ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR

[bonddonraj]

Elton Mayo
Elton Mayo was born in Australia in 1880. He was not introduced to sociology until 1926 when Lawrence J. Henderson introduced him to Parieto's theory. (Rose, 1975, p 115) At that time Mayo was already 46 years old. He applied the theories of sociology that he learned to other Management studies that were being done at the time. He would put together and apply existing Sociological theories and apply them to research that he was familiar with. He would not always conduct the research himself but he would use the research that other people did and go off of that. He would then put down his conclusions into a book.

He was able to do this so successfully because Mayo was a excellent publicist of the studies, and his advocacy of the concepts of social man and social needs were so strongly associated with the studies. (Rose, 1988, p 220). The amazing thing about Mayo being able to adapt the Sociological theories to the studies was that he was only introduced to them in 1926 and he wrote his first book in 1933 called The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. He wrote the book after the Hawthorn studies were complete and he found that it was the social problems that was the problem with the way things were going in industries not all of the other factors that the Hawthorn studies was trying to prove. He then wrote another book in 1945 called The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization and he wrote his third book in 1947 called The Political Problems of an Industrial Civilization. In this book he pointed out the political problems that arise from a industrial civilization. Some of these problems could be corrupt officials and the regulations that industry has to comply with but never does.

The role that Mayo had in the development of management is usually associated with his discovery of social man and the need for this in the work place. Mayo found that workers acted according to sentiments and emotion. He felt that if you treated the worker with respect and tried to meet their needs than they would be a better worker for you and both management and the employee would benefit. This is pointed out in his books that he wrote.

Mayo's work contributed to management theory through research conducted at Western Electric's Hawthorn Works which took place from 1927 - 1932. Mayo was also able to provide concrete evidence to support Follet's theory that the lack of attention to human relationships was a major flaw in other management theories. (Rieger, 1995, p 1) He was able to prove that employees did react better when they had good relationships with the management that they worked with. If management would treat the employees with respect and give them the attention at the work place that they needed, then the workers would be more willing to work harder for the employer. The was not totally what the Hawthorn study was looking at for they were focusing on working conditions such as lighting that the workers worked in and other factors that could easily be changed with out management having to do much. The real solution was to have management get more involved with the workers.

Mayo could not have foreseen the social and personal awards the workers experienced as a result of management consideration, group affiliation, and special recognition. (Rieger, 1995, p 2) They did not see how much the increase of productivity would be do to the fact of human factors and not do to environmental factors. This help show that there was a stronger connection to the way that employees reacted to the way that their employer and management would deal with them and the problems that they had. A simple thing such as giving a employee a little reward for outstanding performance for a month or a year could help motivate other employees to want to do better so that they could have the chance to be recognized for their outstanding work. When they allowed the employees to work with groups or be affiliated with groups at work, they are able to make a difference. Even a small difference still made it so that the employees would be more productive because they knew that they were helping out others and that they would have the chance to be recognized in front of their fellow workers for the work that they have done.

With all that Elton Mayo has done with his theories of management and how to motivate employees to be more productive it is not a surprise that Human Relations is usually considered the brainchild of Elton Mayo

 

[bonddonraj]

Employee Representation at WorkMobilization of the economy for war production locked the administrative structure of business and government tightly together, while full employment augmented workers' ability to win strikes and improve their terms of employment. The government's wartime quest for total mobilization of the American people's hearts, minds, and energies had prompted its administrative agencies not only to promote national standards of wages and hours but also to encourage corporate managers to bargain with elected representatives of their employees. Collective consultation between representatives of the workers and local managers could ensure that cordial cooperation which is likely to further industrial efficiency and provide the company "a maximum of publicity with minimum of interference in all that pertains to the conditions of employment" (Montgomery, 1987, p. 412).

In other words, World War I raised a need to increase productivity by reducing industrial disputes, absenteeism, turnover, and standardizing working conditions and pay structures. Exactly the same problems that Taylor had hoped to solve with his Scientific Management. To facilitate those objectives, managers were encouraged to adopt a new work organization that emphasized worker representation. Perhaps, this was an early indication of the limits of Scientific Management. When workers had an opportunity to rebel against Scientific Management, they took it.

Shop committees and works councils were created to deal with grievances, payment, and plans to improve productivity. A report from the Special Conference Committee in 1929 summed up the experience of the previous decade (quoted in Montgomery, 1987, p. 414): "Employee representation, in fact, furnishes an effective means through which management can exercise its normal function of leadership over the working force."

Job control unionism and Scientific Management
The need to improve productivity -- through increased cooperation rather than repression -- created a need among managers to introduce innovative means of control (e.g., shop committees, consultation, higher wages) over the labor process, which, in turn, meshed with the unions' need to increase their membership base and resulted in an odd "marriage" between Taylorism and "progressive unionism." Thus, while both union traditionalists and radicals believed that shop committees were employers' instruments, to be infiltrated, smashed, and replaced with closed-shop craft unionism, others saw them as a means to broaden the union ranks. The latter were enthusiastically supported by personnel managers who believed that union-employer cooperation was the best means to improve productivity. The reason being, such cooperation reduces absenteeism and turnover, maintains an open-shop environment, and keeps the unions content and docile. Still, there was no guarantee that increased productivity would translate into pay increase or that the majority of the workers would not be hired on a temporary basis without any seniority rights.

But after the end of the War, the doors of possibility that wartime experience had opened slammed shut for many unions. The rising unemployment and the great crash of 1929 made it easy for management to seize all initiative in the area of employee representation. Apparently, management had never been sold on the idea that they should consult with unions over production issues. Managers believed that they could organize worker cooperation without the American Federation of Labor's (AFL) help. And as new production methods and technologies developed, managers lost interest in this unwanted child. But once unions were suppressed, workers' dissatisfaction found individual, personal expression in doing as little as possible for the wages they received and wasting as much material as possible. It was this problem, restriction of output (soldiering in Taylor's jargon), that Elton Mayo and his colleagues would seek to resolve.

The above implies that:
Scientific management, at least in its current form, was not embraced by American workers.
When conflicts erupted, managers quickly understood that they had to cater to workers' QWL (quality of worklife) needs in order to improve control and productivity.

Teams/cooperation/improved communication are not new ideas.

When changes in HRM practices are not underlain by a sound theory that relates new HRM techniques to a long-term transformation of management philosophy, values and behaviors, the changes will have little staying power. They will last until the unique circumstances that have caused them disappear.

Frequently (perhaps always), disgruntled employees will find ways to circumvent and undermine the system, expressing their dissatisfaction with existing working conditions and management behavior.


Motivating the Individual Worker
Mayo's basic thesis was that "our understanding of human problems of civilization should be at least equal to our understanding of its material problems. In the absence of such understanding, the whole industrial structure is liable to destruction or decay. A world-wide revolution of the Russian type would completely destroy civilization" (quoted in Trahair, 1984: 163). He further argued that with the industrialization of society no improvement had come in the social status of the worker. Once workers had had skilled jobs with necessary social functions but now they were dispossessed of decisions over their work, and its important functions passed to scientists and financiers. At the same time that workers became cogs in the machine, they also were offered a vision of greater political freedom. But socialism and syndicalism, thought Mayo, were charlatan remedies and quack political medicines (Trahair, 1984: 163). Consequently, conflict was growing in industry, and consequently the danger of the collapse of society was mounting. Through psychological investigation the irrational causes of conflict may be found and brought under rational control.


The Hawthorne Experiments (Trahair, 1984: 225-6)
The experiments began in 1927 at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois (1927-1932). Mayo joined in early 1928. The Western Electric Company, manufacturer of telephone equipment at its Hawthorne Works, had a policy of high wages and good working conditions for employees and of using modern placement techniques. For twenty years before the research began, mangers considered general morale high among employees and the incidence of industrial conflict infrequent.

In collaboration with the National Research Council the company studied the relationship between the intensity of illumination at work and the output of workers. No simple direct relations appeared because many psychological factors interfered. To control them, especially the factor of fatigue, researchers asked six girls to work in a test room away from their regular department; to be subject to changes in working hours, rest pauses, and other conditions; and to have their comments on work recorded while their output was measured. The girls agreed. Five girls assembled telephone relays, one supplied the parts. For five years, beginning in April 1927, accurate records were kept of the number of the relays made, temperature and humidity of the test room, medical and personal histories, eating and sleeping habits, and snatches of conversation on the job. No one supervised the girls; instead, a test room observer, and later his assistants, kept records, arranged work, and tried to keep up the spirit of cooperation among the girls. The girls were told to work as they felt and at a comfortable pace, and only with their consent would changes be made in their work.

First, the researchers measured productive capacity by recording the girls' output for two weeks before the test-room study began. Then for the first five weeks no changes at work were made so that the mere effect on output of being transferred was known. At the third stage, a pay system was introduced that ensured each girl's earnings were in proportion to her efforts, thereby centering her financial interests on the study. Eight weeks later, two five-minute rest pauses -- one at 10 a.m., the other at 2 p.m. -- were introduced. Next, the girls were given a light lunch in the mid-morning and afternoon pauses. In the eight phase, the workday ended a half-hour early; in the ninth, the girls finished an hour earlier than usual. Then a five-day week was introduced and it ran through the summer of 1928. Results showed an unexpected gradual rise in daily output. The researchers, believing that something other than the changes had affected the output, asked the girls if they would return to the original work conditions, i.e., no pauses or lunches and a full work week. The girls agreed, and for twelve weeks output declined, but not to its original level.

The researchers expected that if output rate were directly related to the physical conditions at work, then identical conditions would produce similar output rates. Instead, the girls' output rose from one phase of the study to the next. It remained on a high plateau until the depression ended the study in 1933. Within the limits of the test room, physical changes appeared to have no effect on output rate.

Researchers concluded that changes in output could be attributed to changes not only in work conditions but also work attitudes and social relations. They believed that the girls' behaviors were related not to the technical but the social organization of work. The girls had no close supervision, and always had the chance to originate and participate in decisions affecting their work. Mayo (1945, p. 72) explained that:

What actually happened was that six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment. The consequence was that they felt themselves to be participating freely and without afterthought, and were happy in the knowledge that they were working without coercion from above or limitation from below.

According to Trahair (1984: 356-7), at Hawthorne, Mayo did not initiate, direct, or control research. He played four distinct roles:

Appreciative helper. For the first 18 months he was an "appreciative helper." He visited Hawthorne to study the physiology of the women at work in the relay assembly test room, but beyond that he advised on the health of a woman no longer in the study.
Counselor-cum-publicist. During the next 15 months he was a "counselor-cum-publicist." He counseled executives on family and work problems, praised the study, thereby helping its status within the Western Electric Company, and publicized the results so that the research gained prestige in the United States and Europe.
Cooperative collaborator. For almost 30 months he was a "cooperative collaborator." He encouraged the exchange of personnel between Harvard and Hawthorne and laid the social basis for joint activities.
Protective supporter. During the four years of close association with the Hawthorne Works, Mayo was a "protective supporter." He helped the researchers to endure destructive criticism of their work from inside the company and out, and to tolerate their own doubts about the value of their work.
Human Relations at Work
Current problems at work are rooted in social disintegration. This process began when industrialization increased labor mobility and weakened communal ties, isolated family life, organized work so that obsessions (e.g., worker and management interests are and should be at odds) dominated mental life, and justified all these changes by placing a high value on economic growth. The practical consequences of destroying social functions for individuals are divorce, crime, irregular living, resentment, and paranoia. Because labor is highly mobile, the society disintegrates, social functions blur, and, consequently, individuals become maladjusted. At work, problems of industrial control arise because complex organizations curb craftsmen's initiative and autonomy, devalue their intelligence and skill, create monotonous tasks, and, as compensation, offer only money and leisure time. Consequently, workers do not recognize that between them and management must exist a knowledge of common interests from which would emerge mutual confidence, trust, and effective collaboration. Instead, workers focus on undermining management by restricting their output. Management, in turn, do not appreciate how strong a need for belonging exists in their workers' minds and hearts.

The thesis of these HR writers is aptly captured by Mayo (1945, p. 10):

... problems of absenteeism, labor turnover, 'wildcat' strikes, show that we do not know how to ensure spontaneity of cooperation; that is teamwork. Therefore, collaboration in an industrial society cannot be left to chance...

The single most important discovery of the Hawthorne experiments was that workers had a strong need to cooperate and communicate with fellow workers. In Mayo's words (1945, p. 112), "... the eager human desire for cooperative activity still persists in the ordinary person and can be utilized by intelligent and straightforward management." The best vehicle to its achieving was informal groups (rather than formal work teams), as they provided their members with the basic needs for communication and cooperation. Yet management should be aware that once forged, the group maintained a strong grip over worker behaviors and attitudes (productivity).

... the working group as a whole actually determined the output of individual workers by reference to a standard, predetermined but never clearly stated, that represented the group conception (rather than management's) of a fair day's work. This standard was rarely, if ever, in accord with the standards of the efficiency engineers (Mayo, 1945, p. 79).

Taylor strived to minimize the likelihood and effect of the informal group, Mayo wished to harness it (in a limited way), and TQM experts have formalized it and expanded its boundaries.

The Emergence of the "Social Man:"
Implications for Managers
The Human Relations movement emphasized emotional aspects in human behavior, yet still maintained the division of labor between those who planned and those who executed. Being intellectually conservative, Human Relations advocates worked from assumptions of underlying employee-employer harmony. They attributed restriction of output to the poor communication between workers and managers, and inadequate attention to the human side of worker. The latter resulted in a "false consciousness," whereby workers failed to appreciate that their interests were identical to their managers'. To solve these problems, managers should facilitate the formation of informal groups and be accepted as figures of authority (managers should become culture builders). "... the age-old human desire for persistence of human association will seriously complicate the development of an adaptive society if we cannot devise systematic methods of easing individuals from one group of associates to another," argues Mayo (1945, p. 81). "Management," he continues, "in any continuously successful plant, is not related to single workers but always to working groups." Therefore, a major "preoccupation of management must be that of organizing teamwork, that is to say, of developing and sustaining cooperation" (ibid, p. 84).

To be able to facilitate teamwork (i.e., the formation of informal groups), management was provided with a new set of tools -- social skills (ibid, pp. 19, 20). Managers have to be patient with their workers, listen to them, and avoid creating emotional upsets (ibid, pp. 108-9).

Authority therefore in actual exercise demands a capacity for vision and wise guidance that must be re-achieved daily: since the cooperation of others is a vital element in it, social understanding and social skill are involved equally with technical knowledge and capacity. ... we do nothing whatever to develop social insight or to impart social skill. Indeed we provide an education that operates to hinder the development of such skills. And the general public, business leaders, and politicians are left with the implication that mankind is an unorganized rabble upon which order must be imposed (Mayo, 1945, p. 50).


Managers should learn that employees' social needs were no less important than employees' economic needs and that the logic of cost efficiency should give some room to the logic of human sentiments. The good manager was the one who was able to blend technical expertise with social capabilities. The successful manager listened to his employees, introduced them to their new companions, and tried to get them congenial work associates (Mayo, 1945, p. 108). Such managers were able to facilitate the formation of informal groups and gain the cooperation of their workers (be accepted as figure heads and leaders) (Mayo, 1945, p. 9).

Like Taylor, the Human Relations advocates wanted to rationalize management in order to increase workers' effort at work. However, their underlying assumptions were quite different. Taylor believed in the "rabble hypothesis" -- Natural society consists of a horde of unorganized individuals; every individual acts in a manner calculated to secure his self-interest; every individual thinks logically, to the best of his ability, in the service of this aim. This is why the best way to induce workers to work harder is to offer them more money.

