value can

range between 0 and 1. If the individual feels that the probability of
achieving an outcome is zero, he will not even try. On the other hand, if
probability is higher, he will put more efforts to achieve the desired
outcome.

3. Instrumentality (Performance-Reward Probability):

Instrumentality refers to the probabilities attached by the individual to each
possible performance- outcome alternative just as the individual previously
assigned probabilities to various levels of effort leading to different levels of
performance (expectancy). In simple words, instrumentality refers to the
belief and expectation of a person that his performance will lead to a
particular desired reward.

For example, if an individual wants a promotion and feels that superior

performance is very important in receiving the promotion. Superior
performance is the first level outcome and the promotion is the second level
outcome. Superior performance (First level outcome) will be instrumental
in obtaining the desired promotion (Second level outcome). The value of
instrumentality also varies between 0 and 1 as it is also the probability of
achieving the desired outcome.
 As the relationship suggests,
(Motivation = V x E x I)
motivational force will be
highest when all the three
factors are high and the force
will be reduced when any
one or more of valence,
expectancy or
instrumentality approaches
zero. Vroom’s model can also
be depicted graphically as
given in the figure.

The management must

recognise and determine the
situation as it exists and take
steps to improve up on these
factors for modification of behaviour, so that highest value can be achieved
individually.

Management for example, can deal with the different situations

in the following way:

(i) Low Effort-Performance Expectancy:

Reasons:

Lack of necessary skills & training, so that the workers do not know that
their extra efforts will lead to better performance.

Steps to be taken:

Management should provide opportunities for training to improve skills in

order to improve effort performance relationship.

(ii) Low Performance-Reward Instrumentality Relationship:

Reasons:

Reward policy may be inconsistent and may depend upon factors other
than performance which the worker may not be aware of or may not
consider fair.

Steps to be taken:
Management should re-evaluate the appraisal techniques and formulate
policies that strengthen this relationship as just and equitable.

(iii) Low Reward-Valence:

Reasons:

The rewards may not be desirable for the workers. Some workers may find
monetary rewards desirable while some others may value recognition more.

Steps to be taken:

Management must investigate the desirability of the rewards which are

given on the basis of performance.

Evaluation of the Expectancy Model:

Vroom’s theory has become very popular and it has provided an alternative
to content theories, which according to him, were inadequate explanations
of complex process of work motivation.

The plus points of this theory are:

(i) The expectancy model is highly useful in understanding organisational

behaviour. It can improve the relationship between the individual and the
organisational goals. This model explains how individual’s goals influence
his efforts and like need-based models reveal that individual behaviour is
goal oriented.

(ii) The expectancy theory is a cognitive theory, which values human

dignity. Individuals are considered rational human beings who can
anticipate their future on the basis of their beliefs and expectations.

(iii) This theory helps the managers in looking beyond what Maslow and
Herzberg implied. According to him motivation does not mean satisfying
the unsatisfied needs. The managers must make it possible for an employee
to see that effort can result in appropriate need satisfying rewards. This
level of expectations will improve the motivation to work.

Despite these plus points, there are some drawbacks of Vroom’s

expectancy model as given below:

(i) Vroom’s theory is difficult to research and apply in practice. This is

evident by the fact that there have been a very few research studies
designed specifically to test Vroom’s theory.
(ii) This theory assumes man to be a rational human being who makes all
the decisions consciously. But there are numerous instances where
decisions are taken with no conscious thought. This is particularly true for
routine jobs.

(iii) Although, it is an important theory of motivation but it is quite

complex. Many managers, in actual organisational situations, do not have
the time or sources to use a complex system on the job. To conclude, we can
say that from the theoretical point of view, this model is a step in the right
direction, but from practical point of view, it does not help the manager in
solving the complex motivational problem.

Situational Contingency Theory of Leadership (With Diagram)

Article shared by Khushboo Sinha

This article provides a summary of the situational contingency

theory of leadership.

