Elodie Chaventr HNC Business Laval

Organisational Behaviour Assignment 2

Introduction:

Traditionally, the term "management" refers to the activities (and often the group of people) involved in the four general functions: planning, organizing, leading and coordinating of resources. Note that the four functions recur throughout the organisation and are highly integrated. Emerging trends in management include affirmation that leading is different than managing, and that the nature of how the four functions are carried out must change to accommodate a new concept in management. This document helps you to understand the main theories of management, and the areas of knowledge and skills required to carry out the major functions of being a manager. You will go trough the following different points: - In the first task, you will find out how the management thinking evolved for the last 100 years, and understand nowadays modern thinking. - In the second task, you will go trough the purpose, role and functions of both a manager and a leader. - In the third task, you will discover the theories of motivation, and their direct link with leadership. - Finally, a conclusion will be made to analyse in which extent theory is applicable to practice, and to be aware of the new challenges of a manager in todays environment.

Task One
Development of Management thinking

Over the past 100 years, management theories have change and improve according to the mentalities, economic and social context and human expectations from the staff. Within a company, the leaders are people thinking in a long term view the future of the business. They set big aims and gain commitment with their staff, their represent the inspiration of the business. Managers are acting, concretely. They make sure orders and tasks are well executed, so they think in a more short term view, they set target and objectives, look for maximizing resources, and help the employees to stay productive by motivating them. Nowadays, managers need to apply certain competences backed by developable skills to perform well in changing world of organizations.

Frederick W. Taylor and the Scientific Management (1856 1915)

The concept of the scientific approach was introduced into the United States by Frederick W. Taylor. Considered the father of efficiency manufacturing, he developed an approach that encourages increasing production, improving employees working conditions and increasing earnings. His main involvement was to codify some principles earlier developed and used in well-managed European factories by stating them coherently, thus making them available to American factory managers.

The mental revolution of the New System.

The heart of Taylors approach was to create a mental revolution, which assumed that managers would want to increase productivity and share those gains with the workers through easier work and improve material well being.

Management responsibilities under the new system

Applying his philosophy on workers, Taylor developed the following duties of professional managers using his system. Each manager has to do what follows: 1. To develop a science for each element of a workers job that would replace the old rule-of-thumb method. 2. Select, train, teach, and develop workers scientifically ( in the past, workers had chosen their own method of production and trained themselves as best they could) 3. Cooperate completely with employees to ensure that all work was accorded with the best available methods of operation. 4. Divide the work and responsibilities between management and workers. 5. Use incentive wages to motivate workers to produce more.

Taylor actually did much more than that. He developed an entire production and management system that was far ahead of its time. In fact, Taylors contributions were partially responsible for the massive production systems during World War I and II. Henri Fayols Administrative Management (1841 1925) Administrative management is very close to our definition of management. It focuses on the process of management concerned with setting goals and planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling activities in such a manner that organisational objectives are achieved.

Fayols most important contribution to management involved two fundamental concepts. The first one concerned the universality of basic management principles. These principles are applicable to all forms of organised human work. His second major concept was that there is a body of knowledge related to the functions of management that can, and should, be taught. This concept led to the development of a management discipline that can validly be taught at the college level. Fayols ideas and concepts continue to have great influence today. In some situations, his principles may not be applicable, but even then they can still be used as guidelines, for example, when using the contingency approach to management.

Max Weber and the bureaucracy (1864-1920) Weber developed the concept of bureaucracy, whereby an organisation is characterised as having specialised jobs, rigorous rules of behaviour, clear-cut authority and responsibility relationships, employment and promotions based upon merit and seniority, and lifelong employment. Unfortunately, some organisations tend to become rigid, inflexible, and heavily reliant on official routines and procedures marked by excessive complexity. However some such organisations may be quite effective for they do provide order and guidance.

Douglas Mc Gregors theories X and Y 1960. Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human motivation created and developed by Douglas McGregor at the MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1960s. They describe two very different attitudes toward workforce motivation. McGregor felt that companies followed either one or the other approach. He also thought that the key to connecting self-actualization with work is determined by the managerial trust of subordinates.