HR writers, on the other hand, dismissed the centrality of the cash nexus and instead emphasized culture, interpersonal relations, and group coherence as the determinants of worker performance. Mayo claimed that the rabble hypothesis that guided neo-classical economists is based on a non-normal situation of total social disintegration (Mayo, 1945, pp. 40-44). The proponents of the rabble hypothesis "have small knowledge-of-acquaintance (as opposed to knowledge about) of various social situations, a negligible equipment of social skill, and are able to ignore the facts of human organization, and the extreme importance of these facts for him who would direct the work and thought of others" (Mayo, 1945, p. 46).

In Mayo's (1945, p. 111) words:

Man's desire to be continuously associated in work with his fellows is a strong, if not the strongest, human characteristic. Any disregard of it by management or any ill-advised attempt to defeat this human impulse leads instantly to some form of defeat for management itself.

People resort to self-interest when social associations have failed them (Mayo, 1945, p. 43). In short, Taylor's economic man gave way to the social man while the ultimate target remained intact -- the rationalization of the managerial profession.

SUMMARY
Mayo believed that industrialization and destruction of craft systems had caused social disintegration and normless, maladjusted behavior. In the past, men had lived in communities where their work was a part of communal life and their morale and amusements derived from a sense of solidarity among themselves and service to the community. But today, men drift with no plans, go where work takes them, and must live in a society with an unstable economy. Because communal life outside work is neglected, it becomes urgently needed within the workplace; the need raises the requisites of working together; cooperation and collaboration (Trahair, 1984: 254).

But at work, the worker-management adversarial relationship stemmed from workers' misunderstanding and distrust of management. Management contributed to this situation by being more concerned with economic efficiency than with social solidarity, thereby driving alienated workers to seek asylum in informal work groups. These groups were then used to undermine management. Mayo's prognosis was twofold -- management should acquire social skills, and use them to secure workers' cooperation. The primary vehicle to its achievement is informal groups. Thus, nurturing supervisors can adjust workers to bureaucratic life by facilitating the creation of informal work groups, and then taking control over them. Eventually, if properly done, management should be able to align workers' interests with management's. Workers would become convinced that managers were on their side, and that organizational bureaucracies were communities of producers. This should result in workers having a sense of participation, a feeling of release from constraint, and a desire to advance the organization's (i.e., management's) interests. But specialized jobs and existing power structures would remain intact. Workers would participate only in marginal decisions, in choosing such things as the colors of restroom walls, not in any strategic decisions.

In other words, little emphasis was placed on problem solving and the process improvements that play such an important role today. Perhaps because of its limited and manipulative objectives, the human relations movement waned in the 1950s. Although Mayo's contribution had had a pervasive effect on managerial ideology, it's effect on managerial practices was rather limited.

 

[bonddonraj]

===============

 

[bonddonraj]

-------------

 

[bonddonraj]

Radical Psychology


On "Reading" Emotions and Emotionality in Organisations [1]

Adrian Carr

Emotionality: n. a characteristic of a person who reacts easily and strongly to emotive situations... (the) term should not imply a generalized trait of emotional sensitivity. (English & English 1958, p. 177)

Introduction:

The discourse of organisation theory and management is one that carries a heavy emphasis upon the cognitive domain - describing what goes on in organisations in fairly bland terms and, in that sense, de-emotionalising or presenting a sanitised and biased understanding of what transpires and gets played out in organisations. "Rationality", often portrayed with "efficiency", is the sensible and "good guy" that is to be used as the touchstone by managers and administrators in organisations. This discourse is one where, in the shadows, there "lurks" a perceived alternative or dichotomous "bad guy" called "emotion" or "emotionality". Emotion and emotionality is portrayed, or more commonly inferred, as having to be avoided or excluded. Of course the quintessential organisational form designed to install rationality and eliminate emotionality is our most pervasive organisational form - bureaucracy. However, this putative dichotomous choice that is on offer presents us with a simplified understanding of what will be shown, in this paper, to be a rich inter-relationship where the "rational" and "emotional" are often "fused" or act in a co-existent and co-dependent fashion where one cannot be understood in the absence of the other.

The neglected thorough examination of the relationship of the rational and emotional is one that has been previously noted as an oversight that is understandable in the context that, in general, the field of organisation behaviour has been somewhat preoccupied with the functionalist quest for a predictable and controllable generic "man" (see Carr, 1989). The interactive nature and processes by which an individual becomes an individual have largely gone unexamined. Indeed, the ontological status of "individual", "group" and "organisation" appears to have been obscured by the ideology of functionalism. Interpretative and interactional perspectives have largely been neglected by this myopia and with it an understanding of how and why different forms of involvement occur in work organisations. The organisation behaviour discourse has generally viewed forms of involvement as an outcome of a process of exchange between the organisation and the individual. Perhaps the most enduring image, is that captured by Schein (1970) in his notion of the "psychological contract".

For Schein the psychological contract involved reciprocation (contribution - inducement) where the employee and employer became engaged in an interactive process of mutual influence and bargaining (see Schein, 1970; also Goddard, 1984; Kotter, 1973; Rousseau, 1987; Schermerhorn et al, 1988; Sims, 1991; Wahn, 1993). Schein embraced the work of Etzioni (1961; 1964) to suggest that the form of employee involvement was a natural outcome of the rewards and kinds of authority used in an organisation. Although many may be very familiar with Etzioni's compliance typology, they may be less familiar with how Schein came to rely upon it in putting forward the notion of the psychological contract.

Etzioni (1961; 1964) suggested that the type of involvement displayed by an employee was closely related to the form of power and authority used in the organisation. Power and authority that an organisation might use could be of three types: coercive e.g., threat, physical sanctions, etc; utilitarian e.g., material and economic rewards; or, normative e.g., symbolic rewards and intrinsic value rewards. The range of involvement that an employee may exhibit, Etzioni classified as being one of three possible types: alienative; calculative; or, moral. By taking the three types of power and the three types of involvement, Etzioni produced the now familiar typology with nine possible relationships. While all nine were possible, Etzioni argued that three types of power and involvement were congruent: coercive-alienative; utilitarian-calculative; and, normative-moral. He argued that these congruent types were the most effective relationships and that the non-congruent relationships would place an organisation under a natural strain towards congruence (Etzioni, 1961: 87).

The structural-functionalist vision provided by Etzioni was incorporated by Schein in his explanation of the psychological contract. Schein argued that the three congruent types constituted "workable and "just" psychological contracts" (1970, p. 53). While this Schein-Etzioni vision is highly descriptive, what goes unexplained is why such congruency occurs? An explanation of the psychological underpinning of the typology is conspicuous by its absence. Are we to presume that this is a natural order of things and leave it at that? Schein's notion of the psychological contract is devoid of any dynamic causal mechanism other than as a mutually bargained outcome. The issues of "fairness" and "choice" that are seen as implied in establishing the psychological contract are only addressed as conscious phenomenon, and the degree of "mutualness" of the contract goes largely unexamined and with it considerations of any ethical dimension of the relationship. The heavy emphasis in this image of why employees may "seek to please" is one that assumes a high degree of rationality and mutual awareness of the parties involved. In contrast, this paper suggests that there is a "passion to please" that stems from a far more complex appreciation of the psychodynamics involved than has been generally advanced in the discourse thus far -- psychodynamics, as indicated earlier, where the "rational" and "emotional" are often "fused" or act in a co-existent and co-dependent fashion where one cannot be understood in the absence of the other.

The Psychodynamics of the "Passion" to Please

Sigmund Freud, in his attempt to provide an insight into how an individual "gained" his/her identity, suggested the psychodynamics of narcissism, identification and the ego-ideal were intertwined and indeed have "emotional content". Linking these issues, at one point he introduces a chapter with the observation that "Identification is known to psychoanalysis as the earliest expression of an emotional tie with another person. It plays a part in the early history of the Oedipus complex" (Freud, 1921/1985, p. 134, italics added). It is in the understanding of these intertwined psychodynamics that we start to gain a greater appreciation of how the passion to please arises. To somewhat "unpack" the intertwined nature of these psychodynamics, it is probably most helpful to commence our discussion by first considering the matter of narcissism.

Initially, Freud's use of the term narcissism was by way of a footnote added to an essay some five years after the essay had been written. That essay was entitled "The Sexual Aberrations" (Freud, 1905/1977). Later he was to acknowledge (1914/1984, p. 65) that this footnote employed the term narcissism in the same way that Paul Nacke had used it in 1899, to refer to "sexual perversion". Freud was attempting to explain the object-choice of homosexuals.

The use of the term narcissism as a label for a type of personality disorder or aberrant behaviour was soon revised by Freud. This revision, hailed by some as one of Freud's "most magnificent discoveries" (Adorno, 1968, p. 88), was not well understood by many who followed him, including such people as Erich Fromm (1979/1982) and Bruno Bettelheim (1983/1989). Adorno actually argued that "psychoanalytic theory has still not proved equal" to Freud's discovery (Adorno, 1968, p. 88). More recently, Darius Ornston has charged Bettelheim (correctly in my view) with ignoring Freud's "careful description of narcissism as ubiquitous and necessary to loving" (Ornston, 1992, p. 73). Indeed, the term "narcissism" is commonly used today to refer to an individual who is overly preoccupied with themselves or their own interests. In its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1987) The American Psychiatric Association uses the term to describe a pathological condition: a personality disorder where an individual has an excessive concern for power and control that may lead to exploitative behaviour. On a larger scale the term has been employed in a negative sense, and in a sense of ill-health, to denounce what is seen as a collective pathology for a whole society (e.g., see Lasch, 1974; 1985). The view of narcissism as a disorder and pathology is, of course, derived from an aspect of the Roman poet Publius Ovidius Naso's (43 BC - AD 17) tale about Narcissus, a youthful son of a nymph, who falls in love with his own reflection in a pool of water: "unwittingly, he desired himself, and was himself the object of his own approval" (Ovid, trans. 1955, p. 85).

In a paper entitled On Narcissism . . . (1914/1984) Freud revised his initial view of narcissism, noting that erotic self-centeredness was not confined to homosexuals but appeared to be part of a more general and normal process of psychosexual development. It was not, he wrote, "a perversion but the libidinal complement to the egoism of the instinct of self-preservation, a measure of which may justifiably be attributed to every creature" (Freud, 1914/1984, p. 66). Under this revision Freud argued that before and soon after birth the individual's wishes, desires and drives (libido) are principally focused upon the development of self, the ego-libido, with self as an initial erotic object. Subsequently, the individual may gain libido satisfaction through an attachment to objects, e.g., the mother's breast, in what Freud called object-libido. Later the individual may find these objects are not always available and may create substitute satisfactions, e.g., replacing the nipple with sucking a finger.

The actual relationship between ego-libido and object-libido Freud viewed as being amoeba-like in its operation (see Freud, 1914/1984, p. 68; 1917/1973, pp. 465-466; 1923a/1986, p. 155; 1923b/1984, pp. 404-406). Freud suggested that "the ego is to be regarded as a great reservoir of libido from which libido is sent out to objects and which is always ready to absorb libido flowing back from objects" (Freud, 1923a/1986, p. 155). This absorbing or taking back of libido into the ego from external objects Freud called secondary narcissism. This was to distinguish it from primary narcissism, a term he used for the first narcissism where the child took itself as its love-object rather than external objects.

The significance of the "seesaw-like" arrangement between the ego-libido and the object-libido is that the more one is used the more the other is depleted, and, as Alford observes:

"... the amoeba model makes clear there is a cost involved (in abandoning one's primary narcissism): in object love the self is depleted of libido, and there is a necessary decrease in narcissistic satisfaction. While being loved in return may provide considerable narcissistic gratification, it is not sufficient to compensate for the loss. It is in this context that Freud introduces the concept of the ego ideal" (Alford, 1988, p. 25).

In introducing the concept of the ego-ideal, Freud initially argued that the individual "is not willing to forgo the narcissistic perfection of his childhood (and) ... seeks to recover it in the new form of an ego ideal. What he projects before him as his ideal is the substitute for the lost narcissism of his childhood in which he was his own ideal" (Freud, 1914/1984, p. 88). The ego-ideal, Freud suggested, is established through three different forms of identification:

"First, identification... in the original form of (an) emotional tie with an object; second, in a regressive way... (as) a substitute for a libidinal object-tie, as it were by means of introjection of the object into the ego; and thirdly... (as) a new perception of a common quality shared with some other person who is not an object of the sexual instinct" (Freud, 1921/1985, p. 137).

Laplanche and Pontalis (1988) captured the essence and importance of the notion of identification when they defined it as a "psychological process whereby the subject assimilates an aspect, property or attribute of the other and is transformed, wholly or partially, after the model the other provides. It is by means of a series of identifications that the personality is constituted and specified" (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1988, p. 205 - italics added). Also, as noted in the quotation from Freud used in the first paragraph of this section of the paper, identification is associated with emotional content.

In developing his second theory of the "mind", Freud posited the now familiar realms of id, ego, and super-ego. In so doing he was forced to reconsider some of his previous ideas. Badcock aptly captured and summarised some fundamental revisions that were a consequence of this second theory:

"Finally, the ego was faced with demands originating in the so called superego, a specialized subdivision of itself which was based on identification and internalization of the more competent, dominant egos which the child found around itself. In the main, the superego took on its definitive form with the resolution of the Oedipus complex, involving an identification of the child with the values and ideals of the parents. Consequently, the superego provided a sense of moral and aesthetic self-judgement (conscience and values, in other words), both in a positive sense as acting as an ego-ideal and in the negative one in performing the role of censor of the ego's wishes... Failure to meet the demands of the superego created a feeling of moral anxiety" (Badcock, 1988, p. 122 - original emphasis). [2]

The concept of the ego-ideal, as established and re-established through various identifications, was retained, including the narcissistic underpinning and the idea that narcissism is, as Alford noted:

"never overcome, but rechanneled, because it represents an especially complete and profound mode of gratification, and man is loath to abandon a pleasure once experienced. If the ego ideal is immature . . . , this rechanneling will be ineffective and will lead to perversion: the quest for immediate gratification regardless of the appropriateness of the setting or the object. If the ego level is mature, on the other hand, narcissism may serve as a stimulus for the achievement of the highest ideals. For in striving to realize socially valued ideals, the ego moves closer to becoming one with its own ego ideal, thereby recapturing something of the perfection that the individual knew when he was the source and object of all the good in the world" (Alford, 1988, p. 27).

Writers such as Kohut (1971 and 1977) and Alford (1988) have embraced the concept of narcissism, like any other trait, as a part of the human condition that is neither sick nor healthy, but has exaggerated forms, or the potential for a Janus-like nature. Where I stray from their interpretation is really a matter of difference in emphasis, which, I suspect, stems from Strachey's unfortunate rendering of the German word Anlehnung as anaclisis. Anaclisis was used as an adjective to convey the idea of "to rest upon" or "to lean on" whereas the word Anlehnung "is the simple German word for dependence" (Mahony, 1992, p. 31, for a similar argument see Laplanche and Pontalis, 1988, p. 29-31). It is therefore my contention, that it is through identification that narcissism is transformed into a "dependence", not necessarily centered upon self, but an ego-ideal, satisfaction of which may come from alternative objects.