Introduction to Situational Contingency Theory of Leadership:

Neither the trait nor the behavioural approaches offered satisfactory
explanations of leadership in organisations, causing the researchers to look
for alternate theories. The advocates of situational theories believe that
leadership is greatly affected by a situation and to maintain that leadership
pattern is the product of a situation at a particular time.

The situational theories emphasis not on personal qualities or traits of a

leader, but upon the situation in which he operates. A good leader is one
who moulds himself according to the needs of a given situation. These are
three theories which view that leadership is dependent upon the situations.
Their theories are also known as contingency theories of leadership. These
theories are discussed in detail as follows.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model:

Widely respected as the father of the contingency theory of leadership, Fred
Fiedler developed the leadership contingency model. Fiedler’s theory
assumes leaders are predisposed to a particular set of leadership
behaviours. Leaders are either task oriented or relationship oriented. Task
oriented leaders are-directive, structure situations, set deadlines and make
task assignments.

Relationship oriented leaders focus on people, are considerate and are not
strongly directive. Although the two types of leaders are similar to the
leaders discussed in behavioural theories, there is an important distinction
between contingency theory and behavioural theories. Fiedler’s theory
assumes that the predisposition to a particular style of leadership is difficult
to change, a basic disposition of the leader with almost personality like
qualities.

Fiedler suggested that three major situational variables

determine whether a given situation is favourable to leaders:

(i) Their personal relations with the members of their group (leader-
member relations)

(ii) The degree of structure in the task that their group has been assigned to
perform (task structure) and

(iii) The power and authority that their position provides (position power).

Leader- member relations describe the quality of the relationship between

subordinates and the leader.

This dimension includes the amount of trust between the leader and the
subordinates and whether the leader is liked and respected by the
subordinates or not. Task Structure describes the extent to which the work
is well defined and standardized or ambiguous and vague. When task
structure is high, the work is predictable and can be planned. Low task
structure describes an ambiguous situation with changing circumstances
and unpredictable events.

Position Power refers to the formal authority of the leader. A situation with
high position power lets the leader hire people and directly reward or
punish behaviour. A leader with low position power cannot take such
actions. In the latter situation, policies may constrain the leader from using
any rewards or punishments.

Fiedler defined the favorableness of a situation as “the degree to which the

situation enables the leader to exert influence over the group.” The most
favourable situation for leaders to influence their groups is one in which
they are well liked by the members (good leader member relations), have a
powerful position (strong position power) and are directing a well defined
job (high task structure) e.g. a well liked general making an inspection in an
army camp. On the other hand, the most unfavorable situation for leaders
is one in which they are disliked, have little position power and face an
unstructured task.
Fielder perceived eight possible combinations of the three
situational variables as shown in the following figure:

In a reexamination of old leadership studies and an analysis of

new studies, Fiedler concluded that:

(i) Task oriented leaders tend to perform best in group situations that are
either very favourable or very unfavourable to the leader.

(ii) Relationship oriented leaders tend to perform best in situations that are
intermediate in favourableness.

These conclusions are summarized in the following figure:

Fiedler has made an important contribution to leadership theory,

particularly in his focus on situational variables as moderating influences.
Fiedler’s model has research support, particularly in his general
conclusions represented in the figures. He may, in his single that there are
only two basic leadership styles-task oriented and relationship oriented.

Most evidence indicates that leader behaviour must be plotted on two

separate axes rather than on a single continuum. Thus a leader who is high
on task behaviour is not necessarily high or low on relationship behaviour.
Any combination of the two dimensions may occur.

Hersey-Blanchard Situational Model:

Hersey-Blanchard situational model also advocates linking leadership
styles with various situations so as to ensure effective leadership, but its
perspective of situational variables is different as compared to Fiedler’s
Model. This model is based on any empirical studies Hersey and Blanchard
feel that the leader has to match his style with the needs of maturity of
subordinates which moves in stages and has a cycle. This model is also
known as life cycle theory of leadership and is based on an interaction
among three factors (i) task behaviour (ii) relationship behaviour (iii) the
maturity level.