In the X theory, which many managers practice, management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can. They inherently dislike work. Because of this, workers need to be closely supervised and comprehensive systems of controls developed. A hierarchical structure is needed with narrow span of control at each and every level. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can. According to Michael J. Papa, if the organisational goals are to be met, theory X managers rely heavily on threat and coercion to gain their employee's compliance. Beliefs of this theory lead to mistrust, highly restrictive supervision, and a punitive atmosphere. The Theory X manager tends to believe that everything must end in blaming someone. He or she thinks all prospective employees are only out for themselves. Usually these managers feel the sole purpose of the employee's interest in the job is money. They will blame the person first in most situations, without questioning whether it may be the system, policy, or lack of training that deserves the blame. A Theory X manager believes that his or her employees do not really want to work, that they would rather avoid responsibility and that it is the manager's job to structure the work and energize the employee. One major flaw of this management style is it is much more likely to cause Diseconomies of Scale in large businesses. In Y theory, management assumes employees may be ambitious, self-motivated, and exercise self-control. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties. According to Papa, to them work is as natural as play. They possess the ability for creative problem solving, but their talents are underused in most organizations. Given the proper conditions, theory Y managers believe that employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility and to exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing objectives to which they are committed. A Theory Y manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work. They believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation. Many people interpret Theory Y as a positive set of beliefs about workers. A close reading of The Human Side of Enterprise reveals that McGregor simply argues for managers to be open to a more positive view of workers and the possibilities that this creates. He thinks that Theory Y managers are more likely than Theory X managers to develop the climate of trust with employees that is required for human resource development. It's here through human resource development that is a crucial aspect

of any organization. This would include managers communicating openly with subordinates, minimizing the difference between superior-subordinate relationships, creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can develop and use their abilities. This climate would include the sharing of decision making so that subordinates have say in decisions that influence them.

The contingency approach

While all these approaches seen before have some validity, they also have weaknesses and limitations. Experts agree that there is no best method of management. Instead, managers of today and the future will use the contingency approach, the assumption that different conditions and situations require the application of different management techniques. The contingency approach combines the best aspects of the other approaches, customising management methods to different circumstances at any given time. Advocates of the contingency approach say there are few if any universal truths, concept, or principles that can be applied under all conditions. Instead, every management situation must be approached with an it all depends attitude. Contingency theorists attempt to explain what styles or approaches would best apply under different circumstances.

Work experience:
Last year, I used to work every weekend in a new Bowling club as a waitress. The management structure was the following: I was supervised and coached by the floor manager, actually the only other waitress working there but in a full time job, so very experienced. Her name is Emilie. Then our bosses where actually 3 brothers of 20, 24 and 27 years old, themselves coaches, supervised and financially supported by their parents, more experienced in the management of a business.

The 3 brothers absolutely wanted to control everything in an authoritarian way; they used to put into practice the X theory of Mc Gregor, thinking that Emilie and me needed to be strongly looked after to do a good job. This pressure on us began annoying and made our motivation to work well down. They did not allow even a break from 8 pm to 4 am and imposed a very strict behaviour settlement, with a low salary. They were in charge of the organisation of the company, that is to say planning the rota, employment, finance, ordering soft, biers, and spirits to suppliers, managing stock book, promotion, etc... which correspond to Fayols theory of administrative management. Thanks to Emilie, Ive been tough a deep part of the waitress job, that I already knew before but not as well as she did. I couldnt choose my own method, because we worked together as a team and thus we had to homogenise our way of working. The work and responsibilities were divided between the bosses, Emilie and me. The 3 brothers were divided to settle the bar service,the bowling management (to give the shoes, to organise and personalise the tracks, etc), and the finances. Emilie and me were responsible for the floor service, and we both had our own area to be responsible for, except that Emile was actually mainly responsible for all the floor as she was my manager. This strict organisation and training correspond to the scientist management, brought by Taylor. To put in a nutshell, we can just realise that nowadays management is simply a mix of all the influences we had since the 19th century, which correspond to the contingency approach of the management.

Task Two
Managers and leaders

A Managers
Management style represents the way managers deal with their team, the employees. In which way will they make succeed in their task, duties? This depends on: Their personality. A manager can be more or less authoritarian, charismatic, calm or impulsive, and this will directly affect the atmosphere of the team, thus their work quality. The task the team has to achieve. Is there pressure? Is that easy or very difficult to achieve? The skill of the workforce, the level of education and experience. People has to share their knowledge, this has to be encouraged by the management style, and managers will deal with people differently according to their knowledge of the work. The cohesion of the team. Managers have to encourage good relations to improve the quality of the teamwork. The management culture. Each company is used to a style of management and more or less imposes it to the staff. The time available to achieve the tasks. This is once again related to pressure.

As a manager, what is your role? What are your responsibilities? Decision making. A manager makes organizational decisions and handles a variety of problems that arise on a daily basis. You have to identify the problems, create choices and alternative courses of actions. The daily routine of making decisions include determining how to approach an employee who is not performing or lacking progress and how to bring about change to the organization and its team. It involves thinking and planning out strategies on how to improve quality and also being cost conscious and effective.

Goal setting, planning and organizing. In order for you to achieve long term goals and commit to strategies for substantial earnings, you have to communicate the vision of the company to your subordinates. You break down and clarify the goals that each team or individual have to perform and assign work schedules and strategies. Having goals and planning out the directions allow for effective time management and saves cost and resources.

Guiding and giving directions. Your role as the head of an organization is to guide and give direction so that the team can perform effectively. You offer on the job coaching, training and support. In order for individuals to meet the needs and objectives, they may need extra input, information or skills.