Erik Erikson suggested that "linguistically as well as psychologically, identity and identification have common roots" (Erikson, 1959, p. 112). Identity can be understood in terms of "fluctuations of projective and introjective identifications . . . (in which) the latter must be predominant" (Bassols et al, 1985, p. 173, see also Erikson, 1959, p. 113). That is, the individual absorbs, largely unknowingly, aspects of their external world, and seeks to integrate these aspects with previous identifications and self/mutual recognition experiences (see von Broembsen, 1989). These dynamics extend beyond involving the ego, and include an appreciation of introjective identification in the realm of the developing and mature super-ego, the functions of which include acting as the ego-ideal and conscience (Freud, 1933/1988, p. 98 - see also endnote 2 of this paper). In the identification and internalisation of values, attitudes and ideals of parents and other significant figures an ego-ideal is developed, but simultaneously, the prohibitive agency of the super-ego is developed in the course of those same identifications. Freud explained this dynamic by positing that the super-ego's "relation to the ego is not exhausted by the precept: "You ought to be like this (like your father)", it also comprises the prohibition: "You may not be like this (like your father) -- that is, you may not do all that he does; some things are his prerogative" " (Freud, 1923b/1984, p. 374, italics is original emphasis). The ego is narcissistically drawn to the ego-ideal - "the target of the self-love" (Freud, 1914/1984, p. 88); but, also from a fear of punishment, yields to the prohibitive aspect of the super-ego (see Nunberg, 1932/1955, p. 146).

The Work Organisation Context and the Psychodynamics of the "Passion" to Please

The psychodynamics we have just discussed do get played out in the work organisation and the hallmarks of these psychodynamics have been noted in recent research and will be commented upon presently. The group setting poses a particular context in which these psychodynamics become manifest. Freud, in On Narcissism, in linking individual psychology with group psychology asserts that "the ego ideal opens up an important avenue for the understanding of group psychology" (Freud, 1914/1984, p. 96). Later, Freud was to explain how group psychology was really an extension of individual psychology (see Freud, 1921/1985). In Freud's view, it is through the process of identification that the individual surrenders the current "ego ideal and substitutes for it the group ideal as embodied in the leader" (p.161) "(the group members) put one and the same object in place of their ego ideal and have consequently identified themselves with one another in their ego" (Freud, 1921/1985, p. 147). Gay tries to summarise Freud's position on this relationship by describing group psychology as "parasitic on individual psychology" (1988. p. 405).

In becoming members of a group, individuals surrender some of their individuality. The degree to which this occurs depends upon the strength of their projective identification and the strength of their introjective identification. If these identifications are continually reinforced through various forms of gratification then the sense of a created identity can be so strong that the prohibitive aspect of the super-ego may be disregarded and, as others have commented, "its functions taken over by the group ideals" (Sandler, 1960, pp. 156-157; see also Chasseguet-Smirgel, 1976, p. 363). Sandler cites World War II atrocities committed by the Nazis as an instance where "a complete character transformation" (1960, p. 157) occurred through just such a process. The Nazis are but one instance of a more general case where the "enveloping" of the body with a uniform also seems to "envelope" the mind. Recent territorial hostilities and ethnic cleansing around the globe reveal that today this is still the case.

In the work organisation it can be readily comprehended how the reified organisation and/or its leaders could be raised to the status of an ego-ideal. Indeed, the organisation and its leaders, through symbolic, material and other means, may satisfy narcissistic needs so well that employees view their own identities in terms of their work context. This is particularly enhanced in Western cultures that define individuals" "worth" in terms of the status of their employment. The monetary and/or status outcome compounds the degree of narcissistic gratification.

In similar vein, Howard Schwartz (1987) has coined the term organisation-ideal to convey the imagery of the collective values and attributes the organisation is seeking to implant as the ego-ideal. Similarly, the term psychostructure was used by Michael Maccoby (1976), Douglas La Bier (1983; 1986) and Adrian Carr (1993a; 1998) to try to convey the imagery of different clusters of traits that seem to be stimulated and reinforced by different forms and different hierarchical levels of work. For Maccoby, La Bier and Carr this imagery captured what seemed to emerge from the data they had collected from studying a number of work organisations. They, collectively, suggest that a selecting and moulding of character may occur in trying to achieve the organisation-ideal, and that to resist such moulding, would, on the one hand, represent forgone opportunity for narcissistic pleasure, but on the other hand, would risk the disapproval of the parental figure, the organisation, and the psychological and emotional trauma associated with being ignored or excluded (see Lemert, 1962). Thus what passed as "rational" behaviour needed to be seen within a context of psychodynamics infused with emotional content.

The studies by Maccoby and La Bier present a powerful testament to the notion that the work environment/culture has a potentially transforming affect upon individual personality traits. The vehicle for this transformation is the narcissistic potential that the ego-ideal (organisation-ideal) can realise, and the psychodynamics that can induce psychological punishment. The Maccoby (1976) and La Bier (1983; 1986) studies both heavily relied on analysis from the controversial Rorschach tests (1942) which were embedded in an interview process

In the case of Maccoby (1976), in a study that involved interviewing 250 managers from some twelve companies in different parts of the United States, he found a consistency in a cluster of traits that were stimulated and reinforced in the specific organization being researched. Specific character types were apparent and Maccoby noted that "although there is leeway in any role for some difference in style, intelligence, and character, as one moves up in a competitive and selective organization, these variations become less important" (1976, p. 174). The managers" orientation to work had an underlying psychodynamic that saw them as "prisoners" to their work environment. La Bier (1983; 1986), sought to somewhat tease-out this psychodynamic. He undertook a socio-psychoanalytic study that took some seven years to complete which involved 230 people aged between 25 and 47 who worked in government bureaucracies in America. La Bier, a psychotherapist, was concerned with gaining an understanding of why many of his private patients that had successful careers were nevertheless emotionally troubled. He felt conventional psychological theories were less than satisfactory in their explanations of any links between career success and emotional problems. La Bier had previously assumed that these troubled careerists had "difficulty in adjusting to the realities and demands of work" (1986, p. 6). He thought that perhaps part of the origins of an explanation might relate to the issue of submitting oneself to authority - possibly a link to a childhood re-enactment of rebellion against a parental figure. However, after talking and working with Maccoby, La Bier shifted his focus to consider "the possibility that some of my patients were troubled by problems more within the realm of adult adaptation than childhood" (1986, p. vii).

La Bier interviewed individuals who were successful careerists but however exhibited "emotional problems" such as anxiety, depression, overuse of drugs and alcohol, etc. Despite these emotional problems, these individuals were not inwardly disturbed. He also interviewed those who were successful careerists that outwardly exhibited no signs of emotional problems.

What I discovered was that within this group were people who were very sick. Some were dominated by unconscious, irrational passions of power-lust, conquest, grandiosity, and destructiveness, or conversely by cravings for humiliation and domination. Yet their pathology did not seep into the arena of their daily working lives and on-the-job behaviour. They appeared very well-adapted to their work, very competent, and intellectually skilled. From the outside, perfectly "normal" (1986, p. 8).

The paradox that La Bier calls "Modern Madness" is that some people appear sick but are normal while others appear normal but are sick. La Bier explains this paradox in terms of the psychostructure of work and specifically argues that the "well-adapted winners" in their work show little sign of their sickness in their working situation "because their career environment, in effect, requires disturbed attitudes and passions for success" (1986, p. 7). The word "passion" was also seen by La Bier as significant as he argued "we have forgotten that our lives are often driven by hidden passions ... passions, in this sense, are forces within us which we may not comprehend or be aware of" (1986, p. 17). La Bier was to note that there was a consistency in a clustering of traits, or character types, in different levels of development in "head" and "heart" qualities. The conclusion was that, what I have dubbed in this paper as the "passion to please", was very strong such that some "qualities" were developed while others were not. The hallmarks of the narcissistic underpinning of what passes for "rational" behaviour were evident. Also evident was the way in which what passed as the "rational" in the work environment was intertwined with emotional fall-out in forms of psychopathologies.

In 1990 Carr (1991; 1993a; 1993b; 1994a; 1994b; 1998) commenced a study that involved some 100 principals employed in public schools in South Australia. These school principals were asked to complete a Clinical Analysis Questionnaire (CAQ - see Krug & Cattell, 1980) - the intention was to use the CAQ to identify those within the sample who were experiencing high levels of anxiety and depression. This group would then be interviewed, and dream analysis undertaken to help identify the various sources of their anxiety and depression. Thirty five of the ninety four who completed a valid CAQ return appeared to have a high level of anxiety and or depression (i.e., 37 percent). From its 272 questions the CAQ provides information in relation to 16 normal personality traits, 12 clinical factors and 9 second order factors -- including anxiety and depression. The responses are "scored" with reference to so-called "normative" tables to produce a (sten) score based on a scale that ranges from zero to ten. A score of 4.5 to 6.5 is considered average, with scores higher or lower than average having particular meanings. In relation to normal personality traits (e.g., warmth, intelligence, dominance, boldness, sensitivity, imagination etc.), the scores for the whole sample was clustered in the average range, including those with high levels of anxiety and depression. This contrasts with clusters of high scores for school teachers in the stereotypic traits of being warm, abstract thinkers, bold, sensitive, imaginative human beings. The contrast between the clusters of teachers and school principals suggested that the specific organisation-ideal for those positions induced a psychostructure that was different for the two groups of employees. Accordingly, it was argued that school principals had been forced into a managerial role that stimulated concern for technical efficiency rather than a fostering of traits that had been valued when they were a teacher. The organisation-ideal that the Education Department sought to impart to principals, stimulated and encouraged certain personality traits whilst suppressing, dampening or not approving of others -- a psychostructure. Clearly, one explanation for this is the psychological process of identification. The narcissistic underpinning that explained why principals were behaving this way was explicitly revealed in the second part of the study involving dream analysis. An illustrative example of what emerged from this analysis can be noted from the dreams provided by "John".

John is a mild mannered, energetic individual who has an abhorrence for violence. In his mid-forties, he is considered by many in the teaching profession to be one of the most successful school principals in South Australia. One rumour had it that there was a waiting list for staff wanting to transfer into his school. John's CAQ score on anxiety was 9.6. In an official report his psychiatrist had just described him as "living on overdrawn emotional resources". In this context the dreams John related might seem bizarre, or at least out of character.

"I dreamt that I was on the top of a hill and defending the "last post". I had a machine gun - a Gatling gun. I was defending me, I would suspect, there was never anyone else there but me..." John felt he was under siege from various work-related interest groups. In making associations with the dream he declared "I tend to identify with my work and I don"t know what I can do about it - in the sense that my work and I became part of the same thing. Me is also my work. Now a threat to my work then becomes a threat to me".

John described another dream that tended to wake him up and keep him awake. This dream was related to the competing demands being made of him. "I was trying to solve problems at school, in particular the competing demands of the School Council, the staff, the parents and of course the Education Department. I was fearful of not meeting the expectations of the Education Department and of the consequences I imagined would happen to me as a result of non-performance. The omnipotent father figure who came down like a ton of bricks..." Little commentary seems necessary, the psychodynamic processes associated with identity and narcissism, outlined earlier, would appear to be well illustrated in these dreams.

The collective voice of these studies is one that puts emotions and emotionality into any frame through which we seek to comprehend what occurs in organisations. Very clearly the involvement of individuals in an organisation, in the form of what I have called a "passion to please", does have a narcissistic underpinning which, as we noted earlier, is viewed as being a primitive and fundamental emotional tie. Equally clear, in the studies discussed in this paper, the passion to achieve the organisation-ideal is one that appeared to occupy centre stage. The recognition of emotion and emotionality as specifically presented in this paper is one that, in itself, has a number of significant implications and simultaneously points to some other broader issues. Let me conclude with a discussion of such considerations.

Living with the Passion to Please in Work Organisations: Implications and Concluding Remarks

This paper commenced by noting that all too commonly the organisation discourse presents a putative dichotomous choice of the realm of the rational versus that of emotion. This paper presents a case for the need to go beyond this dichotomous world and develop a greater appreciation of how the rational and the emotional can be "fused" or act in a co-existent and co-dependent fashion where one cannot be understood in the absence of the other. Acts of so called rationality may simply be an expression of a deeper, albeit unconscious realm, psychodynamic in which emotion and emotionality are significant. Conversely it is evident that emotion and emotionality can be seen as being a highly rational act when it is considered within the larger psychodynamic context.

Our models in the organisation discourse, thus far, lack the sophisticated appreciation of such dynamics. Forms of involvement in organisations, for example, have often been largely construed in terms of the notion of a psychological contract - a contract that was noted as being cast as an outcome of a mutually bargained process. This paper clearly identifies that it is largely the unconscious character (Baum, 1991, p. 265) that is involved in the "exchange" process in the organisation, and that this context is specific to an organisation, or form of work. This exchange process has, as its fundamental vehicle, an emotional "driver", i.e. narcissistic gratification. It is in such a context that the degree of choice and fairness in this exchange would be more accurately interpreted as "seducement" and has a complex psychodynamic involving the realm of emotion that includes "love". The lyrics of a pop song from the group American Breed aptly capture this dynamic i.e., "bend me, shape me, anyway you want me, as long as you love me it's alright" (Carr, 1993a). Accordingly, the idea of mutual choice appears absurd. As an extension of this line of thought one could add that the whole notion of power would seem to need some re-thinking in order to consider, not only how it is reproduced over the individual, but also how it is reproduced in the individual. A more sophisticated appreciation of psychodynamics in which emotion and the rational maybe intertwined or inter-related in a more complex fashion, would seem to suggest a need to reconsider some of the shibboleths of our field such as the notion of power.

A second fundamental issue that specifically arises from this paper is that much of the literature on work-related psychopathology has prescribed adaptation therapy for those so-called sick individuals. La Bier argues, correctly in my view, that one must "look beyond the presence or absence of symptoms per se and towards an understanding of the meaning of symptoms in relation to the forces of character" (1983, p. 417) that are promoted by experiencing a particular work environment. In the study by Carr, to have 37 percent of principals with anxiety and/or depression scores above the average for the general population, suggests that what they are being asked to "adapt to and become successful at" (La Bier, 1986, p. 194) may itself be "sick" (psychopathological) with fractured or contradictory organisational structures and processes. In the case of school principals it doesn"t seem to make sense to stimulate, encourage and promote them to principalship on the basis of their teaching excellence and pedagogical criteria if that expertise is then largely to be set aside in favour of skills and traits that focus upon managerial efficiency.

Arising from these specific group of studies that point the quest for an organisation-ideal and to the creation of a psychostructure, it would seem that the concept of "psychological audits" (Carr, 1993b) would appear a useful regular activity for an organisation. The term "regular" is used in order to move away from the idea that we should only enquire when there appears to be a reason to investigate, e.g., through superficial statistical information about the number of absences from work per employee etc. The earlier quote from La Bier makes it clear that the mere presence or absence of stress does not in itself mean that the psychological environment is a healthy one. The public record is littered with instances where the prohibitive aspect of the super-ego has been suspended in favour of the group ideals, e.g., Watergate in the United States, and in Australia, the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. Given the strong identification that may be induced by leaders in an organisation, that leadership, it seems to me, might be a good starting place for such audits. Indeed, leadership positions, by their very access to symbolic and material power, afford opportunities for individuals to engage in pathological or exaggerated forms of narcissism. It is in such a context that work practices, linked to subordinate-superordinate relationships that seek to transcend the emotional-rational "divide", may provide a fruitful understanding of the organisation more generally (see Diamond, 1992).