These variables are discussed as follows:

(i) Task Behaviour:

The extent to which leaders are likely to organize and define the roles of the
members of their group and to explain what activities each is to do and
when, where and how tasks are to be accomplished, characterised by
endeavoring to establish well defined patterns of organisation and ways of
getting jobs accomplished.

(ii) Relationship Behaviour:

The extent to which leaders are likely to maintain personal relationships

between themselves and members of their group by opening up channels of
communication providing socio-emotional support, active listening,
psychological strokes and facilitating behaviour.

(iii) Maturity Level:

Maturity level is built on the work of Chris Argyris. Maturity is the capacity
to set high but attainable goals plus the willingness and ability to take
responsibility and to use education and/or experience. Ability refers to the
knowledge and skills of an individual to do the job and is called Job
Maturity.

Willingness refers to the psychological maturity and has much to do with

confidence and commitment of the individual. People tend to have varying
levels of maturity depending upon the specific task, function or objective
that they are attempting to accomplish.

These are defined as the four stages of followers’ readiness:

(i) R1 – People are both unable and either unwilling or too insecure to take
responsibility to do something. They are neither competent nor confident.

(ii) R2 – People are unable but willing to do the necessary tasks. They are
motivated but currently lack appropriate skills.
(iii) R3 – People are able but unwilling or are too apprehensive to do what
the leader wants.

(iv) R4 – People are both able and willing to do what is asked of them. They
are at a very high level of maturity.

According to Hersey and Blanchard, as the level of subordinate maturity

increases in terms of accomplishing a specific task, the leader should begin
to reduce task behaviour and increase relationship behaviour. As the
subordinate moves into above average level of maturity, the leader should
decrease both task and relationship behaviour. At this level of maturity
there is a reduction of close supervision and an increase in delegation as an
indication of trust and confidence.

If we combine leadership style and maturity, that is the leadership style

which is appropriate at a given level of maturity, we may arrive at the
relationship between the two as shown in the following figure.

The above figure summarizes the life cycle theory of leadership.

The theory indicates that effective leadership should shift as

follows:

Stage I → High task and low relationship behaviour.

Stage II → High task and high relationship behaviour.

Stage III → High relationship and low task behaviour.

Stage IV → Low task and low relationship behaviour.

Thus, to be effective, the manager’s style must be appropriate for the

maturity level of the subordinates.

According to the levels of maturity of subordinates, the four

styles’ of leadership should be as follows:

(i) Telling Style:

Telling style emphasizes directive behaviour. It is the high task and low
relationship behaviour stage, where the subordinates have low maturity i.e.
neither they have the ability to do nor they are willing to do.

(ii) Selling Style;

In the second stage, which is marked by high task and high relationship
behaviour, subordinates require both supportive and directive behaviour.
Selling leadership style is appropriate for subordinates of moderate
maturity i.e. high willingness but lack of ability.

(iii) Participating Style:

In third stage, participating style of leadership will be effective because it is

a high relationship and low task behaviour stage. Subordinates, in this
stage, have high to moderate maturity i.e. who have ability to do but lack
willingness to do. Thus, high external motivating force is needed to
motivate such subordinates.

(iv) Delegating Style:

In the fourth stage, of low task and low relationship behaviour, delegating
style of leadership is suitable. Subordinates in this stage are at a very high
level of maturity, i.e. they have ability as well as willingness to work. Thus,
they hardly require any leadership support. Hersey-Blanchard’s model is
simple and appealing. It helps the managers to determine what they should
do and in what circumstances. This model has provided training ground for
developing people in the organisations.

As this model is not based on any research evidence, it has failed to arouse
the interest of researchers. Moreover, this model concentrates on only one
situational aspect that is, the maturity level of subordinates, to judge the
leadership effectiveness. Therefore, this model does not truly reflect the
situational leadership.

House’s Path Goal Theory:

In a contingency theory, characteristics of the situation govern the choice of
leader behaviour. Although path goal theory and Fiedler’s theory are both
contingency theories, they view the contingency relationship differently.
Robert House advanced his situational theory of leadership based on Ohio
State leadership studies and Vroom’s expectancy model of motivation.