Empowering others. The performance of your team depends on your abilities to empower them. How well a person performs depends on his motivation. Your task is to encourage and coach others to improve themselves and the quality of their work. You need to instill in them the desire to excel and accept responsibility and self-management.

Communication and people skills. As the boss, your ability to develop trust and confidence, resolve problems and issues will result in a productive, goal oriented work group. You should encourage your team to ask for help, get involved and participate. Practice empathy and respect their personal values, opinions and ideas. Listen and respond and offer praises and encouragements when they make progress. By doing that you will enhance their self-esteem and they will offer you the cooperation. A manager is the middle person in between the top management level and the team that reports to him. He has to ensure that communication is smooth and conveyed clearly to avoid misinterpretations and dissatisfaction.

Evaluating and analyzing. You need to have the capacity to evaluate and examine a process or procedure and decide on the best choice to produce an outcome. You look at the importance, quality and values and then taking the best approach. You are also expected to track the progress of each individual's activities and effectiveness, review them and offer feedback and counseling.

Provide satisfaction among the staff and the customers. Your subordinates are happy when they know that their supervisors provide them with the necessary tools and resource. They feel secure if the management puts priority on health, safety and cleanliness issues. You satisfy customers by giving good quality of service or product and take care of their needs.

Being an exemplary role model. Managers who set high standards or goals and achieve them are great leaders by examples. The ability to tolerate stress and remain poise under job pressures and still maintain a high activity and energy level are contagious. You should set the example by being accountable for your own activities and performance. Work harder on your personal growth and you will become a respected and efficient leader.

Work experience:
ABBOTT is an American pharmaceutical laboratory in which I worked for a two months placement as a saleswoman. My manager, Franck, was very present in the every-day team work. Each week, on Friday, we had a long telephonic appointment with all the members of the team. They called it a telephonic conference. Each person gave his impression about the week, what happened, which customer had been visited, what had been right or wrong, which problems we had with our objectives, colleagues, competitors etc.. and at the end of the day, Franck handed on a synthesis to his own manager, in order to follow up the information to the hierarchy. At the end of the month, Franck called each member of team to take stock of our work. He gave us our outcome, turnover and profit margin, as well as our qualitative

objectives and results. He also announced us the amount of our commissions and bonus. During those two months, he often went with me to see the customers; he gave me advice about my selling techniques etc In our team, a woman working in Brittany was always absent for different reasons, and when she was working, she did things in a wrong way and made this atmosphere bad in the team. My manager had to take a decision about her status, and after several warnings, she has been fired. I know this decision was very difficult to take, psychologically and also legally, but this one of the role of a manager.

ARS is a small company specialized in air conditioning. I used to work with them for two years but only during trade fairs. I was a saleswoman again. Before the beginning of the fairs, my manager, who is also the boss of the company, gave me my objectives in terms of number of contacts. The first time I worked for them, he trained me about the products I had to sell, and the commercial techniques to approach visitors and to hold an effective speed while informing them. Once arrived on the fair, I knew exactly what to do, I felt coached and confident. My boss told me when I had things to improve, but he also told me that I did a good job; he did not forget to encourage me, to highlight the positive points of my work, which is very important when you begin a new job. He even proposed me a full time job, which was very rewarding.

B - Leaders:
Dransfield thinks thats a leader has 2 key roles: Make sure that a task is achieve Make sure that relations are positive within a company

Halpin and Winer, in 1957, wrote that a leader has to choose and initiate the structure of the firm, and has to consider his staff, by motivating the staff team once again.

In 1973, Adair thinks that the leadership qualities are enthusiasm, confidence, toughness, integrity, warmth and humility. In 1985, Bennis and Nanus thought that a leader must: have a strong vision lead, to motivated and encourage the staff to believe in it and to feel involved in the company communicate well be trusted, by proving every day that they do what they say be open-minded in accepting the mistakes, and proposing solutions.

In 1988, Hersey and Blanchard identified three core skills of leadership: A cognitive skill, which means diagnostic. Leaders have to find solutions to problems. They call it the performance gap. A behavioural skill, which means adaptation. A leader has to react quickly to a change, by adapting his behavior, in order to fill the performance gap. Processing skills, which mean communication. A leader has to insure that communication is good in his company in order to be understood by staff as far as their work is concerned. In 1997, a survey shows that the three most expected skills for a leader are: To show enthusiasm To support other people To recognize individual effort

In 2001, Coleman thinks that emotional intelligence is the key for a good leadership.

Meaning-making and developmental stages Lets explore the notion of meaning-making. Kegan tells a tale of two brothers aged three and seven who are standing in the viewing gallery of the Empire State Building.