A further issue that appears to arise from this paper is a need to gain a more comprehensive appreciation of how personal/life experience and work-lives inter-relate. It is clearly the case that the work context can transform the character of an individual but what circumstances make the work context so potent? In this context it is interesting to note the results of a study by Brigitta Gold (1990), who used the CAQ in a manner similar to that of the principals" study. Gold investigated the gender differences in the personality profiles of managers in Germany. Apart from showing a slightly greater robustness, and marginally higher intelligence than their male counterparts, the female profiles were virtually identical to those of the males. In the principals" study there were no significant differences in the profiles on the basis of gender. This would seem, of itself, a particularly important issue in an era where there is an advocacy for more females in leadership positions because it is perceived that they bring to those positions a different (neglected) and valuable range of characteristics that are currently conspicuous by their absence. Clearly we need a thorough understanding of the factors that cause the "suspension" of these experiential characteristics but, again, more generally a conception of the human psyche that is more sophisticated than we have seen in the discourse thus far.

 

[bonddonraj]

The X Y and Z of Management Theory

Introduction:

Achieving a clear understanding of human nature is an important aspect of management in the work place. In order for managers and workers to work together as an effective and productive unit, the workers must know how they fit into the overall scheme of things, and the managers must have a clear understanding of how they can maximise productivity by supporting their employees through the appropriate leadership style. It is also extremely important for managers to realistically evaluate the working environment, as well as the characteristics of the task, in order to decide how he or she deals with and directs employees.

Aside from knowing how human nature dictates a worker's actions, the manager must also be aware of the specific working environment, personalities, and motivational forces, which drive employees. This can then be used to decide which actions are necessary to motivate the work force, and to obtain maximum productivity.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss two theorists, Douglas McGregor and William Ouchi, and the theories, which made them well known in the organisational development and management arenas. McGregor, with his "Theory X" and "Theory Y", and Ouchi, with the notion of a "Theory Z", both look at the attitudes of managers and workers with very similar, as well as contrasting views of how workers are perceived by management, and how workers perceive their role in the company. In these theories, the various authors discuss how each plays an important part in the understanding of workers by management. A comparison and contrast of these two theorists will be presented, which will show how each might view various aspects of the relationship which exists between management and workers, in such areas as motivation, leadership, power, authority, and conflict, to name a few.




Douglas McGregor - Theory X & Theory Y:

In 1960 Douglas McGregor defined contrasting assumptions about the nature of humans in the work place. These assumptions are the basis of Theory X and Theory Y teachings. Generally speaking, Theory X assumes that people are lazy and will avoid work whenever possible. Theory Y, on the other hand, assumes that people are creative and enjoy work (Goldman).

Although "X" and "Y" are the standard names given to McGregor's theories, it is also appropriate to mention here that other names for these management theories have been used as well, and are sometimes interchanged with "X" and "Y". For instance, one author refers to Theory X as "Autocratic Style", and Theory Y as "Participative Style" (DuBrin). Yet another author writes that Theory X and Theory Y are sometimes termed as "hard" and "soft" management, although careful to point out that these terms can be used incorrectly (Benson). This information is presented in order to illustrate the different terminologies, which have been used to describe McGregor's theories, and will be used in this paper as well.


Theory X:

Theory X basically holds the belief that people do not like work and that some kind of direct pressure and control must be exerted to get them to work effectively. These people require a rigidly managed environment, usually requiring threats of disciplinary action as a primary source of motivation. It is also held that employees will only respond to monetary rewards as an incentive to perform above the level of that which is expected (Bittel).

From a management point of view, autocratic (Theory X) managers like to retain most of their authority. They make decisions on their own and inform the workers, assuming that they will carry out the instructions. Autocratic managers are often called "authoritative" for this reason; they act as "authorities". This type of manager is highly task oriented, placing a great deal of concern towards getting the job done, with little concern for the worker's attitudes towards the manager's decision. This shows that autocratic managers lose ground in the work place, making way for leaders who share more authority and decision making with other members of the group (DuBrin).



Theory Y:
A more popular view of the relationship found in the work place between managers and workers, is explained in the concepts of Theory Y. This theory assumes that people are creative and eager to work. Workers tend to desire more responsibility than Theory X workers, and have strong desires to participate in the decision making process. Theory Y workers are comfortable in a working environment which allows creativity and the opportunity to become personally involved in organisational planning (Bittel).

Some assumptions about Theory Y workers are emphasised in one of the texts, namely that this type of worker is far more prevalent in the work place than are Theory X workers. For instance, it is pointed out that ingenuity, creativity, and imagination are increasingly present throughout the ranks of the working population. These people not only accept responsibility, but actively seek increased authority (Lee).

According to another of the authors studied for this project, in which the "participative" (Theory Y) leadership style is discussed, a participative leader shares decisions with the group. Also mentioned, are subtypes to this type of leader, namely the "Democratic" leader who allows the members of the working group to vote on decisions, and the "Consensual" leader who encourages group discussions and decisions which reflect the "consensus" of the group (DuBrin).



William Ouchi - Theory Z:
Another theory which has emerged, and deals with the way in which workers are perceived by managers, as well as how managers are perceived by workers, is William Ouchi's "Theory Z". Often referred to as the "Japanese" management style, Theory Z offers the notion of a hybrid management style which is a combination of a strict American management style (Theory A) and a strict Japanese management style (Theory J). This theory speaks of an organisational culture which mirrors the Japanese culture in which workers are more participative, and capable of performing many and varied tasks. Theory Z emphasises things such as job rotation, broadening of skills, generalisation versus specialisation, and the need for continuous training of workers (Luthans).

Much like McGregor's theories, Ouchi's Theory Z makes certain assumptions about workers. Some of the assumptions about workers under this theory include the notion that workers tend to want to build co-operative and intimate working relationships with those that they work for and with, as well as the people that work for them. Also, Theory Z workers have a high need to be supported by the company, and highly value a working environment in which such things as family, cultures and traditions, and social institutions are regarded as equally important as the work itself. These types of workers have a very well developed sense of order, discipline, moral obligation to work hard, and a sense of cohesion with their fellow workers. Finally, Theory Z workers, it is assumed, can be trusted to do their jobs to their utmost ability, so long as management can be trusted to support them and look out for their well being (Massie & Douglas).

One of the most important tenets of this theory is that management must have a high degree of confidence in its workers in order for this type of participative management to work. While this theory assumes that workers will be participating in the decisions of the company to a great degree, one author is careful to point out that the employees must be very knowledgeable about the various issues of the company, as well as possessing the competence to make those decisions. This author is also careful to point out, however, that management sometimes has a tendency to underestimate the ability of the workers to effectively contribute to the decision making process (Bittel). But for this reason, Theory Z stresses the need for enabling the workers to become generalists, rather than specialists, and to increase their knowledge of the company and its processes through job rotations and continual training. In fact, promotions tend to be slower in this type of setting, as workers are given a much longer opportunity to receive training and more time to learn the intricacies of the company's operations. The desire, under this theory, is to develop a work force, which has more of a loyalty towards staying with the company for an entire career, and be more permanent than in other types of settings. It is expected that once an employee does rise to a position of high level management, they will know a great deal more about the company and how it operates, and will be able to use Theory Z management theories effectively on the newer employees (Luthans).




Theory Analysis, Comparisons & Contrasts:

While several similarities and differences surround the ideas of these two theorists, the most obvious comparison is that they both deal with perceptions and assumptions about people. These perceptions tend to take the form of how management views employees, while Ouchi's Theory Z takes this notion of perceptions a bit farther and talks about how the workers might perceive management. Table 1 below shows a quick "snapshot" comparison and contrast of the two theorists, and how they might apply the concepts shown to their particular management theories.




Comparison & Contrast of Management Theorists
Table 1

Management
Concept
Douglas McGregor
(Theory X & Y)
William Ouchi
(Theory Z)

Motivation
Tends to categorise people as one type or another: either being unwilling or unmotivated to work, or being self motivated towards work. Threats and disciplinary action are thought to be used more effectively in this situation, although monetary rewards can also be a prime motivator to make Theory X workers produce more.
Believes that people are innately self motivated to not only do their work, but also are loyal towards the company, and want to make the company succeed.

Leadership
Theory X leaders would be more authoritarian, while Theory Y leaders would be more participative. But in both cases it seems that the managers would still retain a great deal of control.
Theory Z managers would have to have a great deal of trust that their workers could make sound decisions. Therefore, this type of leader is more likely to act as "coach", and let the workers make most of the decisions.

Power & Authority
As mentioned above, McGregor's managers, in both cases, would seem to keep most of the power and authority. In the case of Theory Y, the manager would take suggestions from workers, but would keep the power to implement the decision.
The manager's ability to exercise power and authority comes from the worker's trusting management to take care of them, and allow them to do their jobs. The workers have a great deal of input and weight in the decision making process.

Conflict
This type of manager might be more likely to exercise a great deal of "Power" based conflict resolution style, especially with the Theory X workers. Theory Y workers might be given the opportunity to exert "Negotiating" strategies to solve their own differences.
Conflict in the Theory Z arena would involve a great deal of discussion, collaboration, and negotiation. The workers would be the ones solving the conflicts, while the managers would play more of a "third party arbitrator" role.

Performance Appraisals
Appraisals occur on a regular basis. Promotions also occur on a regular basis.
Theory Z emphasises more frequent performance appraisals, but slower promotions.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


With respect to overall management style, McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y managers seem to have a much more formal leadership style than do Ouchi's Theory Z managers. McGregor's managers seem to both have different views of the workers, while their views of the tasks remains the same in both cases: that is, one of specialisation, and doing a particular task. Albeit that Theory Y suggests that the workers would become very good at their particular tasks, because they are free to improve the processes and make suggestions. Theory Z workers, on the other hand, tend to rotate their jobs frequently, and become more generalists, but at the same time become more knowledgeable about the overall scheme of things within the company. Several parallels indeed exist between these two theorists. Namely McGregor's Theory Y, and Ouchi's Theory Z both see the relationship between managers and workers in a very similar light. For instance, they both see managers as "coaches", helping the workers to be more participative in their endeavour to be more productive. They both are more group oriented than the Theory X assumptions, which seem to be more individual oriented. One of the most notable similarities between McGregor's Theory Y and Ouchi's Theory Z appears in the form of the type of motivation that makes the workers perform in a way that enables them to be more productive. While the Theory X worker is said to require coercion, threats, and possibly even disciplinary action, Theory Y and Theory Z workers are, again, self motivated. This allows them to focus on the task, and also their role within the company. Their desire is to be more productive and enable the company to succeed. Theory X workers, on the other hand, seem to have just enough self motivation to show up at work, punch the time clock, as it were, and do only that which is necessary to get the job done to minimum standards.





Summary & Conclusions:

Many assumptions are made in the work place, based on observations of the workers, and their relationship with management. The types of tasks being performed, as well as the types of employees which make up a particular organisation can set the stage for the types of leadership roles which will be assumed by managers. Theory X, which shows that workers are assumed to be lazy and do not want to work, seems to be giving way to theories, which suggest that workers tend to be more participative and creative. Creativity and motivation naturally lend themselves to a more effective organisation. While McGregor's Theory Y seems to address the more motivated type of employee, Ouchi's Theory Z seems to take that notion a step farther by implying that not only are assumptions about workers made, but assumptions about managers as well. That is to say that under Ouchi's theory, managers must be more supportive and trusting of their employees, in order to receive the benefit of increased participation in the decisions of the company. As is clearly seen by comparing and contrasting these two theorists, assumptions about people can be more clearly understood in order for managers and workers to make for a more productive environment in the work place

 

[bonddonraj]

What is a Group?
A group is:

“two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition”
(Vaughan & Hogg, 2002, p. 200)
a collection of people who interact with one another, accept rights and obligations as members and who share a common identity.
Criteria for a group include:

formal social structure
face-to-face interaction
2 or more persons
common fate
common goals
interdependence
self-definition as group members
recognition by others
Introduction to Group Dynamics
Human beings exhibit some characteristic behavior patterns in groups. People involved in managing groups and group members themselves can benefit from studying theories and doing practical exercises which help them to better understand people's behaviour in groups and group dynamics.

When group patterns are combined with study of individual development, then group dynamics can also be applied to education and therapy (as is often the case in experiential, outdoor and adventure education).

People may may underestimate the importance of society and group memberships on their lives. Whilst people sometimes undertake solo journeys ut by and large much of our experiences of life involve being engaged with others and groups. The nature of these groups can be quite varied, from a family going for a walk, to the crowd at a football game, to an internet discussion group, to a group of fellow workers.

Given the diverse, yet common occurrence of groups, what is the nature and pattern of such group experiences? The social dynamics which occur within groups over time vary from group to group, but also illustrate some commonalities.

A classic example is the issue of what happens to groups over time? For example, Tuckman's (1965) forming, storming, norming, performing model of group development is commonly used to describe the evolving experience and organization of adventure-based groups

 

[bonddonraj]

Group dynamics
The term 'group dynamics' refers to the types of interaction which take place within groups.

Sociograms
Typically, in the observation of such interactions, a sociogram will be used, something like that shown in the window The sociogram will be filled in by one or more observers during the group interaction. It can take quite a lot of practice to get it right and it's generally a good idea to have more than one observer.

Sociograms are used as a way of recording the interactions between members of a group. Typically, circles will be drawn to represent the group members and a tally of their inputs will be kept in the circles. Arrows represent the direction of communication flow in the group, with thicker arrows being used to represent heavier communication flow. Where a member addresses the group in general, rather than a particular member, arrows are shown pointing outwards to reflect that.

Bales' interaction process analysis
The sociogram reveals the direction and intensity of communication, but doesn't tell us anything about what has been communicated. This is where Bales' Interaction Process Analysis can be helpful (click here to reveal the graphic).

It's worth taking some time to study Bales' categories:

Task and emotional responses
As you can see, there are twelve categories, which fall into two principal groups:

4 to 9 being concerned with the task itself; these are further subdivided into two categories:
4 to 6 are concerned with giving information
7 to 9 are concerned with asking for information
1, 2, 3 and 10 ,11, 12 being concerned with emotional responses; these are also subdivided into two categories:
1 to 3 are positive emotional responses
10 to 12 are negative emotional responses
Paired categories
All of the categories can also be grouped in pairs:

a) 6 & 7: orientation - setting out the problem and giving factual information
b) 5 & 8: opinion - evaluation: 'Have we done that?' We ought to make sure that we do this.' etc., generally any comment that involves summarizing the issues that have to be faced, taking stock of the situation
c) 4 & 9 control - 'I think we ought to do this', 'How do you think we ought to tackle this?' etc. In fact, asking for suggestions, so 'control' seems an odd word to use. Actually, though, making suggestions in this way is tantamount to getting the other group members to commit themselves. Since that would limit their future choices, it may be felt as a method of bringing them under control and may therefore be resented.
d) 3 & 10 acceptance or rejection
e) 2 & 11 emotional responses only - Bales gives the example here of a member sighing heavily and examining his fingernails
f) 1 & 12 integration - how well do the group members cohere? Here Bales gives (as 12) the example of a man who makes an offensive remark directed at another member; however the laughter which follows is classified under 2
(cited in Sprott (1958))

Observation chart
The observer is provided with an observation chart on which all the participants' contributions are recorded (if you haven't already seen such a chart based on Bales' IPA, it's worth taking a quick look: ). This will be supplemented by some method of recording the direction of the communications, such as a sociogram.