Path-goal theory sees the leader’s role as one of affecting a subordinate’s

motivation to reach desired goals. It states that a leader’s job is to create a
work environment (through structure, support and rewards) that helps
employees reach the organisational goals. Two major roles involved are to
create a goal orientation and to improve the path towards the goal. So that
it will be attained.

It is important to know why this theory is named path-goal theory. House

explains it in this way:
“According to this theory, leaders are effective because of their impact on
(followers’) motivation, ability to perform effectively and satisfactions. The
theory is called Path-Goal because its major concern is how the leader
influences the (followers’) perceptions of their work goals, personal goals
and paths to goals attainment. The theory suggests that a leader’s
behaviour is motivating or satisfying to the degree that the behaviour
increases (followers’) goal attainment and clarifies the paths to these goals.
”

Path-goal theory proposed the following four leader behaviours.

Directive:

Directive leader behaviour focuses on what must be done, when it must be

done and how it must be done. This behaviour clarifies performance
expectations and the role of each subordinate in the work group.

Supportive:

Supportive leader behaviour includes concern for subordinates as people

and the needs they are trying to satisfy. Supportive leaders are open, warm,
friendly and approachable.

Participative:

Participative leader behaviour includes consultation with subordinates and

serious consideration of subordinates’ ideas before making decisions.

Achievement-Oriented:

Achievement oriented leader behaviour emphasizes excellence in

subordinate performance and improvements in performance. An
achievement-oriented leader sets high performance goals and shows
confidence in peoples’ abilities to reach those goals. Each of the above
leadership styles work well in some situations but not in others. While
exercising leadership styles the leader must consider two groups of
situational variables-characteristics of subordinates and work environment.

Characteristics of Subordinates:
Subordinate characteristics are one set of situational variables that
moderate the relationship between leader behaviour and the outcome
variables of subordinate satisfaction and effort. Personal characteristics of
employees partially determine how they will react to a leader’s behaviour.
For example, employees who have an internal locus of control (who believe
 awards are contingent
upon their own
efforts) may be more
satisfied with a
participative
leadership style
whereas employees
who have an external
locus of control (who
believe awards are
beyond their control)
may be more satisfied
with a directive style.

Another example is that internally oriented employees, who believe they

can control their own behaviours, prefer a supportive leader. But externally
oriented employees, on the other hand, prefer a directive leader as they
believe that fate controls their behaviour. Finally, individuals who feel that
they have high levels of task related abilities may not respond well to
directive leader behaviour. Instead, they may prefer an achievement
oriented style of leadership.

Characteristics of Work Environment:

Three broad aspects are considered in work environment:

(i) Subordinates task-structured or unstructured,

(ii) Formal authority system and

(iii) Primary work group-its characteristics and stage of development.

These aspects of work environment influence subordinate’s behaviour in

relation to a particular leadership style. If the subordinates are working on
a highly unstructured job characterised by high degree of ambiguity in
roles, they will require directive leadership behaviour. Subordinates
working in a low ambiguity situation can clearly see what must be done and
how to do the task. Directive leadership in this case will be redundant;
rather it could reduce satisfaction and motivation. A better leadership style
in this situation will be supportive.

The following figure shows the structure of path-goal theory:

Thus, the theory proposes that there is nothing like the best leadership style
appropriate in all situations. Appropriate style is one which helps the
subordinates cope with the environmental ambiguity. A leader who is able
to reduce uncertainties of the task and sets clear paths is considered to be
satisfying the because he increases the expectations of the subordinates that
their efforts will lead to desired results.

Although, the results of the empirical research testing path-goal theory

have shown some promise, many of the findings are questionable because
the theory itself contains some deficiencies. For example, the theory does
not suggest how different situation variables are likely to interact. In
addition, the theory considers the effects of four leader behaviours
separately even though it is likely that interactions among the various
behaviours exist.