"Look at the people down there", exclaims the younger, "they are tiny ants". His older brother exclaims at the same time "Look at the people down there, they look like tiny ants". Here we have a fascinating difference in meaning-making structure. The younger recognises people, but sees them to be the same size as ants. His meaning-making is not troubled by logical consistency (ants carrying shopping?), the people are tiny ants. His older brother's meaning-making has evolved somewhat; he has the benefit of perspective and logic. He knows that the people down there are a long way away and just look like tiny ants. What follows is an example of different meaning-making in two managers. "You must have been pleased to secure the funding for your multi-agency project. You've been successful." he said. She replied, "Yes, I am pleased but I see it as symbolic, we all worked together to secure the funding and it was working together which was important, not the funding." He has attached importance to the results, to what has been achieved. She has attached only symbolic importance to this; the real 'success' is in the coming together of different agencies. Do adults continue to develop their meaning-making capacity as they mature? A group of writers which include Torbert, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter and Kegan believe they do and that some highly differentiated stages of meaning-making in the adult human being can be determined. This theory has profound implications for managers. To sum up, a manager is constrained by the self generated framework within which he or she makes meaning, just as the younger of the brothers was constrained by his meaning-making inferences. In fact, just as both brothers were constrained by their meaning-making, for we all operate within a meaning-making structure, or at least this is how I understand it from my own meaning-making framework. Torbert and the others pick up from where Piaget left off, i.e. at the beginning of adulthood. They suggest that meaning-making capacity has the potential to develop through distinct stages, in which each stage encompasses the capacities of the previous stages before it.

The opportunists stage: the leader can respond to immediate needs and opportunities. He or she has a short-term view, and more easily blames other than him or herself. The diplomats stage: the leader sees social expectations of the staff. He is likely to conform himself to rules, to be close to the group, and loyal. He will do everything that he can to avoid stress and conflicts. The technicians stage: the leader seeks expertise and perfection, in a logic way. He is very concrete and find solutions according to unarguable facts. He is likely to be efficient, consistent, logical, and perfectionist; he likes stage-by-stage improvement. The achievers stage: the leader wants results. He applies strategy, plans, and actions. He gives lots of goal to his team, and doesnt hesitate to break the rules if it is necessary. He likes taking risks, initiative, and is very demanding towards himself. The strategists stage: this leader enjoys the complexity of individuals in their different views and abilities. He sees communication and relationships as the heart of his job and even life. He enjoys the moment but holds long time outlook, and sees the big picture. His values are integrity, principles, freedom and positive changes. The magicians stage: he focuses on transformation of the society, organisation and the self made. He seeks the common good, and enjoys the interplay of purposes, action and result. He is like a chameleon, he often dislikes inevitability of paradox in human affairs. The pluralists stage: this leader takes for granted the view of every people. He sees himself as being one player among lots of others, a piece man into a whole game. He considers everyone needs. Transformational leaders: they develop a personal and social identity among organisational members, using missions and goals. They raise the level of awareness about the importance of desired outcomes, and ways of achieving them. They can alter the individual needs levels, according to the Maslow pyramid, and widen our range of wants and expectations by explaining the rewards to be gain.

Torbert lists eight stages for the adult and Loevinger lists three broad phases within which specific stages can be identified. These are shown in the following table: Leadership Development Framework impulsive opportunist diplomat expert achiever Individualist strategist magician/jester ironist What meaning-making capacities are necessary to enable managers to succeed at implementing change? It is my proposition that sufficient managers must have postconventional meaning-making capacity (in Leadership Development Framework terms, Individualist and later). Research by Torbert in the US and by The Harthill Group in the UK has shown that the key stages for managers are: impulsive opportunist diplomat technician achiever strategist magician/jester ironist post conventional conventional pre conventional Torbert Loevinger

Torbert USA (497 Managers)

Harthill Group Europe (490 Managers & Consultants)

% 2.5% 21% 33% 23% 13.5% 7%

Opportunist / Diplomat Expert Achiever Individualist Strategist Magicien

11% Opportunist / Diplomat 34% Expert 46% Achiever 5% Individualist 3.5% Strategist <0.5% Magician

The European sample includes mostly people engaged in developmental activities and undoubtedly contains more late stage profiles than compared with samples of Managers not engaged in developmental activities.