General findings
It emerges from such observation that a group has two tasks:

reaching agreement on a solution
maintaining the group cohesion

 

[bonddonraj]

Group Dynamics
A group is two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by each other person (Shaw M E 1976, Group Dynamics).

For a collection of people to be defined as a group, the members must:

interact with one another
be socially attracted to each other
share goals or objectives
have a shared identity which distinguishes them from other groups
The social mixing of a sports club is termed "Social Cohesion" and a group with shared formal goals who are normally successful as a group (e.g. the 8 rowers in a boat race) is referred to as "Task Cohesion
Group development
The development of a group normally goes through the following stages:

Forming - the group gets together and a level of formality is common
Storming- heightened tension associated with competition for status and influence
Norming - rules and standards of behavior are agreed
Performing - group matures to a point where it is able to work together as a team
There are many different forms of interaction in a group. We have social interaction (formation of friends) and task interaction (the way the members co-operate to achieve goals)

Cohesion
This is the extent to which members of a group exhibit a desire to achieve common goals and group identity. Research tends to support the view that high interaction teams need high task cohesion to be consistently successful, whereas for moderate or low interaction teams cohesion is less important to success. Again, we have social cohesion, extent to which members of the group get on with one another, and task cohesion, the extent to which members cooperate to achieve the group's goals. The following factors affect cohesion:

Stability - Cohesion develops the longer a group is together with the same members
Similarity- Cohesion develops when the more similar the group members are in terms of age, sex, skills and attitudes
Size - Cohesion develops more quickly in small groups
Support - Cohesive teams tend to have managers and coaches who provide support to team members and encourage them to support one another
Satisfaction- Cohesion is associated with the extent to which team members are pleased with each others performance, behaviour and conformity to the norms of the team
Carron (1980) defined a cohesive group as having the following characteristics:

a collective identity
a sense of shared purpose
structured patterns of communication
Loafing
Loafing is the tendency for individuals to lessen their effort when they are part of a group - also known as Ringelmann effect. Causes of loafing in a team have been attributed to individuals:

perceiving others to be working less hard than themselves thereby giving them an excuse to put in less effort
believing that their own efforts will have little effect on the outcome
disliking hard work and assuming that their lack of effort will not be noticed
feeling "off form" and believing team mates will cover for their lack of effort

 

[bonddonraj]

--------========

 

[bonddonraj]

— Personality consists of broad dispositions, called traits, that tend to lead to characteristic responses. People can be described in terms of the basic ways they behave, such as whether the are outgoing and friendly, or whether they are dominant and assertive.

Basic Five Factors

Emotional stability
Being calm rather than anxious, secures rather then insecure, self-satisfied than self-pitying.
Extraversion
Sociable instead of retiring, fun-loving instead of sober, and affectionate instead of reserved.
Openness
Imaginative rather than practical, preferring variety to routine, and being independent rather than conforming
Agreeableness
Being softhearted, not ruthless, trusting, not suspicious, and helpful not uncooperative.
Conscientiousness
Being organized rather than disorganized, careful rather then careless, and disciplined, not impulsive.
Individualism — Giving priority to personal goals rather then to group goals; it emphasizes values that serve the self such as feeling good, personal distinction, and independence.

Collectivism — Emphasizes values that serve the group by subordinate personal goals to preserve group integrity.



Assumptions
People are born with inherited traits.

Some traits are particularly suited to leadership.

People who make good leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination of traits.

Description
Early research on leadership was based on the psychological focus of the day, which was of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was thus put on discovering these traits, often by studying successful leaders, but with the underlying assumption that if other people could also be found with these traits, then they, too, could also become great leaders.

Stogdill (1974) identified the following traits and skills as critical to leaders.



Traits Skills
Adaptable to situations
Alert to social environment
Ambitious and achievement-orientated
Assertive
Cooperative
Decisive
Dependable
Dominant (desire to influence others)
Energetic (high activity level)
Persistent
Self-confident
Tolerant of stress
Willing to assume responsibility
Clever (intelligent)
Conceptually skilled
Creative
Diplomatic and tactful
Fluent in speaking
Knowledgeable about group task
Organised (administrative ability)
Persuasive
Socially skilled




McCall and Lombardo (1983) researched both success and failure identified four primary traits by which leaders could succeed or 'derail':

Emotional stability and composure: Calm, confident and predictable, particularly when under stress.
Admitting error: Owning up to mistakes, rather than putting energy into covering up.
Good interpersonal skills: Sble to communicate and persuade others without resort to negative or coercive tactics.
Intellectual breadth: Able to understand a wide range of areas, rather than having a narrow (and narrow-minded) area of expertise.

 

[bonddonraj]

Johari Window

The Johari Window, named after the first names of its inventors, Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham, is one of the most useful models describing the process of human interaction. A four paned "window," as illustrated above, divides personal awareness into four different types, as represented by its four quadrants: open, hidden, blind, and unknown. The lines dividing the four panes are like window shades, which can move as an interaction progresses.

In this model, each person is represented by their own window. Let's describe mine:

1. The "open" quadrant represents things that both I know about myself, and that you know about me. For example, I know my name, and so do you, and if you have explored some of my website, you know some of my interests. The knowledge that the window represents, can include not only factual information, but my feelings, motives, behaviors, wants, needs and desires... indeed, any information describing who I am. When I first meet a new person, the size of the opening of this first quadrant is not very large, since there has been little time to exchange information. As the process of getting to know one another continues, the window shades move down or to the right, placing more information into the open window, as described below.

2. The "blind" quadrant represents things that you know about me, but that I am unaware of. So, for example, we could be eating at a restaurant, and I may have unknowingly gotten some food on my face. This information is in my blind quadrant because you can see it, but I cannot. If you now tell me that I have something on my face, then the window shade moves to the right, enlarging the open quadrant's area. Now, I may also have blindspots with respect to many other much more complex things. For example, perhaps in our ongoing conversation, you may notice that eye contact seems to be lacking. You may not say anything, since you may not want to embarrass me, or you may draw your own inferences that perhaps I am being insincere. Then the problem is, how can I get this information out in the open, since it may be affecting the level of trust that is developing between us? How can I learn more about myself? Unfortunately, there is no readily available answer. I may notice a slight hesitation on your part, and perhaps this may lead to a question. But who knows if I will pick this up, or if your answer will be on the mark.

3. The "hidden" quadrant represents things that I know about myself, that you do not know. So for example, I have not told you, nor mentioned anywhere on my website, what one of my favorite ice cream flavors is. This information is in my "hidden" quadrant. As soon as I tell you that I love "Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia" flavored ice cream, I am effectively pulling the window shade down, moving the information in my hidden quadrant and enlarging the open quadrant's area. Again, there are vast amounts of information, virtually my whole life's story, that has yet to be revealed to you. As we get to know and trust each other, I will then feel more comfortable disclosing more intimate details about myself. This process is called: "Self-disclosure."

4. The "unknown" quadrant represents things that neither I know about myself, nor you know about me. For example, I may disclose a dream that I had, and as we both attempt to understand its significance, a new awareness may emerge, known to neither of us before the conversation took place. Being placed in new situations often reveal new information not previously known to self or others. For example, I learned of the Johari window at a workshop conducted by a Japanese American psychiatrist in the early 1980's. During this workshop, he created a safe atmosphere of care and trust between the various participants. Usually, I am terrified of speaking in public, but I was surprised to learn that in such an atmosphere, the task need not be so daunting. Prior to this event, I had viewed myself and others had also viewed me as being extremely shy. (The above now reminds me of a funny joke, which I cannot refrain from telling you. It is said that the number one fear that people have is speaking in public. Their number two fear is dying. And the number three fear that people have, is dying while speaking in public.) Thus, a novel situation can trigger new awareness and personal growth. The process of moving previously unknown information into the open quadrant, thus enlarging its area, has been likened to Maslow's concept of self-actualization. The process can also be viewed as a game, where the open quadrant is synonymous with the win-win situation.

Much, much more has been written on the Johari window model of human interaction. The process of enlarging the open quadrant is called self-disclosure, a give and take process between me and the people I interact with. Typically, as I share something about myself (moving information from my hidden quadrant into the open) and if the other party is interested in getting to know me, they will reciprocate, by similarly disclosing information in their hidden quadrant. Thus, an interaction between two parties can be modeled dynamically as two active Johari windows. For example, you may respond to my disclosure that I like "Cherry Garcia" by letting me know what your favorite ice cream is, or where a new ice cream shop is being built, kinds of information in your hidden quadrant. Incidentally, it is fattening, so be careful on how much you eat!

We believe disclosure to be healthy, at least that's the impression one gets after reading Freud. However, Anita Kelly recently wrote that self-disclosure of personal secrets has its dangers. We are often better off not telling secrets regarding our sexual behavior, mental health problems or large-scale failures. "If you give people information about yourself, you give them power over you," she says. Monica Lewinsky's disclosure to Linda Tripp and the ensuing scandal that enveloped President Clinton is a case in point. Be forewarned that most secrets get passed along to at least two more parties. People also misjudge how others respond to secrets. Sometimes you get negative feedback. For example, a women who reveals that she was raped may be seen in the future as a victim, or by men as damaged goods. Now, if you must tell your secret to someone, chose that person very carefully. Chose someone whose response will give you some insight into your problem. Unfortunately, such a person is often hard to find. So if you cannot find anyone appropriate, consider this: that keeping secrets is healthy and tasteful, because it is a way of managing your identity, and indicates you are secure and have self-control. But it takes energy, because you have to be on constant guard not to accidentally reveal something that is potentially damaging.

As ones level of confidence and self esteem develops, one may actively invite others to comment on one's blind spots. A teacher may seek feedback from students on the quality of a particular lecture, with the desire of improving the presentation. Active listening skills are helpful in this endeavor. On the other hand, we all have defenses, protecting the parts of ourselves that we feel vulnerable. Remember, the blind quadrant contains behavior, feelings and motivations not accessible to the person, but which others can see. Feelings of inadequacy, incompetence, impotence, unworthiness, rejection, guilt, dependency, ambivalence for loved ones, needs to control and manipulate, are all difficult to face, and yet can be seen by others. To forcibly reveal what another wishes not to see, is "psychological rape," and can be traumatic. Fortunately, nature has provided us with a variety of defense mechanisms to cope with such events, such as denial, ignoring, rationalizing, etc.

The Johari window, essentially being a model for communication, can also reveal difficulties in this area. In Johari terms, two people attempt to communicate via the open quadrants. On the simplest level, difficulties may arise due to a lack of clarity in the interaction, such as poor grammar or choice of words, unorganized thoughts, faulty logic etc. This induces the receiver to criticize you, the sender, by revealing something that was in your blind quadrant. Then, if the feedback works, you correct it immediately, or perhaps on a more long term approach take a course in reading and writing. On a deeper level, you may be in a group meeting, and while you secretly sympathize with the minority viewpoint, you voted with the majority. However, blind to you, you actually may be communicating this information via body language, in conflict with your verbal message. On an even deeper level, you in an interaction with others, may always put on a smiling, happy face, hiding all negative feelings. By withholding negative feelings, you may be signaling to your friends to withhold also, and keep their distance. Thus, your communication style may seem bland or distant.

And let's not forget the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Our society is constructed so that many of us get very specialized, knowing only a small academic field very well, while being virtually ignorant of all others. This specialization is blinding many of us to what is happening in the world today. According to R. Buckminister Fuller, this system of education was done on purpose, to channel the most intelligent people into specialties, enabling them to be more easily controlled. Noam Chomsky has made similar comments with regards to the manufacturing enterprise, and how Adam Smith's writings have been purposely misrepresented

 

[bonddonraj]

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory




Description
Leader-Member Exchange Theory, also called LMX or Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory, describes how leaders in groups maintain their position through a series of tacit exchange agreements with their members.

In-group and out-group
In particular, leaders often have a special relationship with an inner circle of trusted lieutenants, assistants and advisors, to whom they give high levels of responsibility, decision influence, and access to resources. This in-group pay for their position. They work harder, are more committed to task objectives, and share more administrative duties. They are also expected to be fully committed and loyal to their leader. The out-group, on the other hand, are given low levels of choice or influence.

This also puts constraints upon the leader. They have to nurture the relationship with their inner circle whilst balancing giving them power with ensuring they do not have enough to strike out on their own.

The LMX process
These relationships, if they are going to happen, start very soon after a person joins the group and follow three stages.

1. Role taking
The member joins the team and the leader assesses their abilities and talents. Based on this, the leader may offer them opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities.

Another key factor in this stage is the discovery by both parties of how the other likes to be respected.

2. Role making
In the second phase, the leader and member take part in an unstructured and informal negotiation whereby a role is created for the member and the often-tacit promise of benefit and power in return for dedication and loyalty takes place.

Trust-building is very important in this stage, and any felt betrayal, especially by the leader, can result in the member being relegated to the out-group.

This negotiation includes relationship factors as well as pure work-related ones, and a member who is similar to the leader in various ways is more likely to succeed. This perhaps explains why mixed gender relationships regularly are less successful than same-gender ones (it also affects the seeking of respect in the first stage). The same effect also applies to cultural and racial differences.

3. Routinization
In this phase, a pattern of ongoing social exchange between the leader and the member becomes established.

Success factors
Successful members are thus similar in many ways to the leader (which perhaps explains why many senior teams are all white, male, middle-class and middle-aged). They work hard at building and sustaining trust and respect.

To help this, they are empathetic, patient, reasonable, sensitive, and are good at seeing the viewpoint of other people (especially the leader). Aggression, sarcasm and an egocentric view are keys to the out-group wash-room.

The overall quality of the LMX relationship varies with several factors. Curiously, it is better when the challenge of the job is extremely high or extremely low. The size of the group, financial resource availability and the overall workload are also important.

Onwards and upwards
The principle works upwards as well. The leader also gains power by being a member of their manager's inner circle, which then can then share on downwards. People at the bottom of an organization with unusual power may get it from an unbroken chain of circles up to the hierarchy.

So what?
Using it
When you join a team, work hard to also join the inner circle. Take on more than your share of administrative and other tasks. Demonstrate unswerving loyalty. See your leader's point of view. Be reasonable and supportive in your challenges to them, and pick your moments carefully.

As a leader, pick your inner circle with care. Reward them for their loyalty and hard work, whilst being careful about maintaining commitment of other people.

Defending
If you want to be an 'ordinary' member of a team, play your part carefully. There will be others with more power. If you want to lead an equal team, beware of those who curry favor

 

[bonddonraj]

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

LMX theory is favoured as a useful model by many organisations, consultants and others. Explains how the relationships with various members can develop in very different ways. It provides a way to understand these processes. Leaders develop relationships with each member of the group they lead. There is an important distinction between leadership and authority is and the theory suggests that successful leadership is characterised by 'high LMX'. It is an interesting perspective that emphasises the role of communication and relationships between the leader and members of the group.