Despite criticism, however, house’s path-goal theory has made a significant

contribution to the topic of leadership because it specified important
leadership behaviours and situation variables that should be considered in
almost any organisational setting.

Vroom-Yetton and Jago’s Contingency Model:

The contingency model developed by Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton is
based on a model commonly used by researchers who take a contingency
approach to leadership. Vroom and Yetton were later joined by Arther Jago
in the development of this model which emphasizes the role played by
leaders in making decisions.

Basically, the model focuses on the degree to which employees should be

allowed to participate in decisions. Three factors which are to be considered
for this purpose are decision quality, decision acceptance and decision
timing.

The quality of a decision is highest when the best alternative is chosen,

independent of the effects that may be associated with the necessity that the
decision be accepted by subordinates. For example, where to place a coffee
machine in a plant does not require high decision quality whereas a
decision on goal and objectives does require high decision quality.

Decision acceptance is important whenever a decision has implication for

subordinates’ work motivation and whenever a decision must be
implemented by subordinates.

Decision timing plays an important role whenever timing uses constraints

on decisions.
The Vroom-Yetton model is based on the assumption that situational
variables interacting with personal attributes or characteristics of the leader
result in leader behaviour that can affect organisational effectiveness.

The model is depicted in the following figure:

The figure assumes that situational variables such as subordinates, time

and job demands, interact with the personal attributes of leader such as
experience or communication skills result in leader behaviour e.g. directive
style or supportive style of leadership, to influence the organisational
effectiveness, which is also influenced by the other situational variables
outside the control of the leader like government regulations, competitors’
actions, economic conditions prevailing in the economy etc.

According to Vroom Vetten and Jago model leaders with multiple

subordinates have five basic decision styles available to them.

There five styles are as follows:

AI. The leader makes the decision or solves the problem himself, using
information available to him at the time.

All. The leader obtains the information from his subordinates, then decide
on the solution to the problem himself. The subordinates act only as the
information source. They may not be told what the problem is while getting
information from them.

CI. The leader shares the problem with the subordinates individually,
getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a
group. Then he makes the decision which may or may not reflect the
subordinates influence.

CII. The problem is shared with the subordinates as a group, collectively

obtaining the ideas and suggestions. Then, the leader makes the decision
which may or may not reflect the group’s influence.
GII. The leader and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the problem,
and the group makes the decision. The manager accepts and implements
any solution which has the support of the entire group.

The Vroom-Vetten-Jago-decision model of leadership provides the leader

with, in effect, a decision tree to help him choose an effective decision
making style. The decision process involves answering a lot of questions
about the nature of the problem. After working his way through the
decision tree, the leader selects the style that is most appropriate for the
situation.

The questions relating to the problem attributes are of the

following types:

(A) Is there a quality requirement such that one situation is likely to be

more rational than another? (Quality Requirement)

(B) Does the leader have sufficient information to make a high quality
decision? (Leader’s information)

(C) Is the problem structured? (Problem structure)

(D) Is acceptance of the leader’s decision by the subordinates critical to

effective implementation? (Commitment requirements)

(E) If the leader were to make the decision by himself, will it be accepted by
the subordinates? (Commitment probability)

(F) Do subordinates’ share the organisational goals to be obtained in

solving the problem? (Goal congruence)

(G) Does conflict among subordinates likely to occur in preferred solutions?

(Subordinate conflict)

(The problem attributes to questions are given in the brackets)

The leader works through the decision tree given in the figures on next
pages asking questions from A to G, till he reaches a particular type of
decision.

These situations will occur if the leader decides to go in for subordinate

participation in decision making. Situation I is characterised by no quality
requirement. If there is no subordinate commitment requirement, AI style
of leadership will be suitable, but if there is commitment requirement,
commitment probability is to be seen if there is commitment probability, AI
style will be suitable otherwise the leader will have to opt for GII style.

