Self-actualization- Achieving an
organization with 80 percent or more of the workers need for self-actualization
fulfilled is the objective effective leaders strive for. The result is hard
working and happy workers. The manager has to spend very little time on
discipline problems, suppressing false rumors and similar non value added work.
One key to satisfying the self-actualization need is, first, ensure that all
subordinate needs are satisfied (Maslow’s first argument) and then empower
workers to have control over the processes involved in their job. This is not
as simple as it sounds. If a manager just says to workers that they are
empowered they have far different definitions of what this means than the
manager intends.
Effective
empowerment required that workers be trained in process improvement techniques
because otherwise empowered workers make changes in their work processes that
are likely to be counterproductive, as is discussed in later lectures on
process improvement. Effective empowerment also requires careful definition and
effective communication of the boundaries of the empowerment. These boundaries
are likely to be process and perhaps even worker dependent. It takes some
experience to get them right and it is better to start with tighter than
necessary boundaries and loosen them as time and results indicate that looser
boundaries are warranted. The objective is to provide sufficient empowerment
that the workers feel they have adequate control to implement changes that make
their jobs easier, improve the quality of their work products, reduce costs or
otherwise improve the processes they control. The later lectures on process
improvement will help students understand more of the issues involved in
defining boundaries for empowerment.
Assuming
workers are empowered and functioning as intended they make significant
improvements in their job processes over time. They naturally expect to be
rewarded for this good work. Ataboy’s are necessary and sufficient up to a
point but eventually workers expect and deserve more. In today’s flat and lean
organizations there are not many promotions available to reward good work. The
effective leader must be creative in developing career paths that are rewarding
for workers and beneficial for the organization. Expanding job scope and lateral
moves are positive for both the organization and worker as long as proper
training is provided to prepare the worker for new responsibilities.
Empowerment,
effective career planning and fair pay increases are necessary for
self-actualization but not quite sufficient. Workers need to feel that their
work is important and that their organization’s mission is worthy of their
efforts. Workers understand that most organizations have a goal of making
profits but they expect broader and more meaningful missions. Defining an
organization’s mission is a strategic issue and therefore typically not within
the job description of the people studying this course. Low and mid-level managers
can make sure they understand the organization’s mission and communicate it to
their workers.
There are a
variety of worthy missions that inspire most workers. For example, it’s easy
for space and defense organizations or health care because most people are
inspired by being part of a major space project, supporting the defense of
their country or improving health care. Consumer goods and service
organizations need to provide their workers with the opportunity to participate
in a meaningful way in worthy missions such as environmental improvements,
social issues or community services. This is becoming easier as awareness grows
that business organizations can contribute in ways that are win-win, i.e. win
for the organization and win for society. An article by Tim Simmons of the
Raleigh News & Observer quotes Rich Leimsides, director of the Center for
Business Education in New York. Leimsides says that there is a noticeable
increase in the number of executives who see a link between environmental
practices, social issues and bigger profits. Obvious examples include saving
energy and thereby reducing costs while helping with global warming; reducing
wastes saves money and helps the environment. Major manufactures like Ford and
GM are now investing in buildings that meet green standards and save money.
If you are
unfortunate enough to work for an organization that does not have a mission
that is inspiring then you need to define objectives for your group that are
compatible with the overall organization’s mission and offer inspiration to
your group. Remember that you need to involve the group in defining new
objectives. Otherwise they are not likely to feel the inspiration you expect.
You need your management’s approval for any budget or company time that is to
be invested for environmental, community or social issues. You should be ready
to defend why you think it is important to have your organization involved in a
broader mission and why it makes sense to the overall enterprise. Make sure you
introduce your plan in a way that the workers feel you are giving them an
opportunity not an obligation. Single working parents are likely fully
committed and may lose their feeling of belongingness if they feel they are
being coerced to join in some volunteer activity that they don’t have time for.
An important
thing for managers is to “walk their talk” with respect to missions. It is
demotivating to employees to listen to their boss say great things about the
organization’s commitment to the environment or to a social issue and then
watch the boss ignore obvious opportunities to act on the commitment.
Pay as it relates to Maslow
Pay increases impact several needs ranging from safety to
self-actualization and therefore require significant management attention. Few
low and mid-level managers have control over the budgets available for pay
increases. However, these managers do influence the relative increases given to
their subordinates. This task is one that can have negative or neutral results.
It isn’t likely to result in all workers being happier no matter how hard the
manager works on achieving fairness. The best way to avoid negative motivation
and achieve at least neutral results is to be as fair as possible. This isn’t
easy because the manager simply doesn’t have enough information to be
absolutely fair. This is because work performance is the convolution of the
workers’ efforts and skills with the quality of the work processes, which can
be good or bad independent of the skills or efforts of the workers.
I’ll discuss
three approaches but I can’t claim any of these are completely fair or provide
sound arguments for one over the other. A good source of further study is
chapter 14 of Brian Joiner’s book Fourth
Generation Management.