Leaders develop different relationships with each member of their work group.
A high quality relationship results in member feeling is part of "in-group. They will have more responsibility, decision influence, higher satisfaction and access to valuable resources. There is trust and support, shared goals and initiative beyond the everyday job. They are the in-group.
A low quality LMX relationship occurs when a member feels in the "out-group". The leader offering low levels of support to the member, and the person has less responsibility and less ability to influence decisions. Lack of trust, few shared goals, few rewards. The quality of the LMX relationship is said to be related to work and attitudinal outcomes.
Leader-member relationships emerge as the result of a series of exchanges / interactions during which these roles develop.
The role formation process involves three phases.
Phase 1: Role-taking
Leaders and members must each understand how the other views and desires respect.
Phase 2: Role-making
trust must be developed in order for leaders and members to further develop the relationship and influence each other's attitudes and behaviors
Phase 3: Role-routinization
social exchange pattern becomes routine

The role formation process develops through a mechanism referred to as "negotiating latitude."
In addition to work-related variables, the leader's and the member's affective responses to their initial interaction are important components in the LMX relationship. They are influenced by the perceived similarity between the leader and the member. The more that they see themselves as similar, the more they will like each other and the more likely they are to develop a high quality relationship. Perspective taking is a key element and people high on these 3 aspects (below) usually have higher quality LMX .
1. accurate in ability to perceive how others understand and respond to world
2. can view situations from many perspectives
3. able to perceive other's perspective in depth

 

[bonddonraj]

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX):
Level of Negotiating Latitude and Job Satisfaction


Abstract

The first studies of Leader-member exchange (LMX) were done using a unidimensional approach. Some thirty years later, the approach has evolved. We now view these relationships with a multidimensional approach. The results of this research identify which of four domains of LMX have higher relations with what is measured. In this case, we measure the satisfaction of employees in their job. By using this approach, the author gathered data from 68 bank tellers and identified which domains have a higher correlation with job satisfaction.


The Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered in the interaction between leaders and followers. According to Yukl (1998), LMX describes how a leader and an individual subordinate develop a relationship as they influence each other and negotiate the subordinate’s role in the organization. As the relationship develops, the latitude given to the subordinate by the supervisor can increase. This latitude, which makes the exchange greater is linked to empowerment. Sparrowe (1994) found a significant association between LMX and member perceptions of the degree of empowerment. As a consequence, LMX is positively associated with favorable attitudes such as job satisfaction. This research is about the link that exists between LMX and job satisfaction through the degree of latitude given to the employee by the supervisor.

Statement of the problem
The proposed study will address the following problem: How does the quality in the Leader-member exchange influence the member towards job satisfaction? Specific research questions within this problem are as follows:
1. What is the effect of empowerment (through LMX) on subordinate job satisfaction?

2. Based on the LMX theory, what is the proper mix of relational characteristics to promote better satisfied followers?


According to LMX theory, the nature of differences in leader-member relationships is the “negotiating latitude” that the leader allows the member (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Negotiating latitude is based on (a) the leader’s willingness to allow changes in the member’s job and (b) regardless of the leader’s formal authority, his or her inclination to use position power to help the member solve work-related problems (Dansereau et al., 1975). Several studies have suggested that the negotiating latitude of the member is positively related to the member’s satisfaction with the leader (Dansereau et al., 1975; Scandura & Graen, 1984).

Definition of terms
During the course of this research, special terms are employed. In order to have a better understanding of these terms, some definitions are provided.
Leader-member exchange:

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, describes the role making process between a leader and an individual subordinate. In addition, the theory describes how leaders develop different exchange relationships over time with various subordinates. LMX theory was formerly called the vertical dyad linkage theory because of its focus on reciprocal influence processes within vertical dyads composed of one person who has direct authority over another person. (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975: 47; Graen & Cashman, 1975: 143).

Latitude:

Authority granted to a member implies control of the latitude for its use. Superiors must decide on the amount of latitude to grant to various members on specific tasks. Some members may be required to gain approval at short intervals whereas others may be allowed to proceed for long periods without reporting. Furthermore, even complex tasks can be rendered trivial by overly specific instructions and short reporting periods with low latitude. Latitude represents a potentially rich area of the discovery of position resources.

Job satisfaction:
Job satisfaction is an attitude that individuals maintain about their jobs. This attitude is developed from their perceptions of their jobs. A major goal of studying job satisfaction is to better understand the complexities of these variables and their impact on job satisfaction. Such an investigation may enable managers to understand how employees form the attitudes that affect their job satisfaction. There is a suggestion that five essential dimensions help to measure job satisfaction: the job itself, pay, promotion opportunities, supervision, and co-workers (Pool, 1997).


Affect:
The mutual affection members of the dyad have for each other based primarily on interpersonal attraction, rather than work or professional values. Such affection may be manifested in the desire for and/or occurrence of a relationship which has personally rewarding components and outcomes (e.g., a friendship).


Loyalty:

The expression of public support for the goals and the personal character of the other member of the LMX dyad. Loyalty involves a faithfulness to the individual that is generally consistent from situation to situation.


Contribution:

Perception of the current level of work-oriented activity each member puts forth toward the mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad. Important in the evaluation of work-oriented activity is the extent to which the subordinate member of the dyad handles responsibility and completes tasks that extend beyond the job description and/or employment contract: and likewise, the extent to which the supervisor provides resources and opportunities for such activity.


Professional Respect:

Perception of the degree to which each member of the dyad has built a reputation, within and/or outside the organization, of excelling at his or her line of work. This perception may be based on historical data concerning the person, such as: personal experience with the individual: comments made about the person from individual within or outside the organization; and awards or other professional recognition achieved by the person. Thus it is possible, though not required, to have developed a perception of professional respect before working with or even meeting the person.

Affect, Loyalty, Contribution, and Professional Respect (Liden, Maslyn, 1998: 45)


Intrinsic

Belonging to the real nature of a thing; not dependent on external circumstances; essential; inherent. (Webster’s) Type of work, achievement, ability utilization. (Weiss, 1967: 4)


Extrinsic

Not really belonging to the thing with which it is connected; not inherent (Webster’s) Environmental factors like working conditions, supervision, co-workers, company. (Weiss, 1967: 4)


REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Early studies
Research exploring the leader-member exchange (LMX) model of leadership suggests that leaders may develop very different relationships with different members of the same work unit (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). LMX theory was first described 25 years ago in the works of Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1975), Graen and Cashman (1975), and Graen (1976). Since it first appeared it has undergone several revisions, and it continues to be of interest to researchers who study the leadership process (Yukl 1998).
According to Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne (1997), the LMX model is grounded in role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), which suggests that organizational members accomplish their work through roles or sets of behaviors that are expected of position holders. Focusing on how roles develop, Graen (1976) suggested that roles are not solely determined by written job descriptions or other formal documents. Rather, he contends that members’ roles develop through informal processes, referred to as role-making process.

Research into Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory has been gaining momentum in recent years, with a multitude of studies investigating many aspects of LMX in organizations (Graen, Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, Wayne, 1997). LMX, which is associated with Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) has been refocused because the structures in organizations are changing. Structures are no longer relying exclusively on hierarchy to report the exchange between a leader and a follower.
According to Northouse (1997: 110), prior to LMX theory, researchers treated leadership as something leaders did toward all of their followers. This assumption implied that leaders treated followers in a collective way, as a group, using an average leadership style. The LMX theory challenged this assumption and directed researchers’ attention to the differences that might exist between the leader and each of her or his followers.
In the first studies of exchange theory, which was then called vertical dyad linkage (VDL) theory, researchers focused on the nature of the vertical linkages leaders formed with each of their followers. A leader’s relationship to the work unit as a whole was viewed as a series of vertical dyads. In assessing the characteristics of these vertical dyads, researchers found two general types of linkages (or relationships): those that were based on expanded and negotiated role responsibilities (extra-roles), which were called the in-group, and a second set that were based on the formal employment contract (defined roles), which were called the out-group.

Subordinates in the in-group receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders than do out-group subordinates. In addition, they are more dependable, more highly involved, and more communicative than out-group subordinates. Whereas in-group members do extra things for the leader and the leader does the same for them, subordinates in the out-group are less compatible with the leader and usually just come to work, do their job, and go home. What began as an alternative to average leadership style (Dansereau et al., 1975) has progressed to a prescription for generating more effective leadership through the development and maintenance of mature leadership relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991).

According to Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp (1982), research on role-making in leader-member dyads has indicated a consistent pattern characterized by distinct leader-member exchanges. In exchange for positional resources (e.g., privileged information, challenging projects), the member commits himself/herself to higher degrees of involvement in the unit’s functioning, including greater time and energy expenditures than required by the formal contract, acceptance of greater responsibility, and a vested interest in the success of unit functioning (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen, 1976; Liden & Graen, 1980).
According to Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995), despite many years of leadership research and thousands of studies, we still do not have a clear understanding of what leadership is and how it can be achieved. In particular, there appear to be many theories that address different aspects of leadership but little cohesion among the theories that help us understand how they all tie together. They argue that leadership involves three domains which are leaders, followers and the relationship. This is why it is hard to identify different leadership styles and we should try to understand leadership from the perspective of those three domains. This brings the concept of LMX because it links these domains instead of thinking that leadership is only linked to the leader.
Strengths of LMX

Leader-Member Exchange offers a more focused solution to a broad leadership style theory. Leadership style theories have been studied since1939 when Lewin, Lippitt, and White were the first to identify three leadership styles that continue to be important: the autocratic style where the leader defines goals, gives orders and changes the group’s course of action as the leader sees fit without much consultation with group members; the democratic style, which seems to have taken on the less politicized name facilitative style over the years, appears to have become the prototype for participative management; the laissez-faire style is closer to non-leadership than anything else. The leader tends to relinquish most forms of control, which has the effect of giving group members maximum discretion over their own work, but at the expense of no support from management. In 1985, Bass developed a theory of transformational leadership, distinguishing between transformational and transactional leadership styles.
LMX theory makes several positive contributions to our understanding of the leadership process. According to Northouse (1997: 116), there are four strengths to the leader-member exchange theory:
First, it is a strong descriptive theory. Intuitively it makes sense to describe work units in terms of those who contribute more and those who contribute less or the bare minimum to the organization. Second, LMX theory is unique because it is the only leadership approach that makes the concept of the dyadic relationship the centerpiece of the leadership process. Third, LMX theory is noteworthy because it directs our attention to the importance of communication in leadership. Fourth, there is a large body of research that substantiates how the practice lo LMX theory is related to positive organizational outcomes. In a review of this research, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) point out that it is related to performance, organizational commitment, job climate, innovation, organizational citizenship behavior, empowerment, procedural and distributive justice, career progress, and many other important organizational variables.

Criticisms
McClane, (1991) argues that role differentiation and satisfaction are correlated. Greater role differentiation would have higher average satisfaction with the leader, group and co-workers than groups without such role differentiation. This means that in-groups should receive more praise and more attention than out-groups. The LMX theory would then be going against what we are being taught and that is to not form groups or cliques that would discriminate against certain persons.

According to Northouse (1997), a second criticism of LMX theory is that the basic ideas of the theory are not fully developed. For example, it fails to explain fully the way high-quality leader-member exchanges are created. In the early studies it was implied that they were formed because a leader found certain subordinates more compatible in regard to personality, interpersonal skills, or job competencies, but these studies never described the relative importance of these factors or how this process worked (Yukl, 1994).
A third criticism comes from Liden, Wayne & Stilwell (1993: 662) who say that:
One important gap in LMX research is the lack of understanding of the LMX developmental process (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Only a few studies have focused on the LMX developmental process (Dansereau et al., 1975; ). In essence, the leader and subordinate behaviors involved in the development of LMXs have not been empirically delineated (House & Baetz, 1979; Jablin, 1987).

Another criticism of LMX is described in Dienesch and Liden’s (1986: 623) research on LMX Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development in which they say:

A survey of the literature reveals that leader-member exchange has been operationalized in a number of diferent ways. LMX has been measured with 2-item (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1975), 4-item (e.g., Graen & Schiemann, 1978; Liden & Graen, 1980), 5-item (e.g., Graen, Liden & Hoel, 1982) 7-item (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Seers & Graen, 1984), 10-item (Ridolphi & Seers, 1984), and 12-item (Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984) scales. None of these scales is based on either systematic psychometric study or explicit construct validation. In addition, in several studies (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980) some of the dependent measures appear to be alternative measure of LMX rather than true dependent variables. For example, leadership attention, personal sensitivity, work sensitivity and support were treated as dependent variables when they appear to be highly related to the items used to measure LMX. This may explain why items used previously as dependent measures appeared to serve better in later studies as additional measures of LMX (Ridolphi & Seers, 1984; Seers & Graen, 1984; Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984). Given these problems, there is clearly a need to develop and validate a standardized, psychometrically sound measure of LMX to be used in future research.


The most recent criticism is about the unidimensional measure scale from Graen & Uhl-Bien and their different scale versions to measure LMX. Coleman (1998: 146) goes on to say that:
The suggestion that one 7-item scale can capture all of these transactions, although perhaps plausible, raises questions for me as it did for Dienesch and Liden (1986). I believe that it is time to be more specific about the exchanges that may occur between leaders and followers at different levels. The idea here would be to develop new measures for exchange at different levels and then test whether the hypothesized levels apply. I suspect that Graen and Uhl-Bien seem to believe they have already accomplished this with just one scale. I disagree.

This argument has also found interest from Liden & Maslyn (1998). They developed a multidimensional scale called LMX-MDM. This scale is used to measure LMX from four different dimensions which are affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect. In 1986, Dienesch & Liden had identified three dimensions which were: perceived contribution, loyalty and affect. Further discussions of this development can be found in the following section.

Multidimensionality of LMX
Leader-member exchange theory suggests that leaders do not use the same style in dealing with all subordinates, but rather develop a different type of relationship or exchange with each subordinate. Much research suggest that LMX is unidimensional (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Others say that it is multidimensional (Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Liden & Maslyn (1998: 44) suggest that :
Role theory, which has provided the theoretical foundation for LMX research (e.g., Graen, 1976) stresses that roles are multidimensional (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Jacobs, 1971). For example, some subordinates may focus on their tasks, while neglecting social interaction, some may stress social interaction and not tasks, and others may be weak or strong on both dimensions (Bales, 1958). Leaders’ roles are also comprised of multiple factors, including such activities as supervision, allocating resources, and serving as a liaison (Kim & Yukl, 1995; Tsui, 1984).



From the literature of Brass & Burkhardt (1992), Krackhardt (1990) and Sparrowe, Liden & Wayne (1997), there is a suggestion that exchange relationships between individuals appear to be multidimensional. Thus, both roles and exchanges between role occupants appear to be characterized by multiple dimensions (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Dienesch and Liden (1986: 625) suggest that LMXs may be based on varying amounts of three currencies of exchange. Task related behaviors (labeled contribution), loyalty to each other (labeled loyalty), and simply liking one another (labeled affect). These authors proposed that an exchange might be based on one, two, or all three of these dimensions.
These three dimensions act as “currencies of exchange” which both parties in an LMX can bring to the relationship. These dimensions are not the only one that could be hypothesized (cf., Gergen, Greenberg, & Willis, 1980). However, these are grounded in an established concept (mutuality) and invoke constructs (i.e., loyalty and affect) that have been extensively researched. Therefore, these dimensions provide a good starting point for empirical research on the dimensionality issue.

1. In most LMX relationships the factors should be mutually reinforcing through an ongoing reciprocal process. For example, a subordinate who shows strong loyalty is likely to be rewarded with task opportunities which allow him or her, in turn, to make a greater contribution to the relationship. Furthermore, subordinates who are seen as good performers are generally better liked by their superiors (Wortman & Lisenmeier, 1977), thereby, elevating the affect dimension of the relationship.

2. Since the LMX does involve an evaluative/attribution step, a halo effect (see Cooper, 1981, for a comprehensive review) can be expected to increase the correlation between the dimensions.

3. In some leader-subordinate dyads, the dimensions could act in a compensatory fashion. As one example, low contribution to a relationship may be offset by a very high degree of loyalty (the classic “yes-man” so often portrayed in fiction about organizations) The above points are speculative; the amount and type of interaction between the dimensions in an important topic for future research.