Work experience:
ABBOTT When I worked in ABBOTT, my manager was an achiever. His priorities were centred on the results, and we had several very ambitious objectives per week, month, semester and year. As I worked only two months, my objectives were reduced to weekly and monthly results. My target was the physiotherapists of my region Pays de Loire. I got back a customer file from an old salesman left in retirement, with acquired customers. I was in charge of this file, and had to make it grow. My first objective concerned canvassing. I did not only have to sell, I had to look for new customers as well. I actually had to spend 20% of my time to canvass, and 5% of my turnover had to concern prospects. My turnover objective began with 1000 per week and finished with 5000 for the last week. If I managed to reach at least 105% of my objective, I had a bonus of 750 on my salary. If I managed to sell more than 7% of my turnover to new customer, I had a bonus of 450 on my salary. If I managed to get back old customers that went to the competitors, I had 20% of the sales commission instead of 10%. All those objectives were deeply followed and support by my manager, which proved obviously his motivation of being an achiever. His speech was full of sentences like We want action, Go, Thinking is excellent but acting is even better. He loved people that took initiatives; he took lots of initiatives himself, he always wanted more and did not hesitate to question himself to be always better. This way to behave way very stimulating but sometimes I felt too much under pressure, I know that everything was all right from the moment I managed to sell and to bring profit margin to the company. I deeply felt that if a day I was not efficient enough anymore I would feel given up, and this negative feeling made my motivation down at the end of my contract.

Academie Eric Meillerais During my two last years I did 6 months work placement in a small company called AEM, specialised in selling perfecting trainings to hairdressers. My manager was the boss of the company, Eric. I see him as a strategist. He was an artist and was absolutely curious and fond of human complexity. He analysed behaviours to try to understand them and find adapted solutions to problems. He was an amazing orator, he organised shows and conferences to hairdressers, to explain his new techniques and his artistic work. He also tough technical courses to teenagers that tended to become hairdressers, and successfully sold posters and DVDs to hairdressing salons. When I worked there, I used to share his office. I thus spent quite a long time with him and sometimes we spent 1 or 2 hours talking about life, experiences, things that had nothing to do with the work, but that allowed us to create a very good relationship. Consequently I felt massively involved in the company and took part in my job as a personal willing to do things in the right way. We spent a really good time together as an effective team to work but also as friends, which made things so rewarding. To my mind, this technique of management was the best I ever experienced, but I am conscious that this cannot be applied to everybody because everyone is different and we cannot easily create a friendship with someone. Eric just had this ability to communicate truly, to listen actively and to be positive. When my work placement ended, three other people followed my work as a salesperson, but Eric told me that the experience was totally different, that he did not managed to create the link he created with me, just because people were different. That proves that this management style is unstable and variable according to the people you are dealing with.

Task 3
Motivation

A Motivation theories
To understand the motivation of people, we have to understand why they behave the way they do. If we have some knowledge of why people do what they do, we can do a better job of understanding, predicting, and influencing that behaviour. Why do some people work hard and other experience some difficulties? Why do some leaders have high producing units and others, with employees of comparable background, have low producing ones? Why are some organisations famous for a culture in which employees are highly motivated and enjoy work, whereas others are renowned for high turnover rates? Although a number of factors affect employee performance, the main variable is motivation. It is the process of inducing a person or a group of people, each with distinct needs and personalities, to achieve the organisations objectives, while a lso working to achieve personal objectives. Motivation is as personal as human personality and behaviour, but certain essential principles and theories of motivation enable managers to better understand and predict peoples responses to performing their tasks, in spite of the exclusivity of each human being. Motivation provides the best potential source to increased productivity and profitability. It means that employee abilities will be used more efficiently, which in return, will improve job satisfaction and increase productivity. Lets analyse various popular theories of motivation. Theories of motivation help to explain the why of human behaviour, and, although none theory is 100% right, collectively they help managers to create an environment in which individuals and

groups work to achieve the organisations aims, while also working to achieve their own objectives. We can see below some popular theories of motivation, divided in two categories:

Content theories

These theories deal with the question of what causes people to act. This question leads to an identification of needs, stimulation, and perception.

Psychologist Maslows hierarchy of needs

Abraham Maslow developed the Hierarchy of Needs model in 1940-50's USA, and the Hierarchy of Needs theory remains valid today for understanding human motivation, management training, and personal development. Indeed, Maslow's ideas surrounding the Hierarchy of Needs concerning the responsibility of employers to provide a workplace environment that encourages and enables employees to fulfil their own unique potential (self-actualization) are today more relevant than ever. His concept of self-actualisation relates directly to the present day challenges and opportunities for employers and organisations - to provide real meaning, purpose and true personal development for their employees. For life - not just for work. Maslow saw these issues fifty years ago: the fact that employees have a basic human need and a right to strive for self-actualisation, just as much as the corporate directors and owners do. Increasingly, the successful organisations and employers will be those who genuinely care about, understand, encourage and enable their people's personal growth towards self-actualisation - way beyond traditional work-related training and development, and of course way beyond old-style X-Theory management autocracy, which still forms the basis of much organised employment today.

