.. ature passive, but become so as a result of experiences, management should enable employees to develop their motivational characteristics, and that it is essential for management to arrange organizational conditions in a manner where employees can achieve their own goals by directing their personal effort towards organizational objectives. The contrast between X and Y solely relates to who controls human behavior. Theory X touts external control, and Theory Y promotes self control and self direction. The main dilemma with McGregor’s premises is that Theory Y places an unrealistic amount of burden on the management. Heroics cannot be the responsibility of a manager and the difficulty a manager would have fulfilling his own personal goals and the goals of the organization while conceiving of their job as helping each of his subordinates to achieve their mutual goals in the subordinate’s own way (Gellerman 1963), is an enormous.
A manager would require not only extensive training in management but in human psychology. Drucker’s opinion on the subject sums up why the McGregor’s techniques lack vital characteristics for effective organizational motivation; An employer has no business with a man’s personality. Employment is as specific contract calling for specific performance, and nothing else. Any attempt of an employer to go beyond this is usurpation. It is an immoral as well as illegal intrusion of privacy.
It is abuse of power. An employee owes no loyalty, he owes no love, and no attitudes -he owes performance and nothing else .. Management and management development .. should consider themselves with changes in behavior likely to make a man more effective. They do not deal with who a man is -that is, with his personality or his emotional dynamics (Drucker, 1973).
Though Drucker’s opinions reflect why Theory Y may be perceived as flawed, they represent a somewhat cold stance on other issues in organizational behavior. Management must have some responsibilities to the emotional well being of their subordinates, but they cannot be responsible to the extent Theory Y proposes. Of all the intrinsically based theories of motivation, the one that is most related to motivation through reinforcement is that of the expectancy-valence theory. Vroom’s formulations on this theory have become the dominate works in regard to motivational management. The expectancy-valence theory is a cognitive approach to explaining the causes of motivation, which in turn, influence the behavior of the individual. Expectancy theories explain not only the choices an employee will make regarding actions, but to what level the employee will perform in regard to those actions (Schwab 1978). This somewhat scientific approach to explain motivation involves three key steps.
The valence of outcomes is the first step which incorporates the concept of the attractiveness associated with activities. Unlike Maslow, Herzberg, or McGregor, the expectancy theory makes no a priori statements about what outcomes individuals will find valent or nonvalent (Schwab, 1978). The second assumption in the expectancy theory regards people’s beliefs about the connection between activity and outcome. These perceptions can be thought of as subjective probabilities and are referred to as instrumentality perceptions (Schwab 1978). In essence, people have an idea that there is a link between performance and wage increases.
The final premise of the expectancy theory pertains to the individual’s beliefs about the connection or linkage between one’s effort to engage in an activity and the likelihood that the activity will be accomplished (Schwab, 1978). Crystallized, the expectancy theory of motivation states that employee motivation is high when a task is attractive in itself, and when the outcomes of the completed task are attractive to the employee. Because of the complexities of the internal nature of the expectancy theory, it is a difficult approach to take as a manager. Though it takes into account that the recognition of the outcome of an action may influence the frequency of that behavior, the expectancy theory still relies too much on the internal processes of motivation because of its basis in cognition. A far simpler way to motivate employees disengages itself from internal (intrinsic) processes and solely analyzes how external events can influence the frequency of motivated behavior. This method is motivation by reinforcement.
Motivation by reinforcement may be argued to not even be a valid motivational theory since it deals mainly with how behavior is shaped by its consequences (Katzell and Thompson, 1995). It is based on the simple premise that effective behavior is to be positively reinforced in order to continue, and that poor performance should not be rewarded but in fact punished. Motivation by reinforcement allows a manager to focus on the present conditions, things that he can control. The theory adapts to the current behaviors and the current environment and does not dwell on the internal factors which can cloud decision making. Realistically, a manager can only control some of the conditions of the work environment (i.e. goal statements and incentive promises) and has no control over past conditions that could influence employee behavior. Also, an employer cannot anticipate how a subordinate will behave in the future. A manager’s main responsibility is to be aware of an employee’s previous experience which dictates performance in the present.
Two characteristics of an employee which determine his response to conditions are his ability to learn and his current repertoire or behavior, learned from prior experience (Miller, 1981). To understand why motivation through reinforcement is a realistic and valid motivational technique, one must analyze these two factors. A manager must assess a person’s ability to learn before placing him on a job. He must analyze the amount and speed of learning a job, and relate that to his employees learning ability to see if that employee can handle the task. Also, a manager must assess the subordinates prior experiences and relate them to his ability to learn.
Much of these assessments are best done within the hiring practices of a company to facilitate the manager’s assignment of tasks. After analysis of employee skills and experience, motivation becomes a function of this experience and the characteristics of the present conditions. Since it is the primary function of the manager to achieve results though the work of himself and his subordinates, the manager must determine deadlines and then change or maintain the behavior of his employees to meet expectations. The only way a manager can manipulate behavior is to alter the environment in the present. A manager cannot feasibly determine what needs each employee desires for satisfaction, and cannot change organizational goals to fit the behavior of each individual employee.
Since all practices of managers involve the manipulation of the work environment, it is only natural that that is the way to affect motivation. Business Reports.