Liden & Maslyn (1998) developed a new scale for measuring leader-member exchange. The scale is called LMX-MDM. It has twelve questions to be answered on a Likert like scale. There are four categories comprising each three questions. These categories are: Affect, Loyalty, Contribution and Professional Respect. The difference with the unidimensional scale is that there are now four dimensions to compare the variables with, whether they be job satisfaction, turnover, or any other variable to be compared with. This allows the researcher to go another step in analyzing LMX because each category can then better explain the findings. Table 2 shows the questionnaire, as formulated and validated by Liden & Maslyn (1998)

METHODS
Subjects and Procedure
Fifteen banks were approached to participate in the collection of data for the study. All members filled out two different kinds of questionnaires. The first is the LMX which concerns their relationship with their leader and a second questionnaire is in regards to their satisfaction with work as prescribed by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.
In all, there were 68 participants. The two questionnaires were given to the managers who agreed to give them to the employees on their next staff meetings. The confidentiality in collecting the data was assured.

Measures
Negotiating latitude were assessed from the questionnaire LMX-MDM taken from Liden and Maslyn (1998). This is the most recent and most elaborate questionnaire regarding LMX because it is multidimensional. This questionnaire had twelve items that divided into 4 dimensions. It is used with a Likert-type scale that runs from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

The Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (short version) revised in 1985 has 20 questions which are also answered on a Likert-type scale that runs from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. These data were then changed into numbers so that analyses could be done.
Instruments
LMX-MDM questionnaire
The Liden & Maslyn (1998) LMX-MDM questionnaire will be used to measure subordinate-perceived LMX in this investigation. This instrument (LMX-MDM) is based upon the multidimensional approach to measuring LMX unlike the LMX7 scale presented in Scandara and Graen (1984: 430) and developed by Graen, Novak, and Somemerkamp (1982) which is more unidimensional. Since the LMX-MDM is fairly new, there is no reference to compare the correlation between this scale and job satisfaction. This research will bring progress into the theory of LMX.

Reliability (LMX-MDM)
Internal consistency reliabilities were acceptable for the affect, loyalty, and professional respect scales but low for the contribution scale. Coefficient alphas were .90, .78, .60 and .92 respectively, for affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect in one group and .90, .74, .57, and .89 respectively in a second group. (Liden & Maslyn, 1998)

Validity (LMX-MDM)

Validity of the LMX-MDM may be derived from support for the 4-factor model using exploratory factor analysis and confirmation using CFA with independent samples (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991; Rahim & Magner, 1995). However, consistent with Schmitt and Klimoski’s (1991) argument that validity is best assessed using multiple approaches, we examined our scale with respect to response bias susceptibility, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and criterion-related validity. (Liden & Maslyn, 1998)

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
The second instrument is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (1967, 1985). According to Weiss et al. (1967):
The questionnaire (in two forms, long and short) measures satisfaction with several specific aspects of work and work environments. This questionnaire (the MSQ) makes it feasible to obtain a more individualized picture of worker satisfaction than was possible using gross or more general measures of satisfaction with the job as a whole. This individualized measurement is useful because two individuals may express the same amount of general satisfaction with their work but for entirely different reasons.


Reliability (MSQ)
The questionnaire is divided into two aspects: intrinsic and extrinsic. For the intrinsic satisfaction scale, the coefficients ranged from .84 for one group to .91 for another. For the extrinsic satisfaction scale, the coefficients varied from .77 for one group to .82 for another. On the general satisfaction scale, the coefficients varied from .87 for one group to .92 for the other. Median reliability coefficients were .86 for intrinsic satisfaction, .80 for extrinsic satisfaction and .90 for general satisfaction. (Weiss et al., 1967)

Validity (MSQ)

Since the short-form MSQ is based on a subset of the long-form items, validity for the short-form may in part be inferred from validity for the long-form. Evidence for the validity of the MSQ is derived mainly from its performing according to theoretical expectations. This type of validity is called construct validity. Much of the evidence supporting construct validity for the MSQ is derived indirectly from construct validation studies of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ), based on the Theory of Work Adjustment. In one set of studies, the seperate scales of the MSQ were the dependent variables to be predicted from the relationship between vocational needs (measured by the MIQ) and (estimated) levels of occupational reinforcement.
Analyses of the data yielded good evidence of construct validity for the Ability Utilization, Advancement and Variety scales of the MIQ and therefore indirectly for the same scales of the MSQ. (Weiss et al., 1967)

Scoring for the MSQ
Response choices for the MSQ are weighted in the following manner:
Response Choice Scoring weight
Very Dissatisfied (VDS) ..................................... 1
Dissatisfied (DS) ................................................. 2
Neither (N) .......................................................... 3
Satisfied (S) ........................................................ 4
Very Satisfied (VS) ............................................ 5

Responses are scored 1 through 5 proceeding from left to right in the answer spaces. Scale scores are determined by summing the weights for the responses chosen for the items in each scale. Scoring the MSQ can include Intrinsic, Extrinsic and General Satisfaction scales.

The three scales of the short-form MSQ consist of the following items:
Scale Items

Intrinsic .......................... 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 20
Extrinsic ......................... 5 6 12 13 14 19
General Satisfaction ....... 1 through 20


Source: Weiss et al., 1967



Variables

At its simplest form, there are two variables that will be used to test the hypotheses. The first, the predictor variable, is the LMX-MDM which will establish the degree of latitude the subordinate gets from the supervisor. The second variable, the criterion variable, will be the Job satisfaction, measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. According to the literature from Schriesheim, Neider and Scandura (1998), there is a high correlation between empowerment, productivity and job satisfaction. The higher the degree of LMX, the higher will be the degree of satisfaction of subordinates. This brings in the first hypothesis.
Ho1 There is a positive correlation between latitude of subordinates, as measured by LMX and Job Satisfaction.

There are other variables which can explain the satisfaction results. Since LMX in this research is of multi domains, there are now four variations explaining the concept. LMX as a whole comprises four different factors which are affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect. Since any combination of these factors can be different for each individual who fills out the questionnaire, different specific factors can influence the results of LMX and therefore have an influence on Job satisfaction results. This is why it is important to verify the results of LMX versus Job satisfaction through all factors (variables).

Ho2 There is a positive correlation between Affect and Job Satisfaction.

Ho3 There is a positive correlation between Loyalty and Job Satisfaction.

Ho4 There is a positive correlation between Contribution and Job Satisfaction.


Ho5 There is a positive correlation between Professional respect and Job Satisfaction.


In order to better explain what is a positive correlation, the following figure explains, not only what is a positive correlation but how to interpret between a low, a moderate and a high correlation.
FIGURE 1
Relationship of strength and direction of correlations
____________________________________________________________________________

-.5 +.5
Coefficient of correlation -1 ____________________ 0 ____________________ +1

Strength of relationship: high moderate low low moderate high

Direction: negative positive
____________________________________________________________________________
Source: McMillan, J.H., Schumacher, S. (1997) p.226



According to McMillan & Schumacher (1997),

the typical convention is to calculate a number to represent the relationship, called a correlation coefficient. The interpretation of the number used is basically the same. The number that represents the correlation can range from -1.00 to +1.00. A high positive value (for example, .85, .90, .96) represents a high positive relationship; a low positive value (for example, .15, .20, .08) a low positive relationship; a moderate negative value (for example, -.40, -.37, -.52) a moderate negative relationship, a value of 0 no relationship, and so on. Thus, the strength of the relationship becomes higher as the correlation approaches either +1 or -1 from zero.


Limitations of the study

The use of the LMX-MDM scale to measure the leader-member exchange is fairly new. It has not been applied across many organizations. Findings from the use of the scale have yet to be published. Therefore, embarking into LMX-MDM will add a new dimension into the concept of leader-member exchange.
The number of participants is also limited (68). The research is done only in a bank environment. This study will not be expected to be representative of all organizations, even of other banks. It is however a start, a sample of what could be a better understanding of how organizations work and how to improve them.

Research findings
This project will contribute to the advancement of research in the field of leader-member exchange because it is taking a new approach to gathering information. Leader-member exchange findings in a multidimensional approach if fairly new. The new validated questionnaire LMX-MDM (Liden & Maslyn, 1998) will bring a new understanding into how the relationship between leaders and members affects the behavior of members (i.e. satisfaction).
Previous research into LMX and job satisfaction has been done with a uni dimension approach. Since a new questionnaire has been developed, the LMX-MDM, new findings can be observed from the four dimensions of LMX.
Coleman (1998) thinks that greater progress could be made by trying to delineate variables (other than LMX) that capture effects at different combinations of finite sets of levels. As Linden and Maslyn (1998) say, the value of identifying multiple dimensions of LMX lies in understanding when and how these dimensions relate to issues of development and maintenance of LMX relationships and their differential impact in prediction of organizational outcomes.

The findings of this research will help, not only advancement in the field of LMX but will also help the participating organizations in focusing future training for its managers. We hope that the findings help outline the factors that influence the best relationships and those who provide better job satisfaction among members.

Ethical Assurances

The approach used to gather the data considered confidentiality of the subjects by using the following procedure. Each of the fifteen banks approached received a number of questionnaires appropriate to the number of employees that would participate. The managers accepted the questionnaires on behalf of the employees who in turn got the questionnaires following a staff meeting in which the purpose of the study was explained by the managers and an assurance of confidentiality was given (see appendix). All return envelops, stamps, addresses and questionnaires were the same. There were no numbers on the questionnaires nor the envelops to identify the participants. As the responses entered, questionnaires were identified with a number from 1 to 68, which is the total number of questionnaires returned. At the end, a copy of the overall results was returned so that the participants could see the results and know that they had participated in a study that was compiled.




FINDINGS


Overview

The proposed study was to address the following problem: How does the quality in the Leader-member exchange influence the member towards job satisfaction? Specific research questions within this problem are as follows:

What is the effect of empowerment (through LMX) on subordinate job satisfaction?

Based on the LMX theory, what is the proper mix of relational characteristics to promote better satisfied followers?
To better understand the how to approach this questioning, two questionnaires were given
to 102 bank tellers. There were 68 questionnaires returned for a return rate of 67%. This high return rate was probably due to the insistence of the importance of the study by the bank managers. It took three weeks for all questionnaires to come back. The findings in this section come from these 68 returned questionnaires.

Data section
Descriptive analysis
In this section, tables are presented to identify the results of the findings. Table 1 shows the instrument for finding the degree of latitude given by the supervisor to the subordinate. There are twelve questions. Of those questions, there are four sections comprising each three questions. These sections, or dimensions, are Affect (Q1,Q2,Q3), Loyalty (Q4,Q5,Q6), Contribution (Q7,Q8,Q9) and Professional respect (Q10, Q11, Q12).













TABLE 1

Measures of LMX-MDM from Liden and Maslyn (1998)
______________________________________________________________________________

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Mean
1. I like my supervisor very much as a person........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.51
2. My supervisor is the kind of person one would
like to have as a friend......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.16
3. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with.......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4.74
4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a
superior, even without complete knowledge
of the issue in question........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4.21
5. My supervisor would come to my defense if
I were “attacked” by others................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4.62
6. My supervisor would defend me to others in
the organization if I made an honest mistake...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.16
7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond
what is specified in my job descriptions............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.46
8. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond
those normally required, to meet my
supervisor’s work goals....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.97
9. I do not mind working my hardest for my
supervisor............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.91
10. I am impressed with my supervisor’s
knowledge of his/her job..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.31
11. I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and
competence on the job......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.44
12. I admire my supervisor’s professional skills....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.17
_______________________________________________________________________________


The second questionnaire can be found in Table 2. There are 20 questions that permit to verify the satisfaction of employees. The result of all the questions express the general satisfaction of employees. Twelve of these questions combined reflect the Intrinsic portion of satisfaction and six of them explain the extrinsic satisfaction.



TABLE 2

Measures of job satisfaction (Minnesota University scales - 1967) (short-form)
____________________________________________________________________________
On my present job, this is how I feel about:
VDS DS N S VS Mean
1. Being able to keep busy all the time .................... 1 2 3 4 5 4.38
2. The chance to work alone on the job ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 4.26
3. The chance to do different things from time to time 1 2 3 4 5 4.18
4. The chance to be “somebody” in the community ... 1 2 3 4 5 3.91
5. The way my boss handles his subordinates ............ 1 2 3 4 5 3.50
6. The competence of my supervisor in making
decisions ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 3.82
7. Being able to do things that don’t go against my
conscience .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 4.13
8. The way my job provides for steady employment... 1 2 3 4 5 3.96
9. The chance to do things for other people ................ 1 2 3 4 5 4.44
10. The chance to tell people what to do ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 3.63
11. The chance to do something that makes use of my
abilities .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 4.08
12. The way company policies are put into practice ..... 1 2 3 4 5 3.41
13. My pay and the amount of work I do ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 3.22
14. The chances for advancement on this job ............... 1 2 3 4 5 3.10
15. The freedom to use my own judgment ................... 1 2 3 4 5 3.88
16. The chance to try my own methods of doing the job. 1 2 3 4 5 3.71
17. The working conditions ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 4.03
18. The way my co-workers get along with each other .. 1 2 3 4 5 3.87
19. The praise I get for doing a good job ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 3.49
20. The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job ... 1 2 3 4 5 3.78
____________________________________________________________________________
VDS: means I am very dissatisfied with this aspect of my job
DS: means I am dissatisfied with this aspect of my job
N: means I can’t decide whether I am satisfied or not with this aspect of my job
S: means I am satisfied with this aspect of my job
VS: means I am very satisfied with this aspect of my job






Scales building
There are two questionnaires used in this research. The first is the Leader-Member exchange (multidimensional from Liden & Maslyn, 1998) which has 12 questions. The questionnaire uses a Likert-like scale that ranges from 1 to 7. There are also 4 sections in the questionnaire which reflect four dimensions of LMX. These four dimensions are Affect (Q1, Q2, Q3), Loyalty (Q4, Q5,Q6), Contribution (Q7, Q8, Q9), and Professional respect (Q10, Q11, Q12). Total LMX is represented by questions 1 to 12.
The second questionnaire used is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. In this questionnaire, there are 20 questions. The questionnaire uses a Likert-like scale that ranges from Very dissatisfied (1) to Very satisfied (5). This questionnaire can also be divided into two categories which are Intrinsic (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q7, Q8, Q9,Q10, Q11, Q15, Q16, Q20) and Extrinsic (Q5, Q6, Q12, Q13, Q14,Q19). General satisfaction is represented by questions 1 to 20.

Scales reliability

The LMX questionnaire is divided into 4 categories. Each category has been tested for reliability from the Cronbach Alpha. The results are as follows: Affect .92, Loyalty .85, Contribution .76 and Professional respect .94. The alpha for Total LMX is .92. According to McMillan & Schumacher (1997), the reliability coefficient is a correlation statistic comparing two sets of scores from the same individuals. The scale for reliability coefficient is from .00 to .99. If the coefficient is high, for example. 90, the instrument has little error and is highly reliable. The opposite is true for the correlation near .20 or .35. An acceptable range of reliability for coefficients for most instruments is .70 to .90.
The Minnesota Satisfaction questionnaire has similar numbers. The Intrinsic alpha is .86, the Extrinsic alpha is .88 and the General satisfaction alpha is .93. According to the literature, all alphas are within the accepted limit for reliability.