The best modern employers and organisations are beginning to learn at last: that sustainable success is built on a serious and compassionate commitment to helping people identify, pursue and reach their own personal unique potential. When people grow as people, they automatically become more effective and valuable as employees. In fact virtually all personal growth, whether in a hobby, a special talent or interest, or a new experience, produces new skills, attributes, behaviours and wisdom that is directly transferable to any sort of job role. The best modern employers recognise this and as such offer development support to their staff in any direction whatsoever that the person seeks to grow and become more fulfilled. Maslows hierarchy of needs

 Hertzbergs Motivation-Maintenance Theory

The most important part of this theory of motivation is that the main motivating factors are not in the environment but in the intrinsic value and satisfaction gained from the job itself. It follows therefore that to motivate an individual, a job itself must be challenging, have scope for enrichment and be of interest to the jobholder. Motivators (sometimes called satisfiers) are those factors directly concerned with the satisfaction gained from a job, such as:

the sense of achievement and the intrinsic value obtained from the job itself the level of recognition by both colleagues and management the level of responsibility opportunities for advancement and The status provided.

Process theories
These theories try to explain the process by which behaviour is energized, directed, and related to performance and satisfaction. In other words What can I do to influence the behaviour of other? The currently process theories are:

Expectancy theory Whereas Maslow and Herzberg look at the relationship between internal needs and the resulting effort expended to fulfil them, Vroom separates effort (which arises from motivation), performance, and outcomes. Vroom, hypothesises that in order for a person to be motivated that effort, performance and motivation must be linked. He proposes three variables to account for this, which he calls Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality.

Expectancy is the belief that increased effort will lead to increased performance i.e. if I work harder, then I will do better. This is affected by such things as: 1. Having the right resources available (e.g. raw materials, time) 2. Having the right skills to do the job 3. Having the necessary support to get the job done (e.g. supervisor support, or correct information on the job)

Equity theory Equity Theory attempts to explain relational satisfaction in terms of perceptions of fair/unfair distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships. Equity theory is considered as one of the justice theories. It was first developed in 1962 by John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioural psychologist, who asserted that employees seek to maintain equity between the inputs that they bring to a job and the outcomes that they receive from it against the perceived inputs and outcomes of others (Adams, 1965). The belief is that people value fair treatment in which causes them to be motivated to keep the fairness maintained within the relationships of their co-workers and the organization. The structure of equity in the workplace is based on the ratio of inputs to outcomes. Inputs are the contributions made by the employee for the organisation; this includes the work done by the employees and the behaviour brought by the employee as well as their skills and other useful experiences the employee may contribute for the good of the company.

Work experience:
I currently work at Revolution bar, which is the first chain of bars in the UK (42 bars). The means used to motivate the staff are massive and very well studied. When I came for my first shift, they prepared an induction for me and 2 new other people. We watch a DVD about the values of the company. The want the staff to be a

great team of friends, they want us to love our job and to be the best loved bar in UK. To encourage these values, the management is centralised on team consideration. Every month they organise staff parties, as if we were a big family. We can participate to trainings very months too, we can give our ideas and advice about what seems to go right or wrong in the bar, we learn how to do the cocktails, how to welcome the customer, how to create a good relation with them to make them loyal, etc They also organise hospitality dinners. Everyone can come to it, we first have a little training about a chosen subject, and than we go to a very good restaurant (all paid by the revolution), in order to analyse how the service is done, how the food or drinks are disposed and served, how warm is the atmosphere, etc etc. This entire organisation makes us involved in the Revolution life. They are also very flexible, and adapt the rota to each ones expectations. If we have a problem we can go and speak to one of the 3 managers (One manager and two assistant managers), and they usually find a solution and are understanding. Every Friday and Saturday night, they organise challenges between two or more people. For example, a night, I worked on the floor to sell vodka shots on a tray. The manager came and told me that if I managed to reach 350 sales, I would have 10 cash at the end of the shift. This played amazingly on my motivation. 5min before the closure of the bar, I reached 340. My manager counted the money with me, and shouted a strong 10 more !!! Gooooooo ! In 5 min, I run around the bar to sell 10 more shots and I actually spent all my energy to do it, what succeeded. I had 10 at the end of it, which is very rewarding, and I felt really proud and in a still-in-the-rush positive mood. In a nutshell, revolution team responds to my needs: - Physiological needs: thanks to this money I can pay my rent - Safety needs: door men always check that everything is all right in the bar and they act very quickly in case of problem. For example, sometimes I am not a barmaid by I

sell vodka shots on a tray walking through the crowed, on the floor. By doing I expose myself to contacts, so danger. In spite of that I feel secure because I know I am eyefollowed by the body guards. - Love, belonging: everything is done to be a true part of the team (parties, trainings, dinners, glass of wine at the end of the shift, etc.) - Esteem: I feel listened and considered. I know I can talk with the staff if I have the tiniest problem. - Self-actualisation: revolution gives me the opportunity to evolve within my job but also within relations, within my practice of English etc and I feel rewarded for the work I do. They also fit in the expectancy theory: - I have the right resources available: the stock is always well managed, we rarely miss any drink or food, we have a high quality material to do the cocktails, a big and moder bar, etc. - I have to right skills to do the job: I already had an experience in restoration and drink service, and they offer me as well the opportunity to be well trained on their cocktails, drinks, and way to behave. - I am always well informed about the tasks I have to do (about one email per day to be informed about the news of the company), I feel considered and coached by the managers who make sure I am happy in my job and I do it well.