In situation II, there is quality requirement and the leader information is

also positive. In this situation if commitment requirement is not there, the
leader can go in for AI style. But if commitment requirement is there,
commitment probability will be seen. If it is there, AI style can be opted for
but if commitment probability is not there, goal congruence factor will be
considered. If goal congruence is there, GII style can be chosen, otherwise
subordinate conflict factor will be considered. If chances of conflict are
there, CII style will be suitable; otherwise CI style can be selected.

In situation III, there is quality requirement but leader information is not

there. Next factor to be considered in this stage will be problem structure. If
it is there, commitment requirement and commitment probability will be
seen. If both are positive, all style can be selected. If commitment
probability is not there, goal congruence will be considered. If positive, CII
style can be opted for, if not conflict of subordinates will be considered.

If chances of conflict are there, CII style will be chosen otherwise CI style
can be chosen. If problem structure is not there, commitment requirement
will be considered. If it is not there CII style will be opted for, if it is their
commitment probability will be seen. Positive commitment probability is
there CII style will be chosen otherwise goal congruence will be seen. If it is
there, Gil style otherwise CII style will be selected.

This model is a contingency model, because the leader’s possible

behaviours are contingent upon the interaction between the questions and
the leader’s assessment of the situation in developing a response to the
questions. The A to G questions are designed to eliminate alternatives that
would jeopardize the quality or the acceptance of the decision, as
appropriate.

The Vroom-Vetton-Jago approach is important for several reasons. One is

that it is widely accepted among researchers in leadership behaviour.
Secondly, the authors believe that leaders have the ability to vary their
styles to fit the situation. This point is critical to acceptance of situational
approaches to leadership.

A third reason is that the authors believe that people can work to be
developed into more effective leaders. Since the model was developed, a
number of studies have been conducted to test it. In general, the results of
the empirical research have been supportive.
Action Research Model of Organisation Development (explained
with diagram)

Article shared by Smriti Chand

What is action research? It is a research with a purpose to facilitate the

present to reach the future.

French and Bell have defined action research as follows:

“Action research is the process of systematically collecting research data

about an ongoing system relative to some objective, goal or need of that
system, feeding these data back into the system, taking action by altering
selected variables within the system based both on the data and on
hypothesis, and evaluating the results of actions by collecting more data”.

Thus, action research refers to searching of actions with an objective to help

the organisation achieve its goals. Action research involves continuous
series of activities to be undertaken in the organisation to find a solution for
the problem. Viewed from this perspective, action research is viewed as a
process of OD. Various activities involved in action research process of OD
are presented in Figure 12.3.

It is clear from Figure 12.3 that action research model of OD has certain
cyclical and continuous steps. It starts with the perception of the problem
in the organisation. This sets stage for intervention by some behavioural
consultant to diagnose the problem.

The consultant may be an internal or external one, but needs to be

unbiased, realistic and objective in diagnosing the problem. Data collection
is the first step in problem diagnosis. The required data may be collected
either by interview method or questionnaire method or a combination of
both. Once the data is collected, the consultant discusses these data with
executives to diagnose the problem.

Having identified and diagnosed the problem, the next activity in the action
research is to prepare the organisation for appropriate intervention
techniques. Feedback based on data discussion is then made available to
larger number of executives to solicit their comments on it. Then, a planned
action is devised but is kept confined to a specific system only. Once the
devised and suggested intervention action is implemented, it becomes
necessary to evaluate its effectiveness.

In case, the intervention turns out to be ineffective, again data is collected

discussed and revised action or intervention is searched out, carried out
and evaluated. This process goes on and on till the organisational goal is
achieved effectively.

Achievement Motivation: Kakinada Experiment

Article shared by DK Sinha

Achievement depends on how badly one wants to achieve. The need for
achievement, therefore, plays an important role in making an entrepreneur
as successful. It is an inner spirit that activates an entrepreneur to strive for
success. In simple terms, need for achievement is the desire to do well. The
empirical evidences support the hypotheses that need for achievement
contributes to entrepreneurial success. Hence, there is the need for
developing achievement motivation for developing entrepreneurship in an
economy.