Two principles to
follow in planning pay increases for workers are avoid de-motivators and avoid
judgments based on only one year’s work or one job assignment. Brian Joiner calls rankings, ratings and forced
distributions great demoralizers. People don’t believe these actions, which
always have winners and losers, are fair, especially if their personal ranking,
rating or distribution results in their receiving a smaller pay increase than
coworkers they know.
If you work
in a large enterprise your human resources department likely has curves of pay
vs. time (years of experience or time in grade) for the enterprise’s various
salary grades. An approach I have used in such cases is to give pay increases
that keep people on the appropriate curve as best you can with the budget you
are allocated. This approach avoids ratings, rankings and forced distributions
and it keeps pay close to the prevailing market assuming the enterprise’s
curves are based on the market. The primary flaw in this approach is that each
person receives an arbitrary increase, which the manager perceives as fair but
the fairness is not always apparent to workers that receive smaller increases
than their coworkers. If your enterprise does not have such curves you can
develop them yourself, a difficult task, or use an alternate approach to
allocating pay increases.
An approach
recommended by some management experts is to divide the workers into three
groups. Admittedly this is a forced distribution but minimally arbitrary. One
group contains the few workers who have consistently demonstrated outstanding
work in their last three or four assignments, typically over more than one
year. Another group contains the few who have consistently demonstrated
unsatisfactory work in their last three or four assignments. The idea is that
over sufficient time the quality of the work of an individual can be separated
from the effects of the system influencing the worker. One assignment or even
one year is usually not enough for a manager to be able to make a fair
assessment of a workers performance independent of the system.
The remaining
workers, which should be most of the workers in the organization being
evaluated, are in a middle group. The group consistently demonstrating
outstanding work receive promotions, increases in pay grade and/or a larger
than average share of the available budget for increases in pay. The group consistently
demonstrating less than satisfactory performance receives no or less than an
average share of the available budget for increases in pay. The middle group
shares the remaining budget equally by percentage increases with the objective
being to keep workers’ pay competitive with the market for their education and
experience. The belief is that those consistently demonstrating unsatisfactory
work know their performance is less than desired and understand why they
receive little or no pay increases.
The three
group method is reasonably fair but has flaws in addition to being a forced
distribution. First it does not address pay discrepancies that exist from
history. It is not unusual to be managing an organization made up of
individuals of different ages, different education, different years of
experience and different job experience as well as different job performance.
These collective differences often lead to people with similar backgrounds and
capabilities receiving quite different pay. This obviously isn’t fair and
eventually people learn of such unfair situations and are demotivated. The
effective leader does the analysis to reveal such situations and works with the
personnel department to eliminate them. Sometimes this can take a few years but
it is necessary to prevent workers being demotivated due to unfair pay
discrepancies.
A second flaw
is it does not address the senior person who has been in the same job for a
long time and has reached the maximum market rate for that position. If the
person does not warrant a promotion or desire a transfer to a higher paying
position then that person should receive less pay than most others in order to
keep within the bounds of competitive pay for the position. These cases must be
dealt with on an individual basis.
A third flaw
is that the few individuals receiving less pay due to unsatisfactory work over
several assignments are demotivated, which is likely to lead to even less
satisfactory performance. Some would argue that it is better to give the same
increases to the unsatisfactory workers as to most other workers to avoid
demotivating the unsatisfactory workers. This is the third approach and it
isn’t a perfect solution either as workers that are performing satisfactorily
are likely to see it as unfair to them. I do not have the data or experience to
argue which approach is best
Exercise 1
1. How
is need fulfillment correlated with effectiveness?
2. Which
needs are satisfied with money?
3. What
are the effects of individual rewards? Team rewards?
4. What
is the effect of excessive job stress?
5. Define
the likely problems experienced by a worker that is not moving forward in
Maslow’s hierarchy for each stage of the hierarchy.
6. Define
a management strategy or action that is likely to help a worker move from each
stage to the stage on its right.
Exercise 2
1. Pick
at random four of your direct reports or peers that are typical of your
organization. Assess each one against Maslow’s hierarchy of needs by
determining the highest need that you believe is fulfilled for that individual.
This gives you another measure of the health of your organization. If three or
four have achieved self-actualization then your organization is most likely
nearly as productive as it can be except for improving work processes. If two
or more have safety or belongingness needs unfulfilled then your organization
is not healthy and is most likely not nearly as productive as it could be.
2. If your results show less than three out of
four with self-actualization needs fulfilled then write down a draft plan on
what you need to do to improve the motivation of your organization. Reread the
lecture if you don’t have ideas on what to do. You don’t need to start working
on your plan yet but keep the plan handy so that you can review it later as
part of developing a more comprehensive action plan.
If you find that the pace of blog posts
isn’t compatible with the pace you would
like to maintain in studying this material you can buy the book “The Manager’s Guide for Effective
Leadership” at:
or hard copy or for nook at:
or hard copy or E-book at:
No comments:
Post a Comment