B Leadership styles
A leader has to work effectively with many people, including superiors, peers, subordinates, and outside groups. But the qualities of leadership are seen especially in a managers relationship with subordinates.

There are many ways to classify leaders or leadership styles. The two most important, however are by the approach used and by the orientation toward getting the job done.

Approached used
One common way of studying leadership is in terms of the basic approaches used by leaders such as autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire.

Autocratic leaders They make most decisions themselves instead of allowing their followers to participate in making them. These leaders are usually thought of as pushers, somewhat like the image of military drill instructors.

Democratic leaders They involve their followers heavily in the decision process. They use group involvement in setting basic objectives, establishing strategies, and determining job assignments.

Laissez faire leaders They are loose and permissive and let followers do what they want. I think we might think of this approach as similar to teachers who handle classes loosely, with few homework assignments, and little direction or discipline.

 Orientation toward job

Another way to categorise leaders is to examine their attitudes towards getting the job done.

Task orientated They focus on getting the job done. They emphasize planning, scheduling and processing the work. They exercise close control of quality.

People orientated They focus on the welfare and feeling of followers, have confidence in themselves, and have a strong need to develop and empower their team members.

Tannenbaum and Schmidts leadership style: model of delegation and team development

The Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum is a simple model which shows the relationship between the level of freedom that a manager chooses to give to a team, and the level of authority used by the manager. As the team's freedom is increased, so the manager's authority decreases. This is a positive way for both teams and managers to develop. While the Tannenbaum and Schmidt model concerns delegated freedom to a group, the principle of being able to apply different levels of delegated freedom closely relates to the 'levels of delegation' on the delegation page. As a manager, one of your responsibilities is to develop your team. You should delegate and ask a team to make its own decisions to varying degrees according to their abilities. There is a rising scale of levels of delegated freedom that you can use when working with your team. The Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum is often shown as a simple graph:

Work experience:

1. The Manager decides and announces the decision. The manager reviews options in light of aims, issues, priorities, timescale, etc., then decides the action and informs the team of the decision. The manager will probably have considered how the team will react, but the team plays no active part in making the decision. The team may well perceive that the manager has not considered the team's welfare at all. This is seen by the team as a purely task-based decision, which is generally a characteristic of X-Theory management style. 2. The manager decides and then 'sells' the decision to the group. The manager makes the decision as in 1 above, and then explains reasons for the decision to the team, particularly the positive benefits that the team will enjoy from the decision. In so doing the manager is seen by the team to recognise the team's importance, and to have some concern for the team. 3. The manager presents the decision with background ideas and invites questions. The manager presents the decision along with some of the background which led to the decision. The team is invited to ask questions and discuss with the manager the

rationale behind the decision, which enables the team to understand and accept or agree with the decision more easily than in 1 and 2 above. This more participative and involving approach enables the team to appreciate the issues and reasons for the decision, and the implications of all the options. This will have a more motivational approach than 1 or 2 because of the higher level of team involvement and discussion. 4. The manager suggests a provisional decision and invites discussion about it. The manager discusses and reviews the provisional decision with the team on the basis that the manager will take on board the views and then finally decide. This enables the team to have some real influence over the shape of the manager's final decision. This also acknowledges that the team has something to contribute to the decision-making process, which is more involving and therefore motivating than the previous level. 5. The manager presents the situation or problem, gets suggestions, then decides. The manager presents the situation, and maybe some options, to the team. The team is encouraged and expected to offer ideas and additional options, and discuss implications of each possible course of action. The manager then decides which option to take. This level is one of high and specific involvement for the team, and is appropriate particularly when the team has more detailed knowledge or experience of the issues than the manager. Being high-involvement and high-influence for the team this level provides more motivation and freedom than any previous level. 6. The manager explains the situation, defines the parameters and asks the team to decide. At this level the manager has effectively delegated responsibility for the decision to the team, albeit within the manager's stated limits. The manager may or may not choose to be a part of the team which decides. While this level appears to gives a huge responsibility to the team, the manager can control the risk and outcomes to an extent, according to the constraints that he stipulates. This level is more motivational than any previous, and requires a mature team for any serious situation or problem.