Then, the question is how to develop achievement motivation? David C.

McClelland, a well-known Behavioural scientist of USA holds the view that
achievement motivation can be developed through training and experience.
For this, McClelland conducted his experiments with groups of
businessmen in three countries, i.e. Malawi, India, and Ecuador.

He carried out a separate full-fledged training programme in India to instill

achievement motivation in the minds of entrepreneurs. His successful
experiment is popularly known as “Kakinada Experiment” Following is a
brief description of this experiment.

Kakinada Experiment:
Kakinada is an industrial town in Andhra Pradesh. The experiment started
in January 1964. The main objective of the experiment was to break the
barrier of limited aspirations by inducing achievement motivation. A total
of fifty two persons were selected from business and industrial community
of the town. They were given an orientation programme at Small Industry
Extension Training Institute (SIET), now NIESIET, and Hyderabad.

The participants were grouped into three batches. They were put under
training for 3 months. The training programme was designed in such a way
that it could help the trainees improve imagination and enable them to
have introspection of their motivation.

Accordingly, the programme included the following items in its syllabi:

1. The individuals strived to attain concrete and regular feedback.

2. The participants sought models of achievement to emulate.

3. The participants thought of success and accordingly set plans and goals.

4. The participants were encouraged to think and talk to themselves in a

positive manner.

The impact of this training programme on the participants’ behaviour was

observed after a period of two years. The observations were quite
encouraging. It was found that those attended the programme performed
better than those did not.

The participants’ need for achievement was assessed by using Thematic

Apperception Test (TAT). In this TAT, ambition related pictures were
displayed to the trainees and then they were asked to interpret the pictures
and what is happening in the picture.

That the need for achievement motivation can be developed more especially
in younger minds is well supported by the cross-country experiments. For
example, Junior Achievement Programme’ is started in the United States of
America with a view to instill achievement motivation in the minds of
younger generation. Similarly, in United Kingdom, “Young Enterprise”
programme has been started in the same objective of inducing achievement
motivation in younger minds.

For this purpose, the success stories drawn from history and legends of the
indigenous culture are introduced in course curriculum to induce in young
minds the ‘need for achievement’ and strong desire to do something good/
great they grow up. This is because the younger minds are more susceptible
to change.

Organizational Behavior: Domino's Pizza & Problem

The Domino’s Theory to Keeping Employees

Did you know the average employee turnover rate at fast food joints can be
as high as 300%? That equates to a store fully turning over its staff three
times within a year. (And we wonder why fast food chains struggle to give
us attentive and efficient service.)

High employee turnover rates not only compromise service to customers, it

can also hurt a business financially. It costs a business like Domino’s
Pizza $2,500 to train every new entry-level worker and in upwards of
$20,000 to train a new store manager. And when you hire 180,000 workers
a year, like Domino's was doing in the late 90s, we're talking huge financial
costs.

So when David Brandon was named Domino’s CEO in 1999, he went on a

crusade to reduce Domino’s 158% employee turnover rate. Brandon’s
crusade has been a success. These days, Domino’s employee turnover rate
hovers around an impressive 107%.

So the Domino’s Theory to Keeping Employees is about ensuring

store managers are (a) of better quality, (b) have better tools, and (c) are
better incentivized.

(a) Hire Better Quality Store Managers

According to research commissioned by Dominos, the critical success factor
of a Domino’s store is not location, location, location ... but rather ... store
manager selection, selection, selection. One way Domino's selects better
store managers is to have each candidate undergo an online test to measure
their financial acumen and people management style.

(b) Give Store Managers Better Tools

Each Domino’s store has an in-store computerized tracking program which
details store sales figures down to the employee level with stats like average
order size per employee and the time it takes to get a pizza order out the
door. These tools help Domino’s managers to better track their star
performers and challenged performers.

(c) More Meaningfully Incentify Store Managers

Besides giving profit-based bonuses, Domino’s also doles out stock options
to top-performing managers based upon customer service measurements
and store sales growth gains.