7. The manager allows the team to identify the problem, develop the options, and decide on the action, within the manager's received limits. This is obviously an extreme level of freedom, whereby the team is effectively doing what the manager did in level 1. The team is given responsibility for identifying and analysing the situation or problem; the process for resolving it; developing and assessing options; evaluating implications, and then deciding on and implementing a course of action. The manager also states in advance that he/she will support the decision and help the team implement it. The manager may or may not be part of the team, and if so then he/she has no more authority than anyone else in the team. The only constraints and parameters for the team are the ones that the manager had imposed on him from above. (Again, the manager retains accountability for any resulting disasters, while the team must get the credit for all successes.) This level is potentially the most motivational of all, but also potentially the most disastrous. Not surprisingly the team must be mature and competent, and capable of acting at what is a genuinely strategic decision-making level.

Work experience:
I will choose two very different companies: Kembrey, my work placement company in Swindon, and Academie Eric Meillerais, the one we dealt with before, specialised in hairdressing. In kembrey, my level of freedom was very limited because I stayed there only 3 weeks before of my previous company that went bankrupt in Bath. The job was quite strict, I worked in the purchasing department and had to deal with suppliers that were late, or that did not give any acknowledgment date, etc. In a word, I worked a lot on my computer, and especially on the business system and the supplier base. I received instructions from the purchasing manager, and I would place his level of authority on grade 2 (i.e. He decided and then sold the decision to me). This is coherent regarding the time I was about to spend in the company and my level of knowledge of their products and system.

On the other hand, when I worked at the AEM in France, nothing was developed in the sales department because it is a small business. I thus had a complete autonomy in my area, my manager trusted me and, with the time, I took 90% of the sales decision alone. I would compare this freedom state with the stage 7 (i.e. my manager allowed me to identify issues, develop the options, and decide on the action). When the decision concerned the company expenses, I had to ask him his authorisation or advice. We definitely used to work together like a team, he made the biggest decision but I was totally free to organise my work like I wanted regarding the sales department. This was absolutely great for me, this work placement was a very good experience thanks to the relation we had, and this freedom given to me allowed me to evolve in my own project, and to sell 36000 in 4 months.

Task 4
Conclusion

We can clearly see that management theories strongly influence todays management practices, but this will not determined the fact that a manager is competent or not in his job. I knew excellent managers that had no ideas of this theoretical model, and other managers that had a higher business school degree but were unable de manage a team. The human abilities cant go into theory, it is just a natural variable criteria that make this famous gap between theory and practice.

To the extent that barriers are established between management theories and practice or between academicians and business managers, those barriers are likely the results of an unwillingness to understand one another. Perhaps such barriers are just the walls within which the academician seeks solitude and protection from the

real world. Perhaps these barriers are constructed by the management practitioner who professes and perpetuates a natural distrust of anything a manager might have to say. Whatever the cause, it seems that such barriers will remain until both parties are willing to understand and exchange ideas. Academicians must grow more sensitive to the suspicions and needs of practicing managers. Practitioners must attempt to better understand the psyche of academicians and grow more appreciative of their attempts to improve the practice of management through the development, teaching, and testing of theories.

In nowadays context, especially currently with the credit crunch, a manager not only needs to respond to his team need, he needs to prevent it. He doesnt only need to motivate them in their work, but to imply them at work as if it was in their private life; he needs to make them feel like part of the companys big family. What are the main problems a leader has to cope with currently? o A leader has to manage the 3 or even 4 generations of people working in his organisation, by insuring a good share of the knowledge for example. This is the basis of the experience within a company. o A leader also has to develop a robust leadership pipeline. I believe one of the biggest potential threats to many organisations is a lack of a robust talent pool from which to select future leaders. To my mind, a lack of individuals ready to move into senior client manager and leadership roles is a critical challenge. o He has to open his skills to international abilities. It's relatively straightforward to identify and assess experts in specific functional or technical arenas, but much more difficult to determine whether those individuals have the people skills, leadership capabilities, business breadth, and global diversity sensibilities required for the nature of leadership today. Increasingly, the challenge of developing these broader skill sets falls to the corporations. o He has to avoid the exodus of mid-career talentpeople in whom the organization has invested heavily and in whom it has pinned its hopes for future leadership. For example, developing talent management practices and programs calibrated to leverage technology and create greater work balance and salary can be a good solution to keep the skilled staff.

o He has to enlist executives who don't appreciate the challenge. Many talent executives complain that business leaders still believe that people are lined up outside the door because of the power of the company's brand. The challenge of enlisting the support of all executives for the transition from a talent culture that has traditionally operated with a "buy" strategy to one that places more emphasis on "build" is widely shared.

Nevertheless, management remains a science that needs to be looked at and though before practicing it. It is a massive and precious source of information to cope with the group effect in everyday life (colleagues, friends, family, children, etc).

Sources :

Lectures:

Jenny Mackrill-Clegg lectures

Books: - Management Leadership in Action, Mosley, Pietri, Megginson, 5th Edition - Project management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, Harold Kerzner - Organisation and management, Lee Galloway

Websites:

- http://www.businessweek.com - http://www.management-hub.com - http://wikipedia.co.uk - http://www.businessballs.com - http://managementhelp.org