In table 3, the four dimensions are identified with the intercorrelations between them.
The four dimensions have high correlations between them except Contribution. Coefficients range from .39 to .88.

Correlational analysis

TABLE 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of LMX Dimensions Scales___________________________________________________________________________
Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5
___________________________________________________________________________

21. Affect
22. Loyalty .76
23. Contribution .39 .39
24. Professional Respect .61 .65 .46
25. Total LMX .86 .88 .64 .85

Mean 5.14 4.66 5.78 5.31 5.22
S.D. 1.46 1.55 1.03 1.54 1.15
___________________________________________________________________________
Scales are from 1 to 7
n = 68




Table 4 shows the results for the satisfaction questionnaire as far as means, standard deviations and correlations are concerned. Each of the three basis for comparison are compared: intrinsic, extrinsic and general satisfaction. We must note that intrinsic comprises 12 questions, extrinsic 6 and general satisfaction 20. Two questions among the 20 are not included in either intrinsic nor extrinsic. Correlations between the three dimensions are high.

From table 5, we can get a better understanding of the relations or intercorrelations between the negotiating latitude dimensions and the satisfaction dimensions. The correlations are high, if we consider a coefficient of .60 to be high. The exceptions are in contribution and intrinsic dimensions.


TABLE 5

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of
Measures of Member Negotiating Latitude and Satisfaction
____________________________________________________________________________
Intercorrelations
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
____________________________________________________________________________

Negotiating latitude
1. Affect
2. Loyalty .76
3. Contribution .39 .39
4. Professional respect .61 .65 .46
5. Total LMX .86 .88 .64 .85
Satisfaction
6. Intrinsic .36 .38 .30 .33 .42
7. Extrinsic .68 .65 .35 .55 .70 .76
8. General Satisfaction .56 .55 .35 .48 .60 .93 .92

Mean 5.14 4.66 5.78 5.31 5.22 4.03 3.42 3.84
S.D. 1.46 1.55 1.03 1.54 1.15 .61 .98 .68
____________________________________________________________________________
Scales for Negotiating latitude are from 1 to 7. Scales for Satisfaction are from 1 to 5.
n = 68

The hypotheses H1 to H5 can be better understood by using the figures in table 6. The hypotheses are as follows:
Ho1 There is a positive correlation between latitude of subordinates, as measured by LMX and Job Satisfaction.

Ho2 There is a positive correlation between Affect and Job Satisfaction.

Ho3 There is a positive correlation between Loyalty and Job Satisfaction.

Ho4 There is a positive correlation between Contribution and Job Satisfaction.

Ho5 There is a positive correlation between Professional respect and Job Satisfaction.




Place Table 6 about here


In table 7, means of another research (Liden & Maslyn, 1998) on Affect, Loyalty, Contribution and Professional respect are compared with the findings of this research.
TABLE 7
Means of Affect, Loyalty, Contribution, and Professional respect
__________________________________________________________________________

Manufacturing Hospitality Working Organizational Research
Students Employees Findings

Affect 4.85 5.63 4.96 5.42 5.14
Loyalty 4.78 5.15 5.06 5.05 4.66
Contribution 5.25 5.54 5.59 5.47 5.78
Professional respect 5.14 5.66 5.02 5.51 5.31

___________________________________________________________________________
Data from Manufacturing, Hospitality, Working students, and Organizational employees come from the research of Liden & Maslyn, 1998.




Analysis and evaluation of findings
Data was analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) program. This program permits the verification of correlations between the results of LMX and those of Job Satisfaction.
Before we proceed to analyze the data, we must remember what the research questions were. We must analyze these data while keeping in mind these questions that are:

What is the effect of empowerment (through LMX) on subordinate job satisfaction?

Based on the LMX theory, what is the proper mix of relational characteristics to promote better satisfied followers?

The five hypothesis are:
Ho1 There is a positive correlation between latitude of subordinates, as measured by LMX and Job Satisfaction.

Ho2 There is a positive correlation between Affect and Job Satisfaction.

Ho3 There is a positive correlation between Loyalty and Job Satisfaction.

Ho4 There is a positive correlation between Contribution and Job Satisfaction.

Ho5 There is a positive correlation between Professional respect and Job Satisfaction.

Based on these hypothesis, the answers can be found in table 5 (numbers) and in table 6 (figures). The hypothesis say that there is a positive relation between the variables. According to the literature, these numbers are classified as moderate high. The findings for the correlations indicate that there is a coefficient of correlation of .56 between Affect and General satisfaction (Ho1). There is a correlation of .55 between Loyalty and General satisfaction. General satisfaction and Contribution, Professional respect and Total LMX have the following correlations: .35, .48, and .60.

It is then fair to say that there is a positive relation between all five variables. Affect, Loyalty, Professional respect and Total LMX have moderate positive relations. Contribution has a low to moderate positive correlation. What this means, if we look at the research questions, is that there are three of the four dimensions which can more influence the general satisfaction of employees. These are Affect, Loyalty and Professional respect. As for the Contribution variable, the correlation is still positive but low. This means that the manager who wants to influence the satisfaction of the employees, can put more energy into Affect, Loyalty and Professional respect and less into Contribution because there is a low relationship with regards to Contribution and General satisfaction: .35.
Unlike other studies on LMX, which could only verify the relationship between LMX and other variables (i.e. satisfaction, turnover), this study has gone further by providing knowledge about the multidomain of LMX. Instead of having data based only on LMX, there are now four dimensions of LMX that can be analyzed. These dimensions are Affect, Loyalty, Contribution and Professional respect. The relationship between LMX and other variables like satisfaction can be better analyzed. In this case, we can say that there is a coefficient of correlation of .60 between LMX and General satisfaction. We can also verify what the relationship is between each of the four dimensions. By doing so, in this case, we can see that Contribution, which is part of Total LMX, doesn’t have as high coefficient of correlation with General satisfaction. When the manager wants to apply the concept of Leader-member exchange, he/she can focus on the three other dimensions more because they have a higher relation or effect on General satisfaction.

Summary

Some researchers (Coleman, 1998; Liden & Maslyn, 1998) have argued that LMX is not unidimensional. This research has used a multidimensional approach to LMX which is one of the very few to do so. The concept of multidimensionality of LMX has been defined by Dienesch & Liden in 1986 for the first time. They had first put forward three dimensions of LMX. In 1998, Liden & Maslyn have divided LMX into four dimensions for the first time. This research is one of the few to repeat the process and probably the first to use it in a banking environment. The findings of this researcher, which say that Affect, Loyalty and Professional respect have positive relationship with Job satisfaction can be useful for the manager who wants to apply the concept of LMX.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions
It is interesting to see positive correlations between the variables we are studying. This means that there are relations between the variable but not necessarily that one is the cause of the other. For instance, there is a correlation coefficient of .56 between Affect and General satisfaction and a correlation coefficient of .35 between Contribution and General satisfaction. Based on these findings, we can assume that there is a higher relationship between Affect and General satisfaction than there is between Contribution and General satisfaction. One conclusion we can assert from these findings is that, taken together, meaning all four dimensions, Affect has a higher relation with satisfaction then Contribution. Meaning that the manager who wants to influence satisfaction of the employees could put more emphasis on Affect instead of Contribution.

Even if all hypotheses have shown to be positive, some variables have a higher relationship then other as far as job satisfaction is concerned. We can therefore conclude that there is a positive relationship between LMX and Job satisfaction and that some of the factors composing LMX (Affect, Loyalty, Contribution, and Professional respect) have a different effect on job satisfaction. It is therefore possible to focus on some of these variables instead of all four variables composing LMX. In this case, all four variables influence positively job satisfaction but the results could have been different. One or some of the variables could have has a negative influence or relationship with job satisfaction.
If we compare the results with those of Liden & Maslyn (1998), (table 7), we can see that the results of Loyalty are lower (4.66 compared to 5.06 or 5.15). In the region where the data was collected, unemployment is higher then from the samples of Liden & Maslyn (11% compared to 6%). This would explain why Loyalty is lower in this research because employers don’t have to try as much to keep their employees since there are others who are willing to take their place. On the same basis, it is also true for Contribution. The employees in the higher unemployment region think that their contribution is higher because they feel that their jobs require it. The jobs in the region are more scarce so they contribute more to keep theirs. The other two factors (Affect and Professional respect) are about average compared to other findings.

Recommendations
This research provided strong support for the Liden & Maslyn (1998) model of Leader-member exchange. A primary contribution of this research was to verify the relationships of LMX with General satisfaction of employees through a multidomain approach. This means that the research would permit LMX to be separated into four different dimensions to be tested with regards to the satisfaction of employees. The importance of dividing LMX into four different dimensions lies in the influence each dimension can have on satisfaction.

The results have shown that three of the four dimensions have higher contribution on satisfaction. These results are consistent with other findings. Other research is needed to verify these findings in other fields. Perhaps other methods of gathering data can be used other then self-administered questionnaires. There is a consistency if the results when the same method is used in collecting data but what if other methods were to be used? Would we find similar results?
Since the results indicate that there are factors that influence more job satisfaction in regards with the negotiating latitude (LMX), it would be in order to build such an instrument that would permit the manager to apply relationship factors to influence a better relationship with employees and therefore a better satisfaction in their jobs which could result in a higher contribution from the part of employees.
The results of this research provide empirical evidence of the importance of studying LMX through four dimensions. It used to be a time where LMX was studied as a unidimension (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991, 1995; Schriesheim & Gardiner, 1992). Now, with the new approach of LMX as a multidomain, it is becoming important that future research study LMX as a multidomain approach. This means that the manager using LMX to influence the subordinates, will have a better knowledge on which factors to focus on to get better results.

References


Bass, B.M. (1985). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire - Technical report. Palo Alto, CA

Brass, D.J., & Burkhardt, M.E. (1992). Centrality and power in organizations. In R.G. Eccles &
N. Nohria (Eds.) Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. (Pp. 191 - 215). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Coleman, D.F. (1998). An Alternative “Limited Domain” view of Leader-Member Exchange.
Leadership: The Multiple-Level Approaches: Contemporary and Alternative, 24
Part B. 137 -- 148

Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as
complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational behavior and human performance, 10: 184 -- 200

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46 -- 78

Dienesch, R.M., Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique
and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618 -- 634.

Graen, G.B. (1976). Role-making process within complex organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.)
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. p. 1201 --
1245

Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A., Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and
job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30: 109 -- 131.

Graen, G.B., Scandura, T.A. (1987). Toward a Psychology of Dyadic Organizing. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 9: 175 -- 208

Graen, G.B., Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The Transformation of Professionals Into Self-Managing and
Partially Self Designing Contributors. Journal of Management Systems, 3: 25 -- 39

Graen, G.B., Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership. Development of
Leader-Member Exchange LMX Theory. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219 -- 247


Graen, G.B., Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. J.G. Hunt & L.L.Larson (Eds). Leadership frontiers (pp. 143--165) Kent State University Press.

Kantz, D. Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. (2nd ed.) New York. Wiley.

Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342 -- 369

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally
created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10: 271 -- 299

Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., Wayne, S.J. (1997). Leader-Member Exchange Theory. The past and Potential for the Future. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management by Gerald Ferris (Ed). Jai Press, Greenwich Ct. 47 -- 119

Liden, R.C., Maslyn, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality of Leader-Member Exchange: An Empirical Assessment Through Scale Development. Journal of Management, 24 (1): 43 -- 72

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal Study on the Early Development of
Leader-Member Exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (4):662 -- 674

Liden, R.C., Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership.
Academy of Management Journal, 23: 451 -- 465.

McClane, William E. (1991). Implications of Member Role Differentiation. Analysis of a Key Concept in the LMX Model of Leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 16 (1):
102 -- 113

McMillan, J.H., Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in Education. Addison-Wesley Educational
Publishers Inc. New York

Northouse, P.G. (1997). Leadership. Theory and Practice. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks.
Ch.7 109 -- 129

Pool, S.W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership
behavior, and work motivation. The Journal of Psychology, 131: 271 -- 283

Scandura, R.A., Graen, G.B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status
on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 428 -- 436


Schriesheim, C.A., & Gardiner, C.C. (1992). An exploration of the discriminant validity of the
leader-member exchange scale (LMX7) commonly used in organizational research. In M. Schnake (Ed.) Proceedings of the Southern Management Association (pp. 91 - 93). Valdosta, GA: Southern Management Association.


Schriesheim, C.A., Neider, L.L., Scandura, T.A. (1998). Delegation and Leader-Member
Exchange: Main Effects, Moderators, and Measurement issues. Academy of Management

Journal, 41: 298 -- 318

Sparrowe, R.T., Liden. R.C. (1997). Process and Structure in Leader-Member Exchange.
Academy of Management Review, 22: 522

Sparowe, R.T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospital industry: An exploration of antecedents and
outcomes. Hospitality Research Journal, 17: 51 -- 73.

Vecchio, R.P. & Gobdel, B.C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems
and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 5 -- 20

Webster’s NewWorld Dictionary. Second College Edition. (1986). Prentice Hall. New York.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. University of Minnesota.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations 4th edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ch.7 149 -- 174



















TABLE 6
Scatter plots for the four dimensions and total LMX
with general satisfaction

Ho1 There is a positive correlation between latitude of subordinates, as measured by LMX and Job Satisfaction.

Total LMX and General satisfaction
Coefficient of correlation: .60



Ho2 There is a positive relationship between Affect and general satisfaction

Affect and General satisfaction
Coefficient of correlation: .56

Ho3 There is a positive correlation between Affect and Job Satisfaction.

Loyalty and General satisfaction
Coefficient of correlation: .55



Ho4 There is a positive correlation between Contribution and Job Satisfaction.

Contribution and General satisfaction
Coefficient of correlation:.35






Ho5 There is a positive correlation between Professional respect and Job Satisfaction

Professional respect and General satisfaction

Coefficient of correlation: .48

 

[bonddonraj]

Hierarchy Of Needs Theory

In the first half of this century, sociologist Abraham Maslow proposes that all humans have universal needs, and those needs could be categorized and predicted. He says that these needs fall into five categories: physiological, security, social, esteem, and self-actualization. Maslow developed these needs in a hierarchical pattern with physiological needs being the most prepotent until satisfied. He defines a prepotent need as having a great influence over the subsequent needs as until it is satisfied. For example, it would be difficult to achieve success in higher education (psychological or esteem needs) if one was not properly fed and watered.

If one has had their physiological needs met, that individual may seek satisfaction for safety and security needs. These would include adequate housing, reliable transportation, and anything that contributes to the orderliness and predictability of life.

Once safety and security needs have been satisfied, Maslow contends that individuals begin to look for a sense of community to fulfill their belongingness and love needs. These needs would include a desire for family, greater satisfaction in work relationships, church organizations or even anti-social gangs. What is important is that the social structure can provide an individual the ability to give and receive affection. Once these needs are met, one can begin to explore their sense of personal value.

Esteem needs are often satisfied by recognition from peers and mentors, such as employers. This may include a raise in pay, bonus, certificate of completion or a degree from and educational institution. It may also include many other rewards of effort, but such feelings must be confirmed by recognition of those efforts. Once we have received relatively high appraisal from others, than it is time to move on to the highest level of human needs.

Writing a book, climbing a mountain or running a marathon are all examples of Self-actualization or self-fulfillment needs. Maslow described these as "becoming" what you were intended to become. As the U.S. Army recruiting slogan says, "Be the best that you can be." Maslow also contends that achievement of these goals is not as important as attempting them.

In summary, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs consist of five levels of human need that are hierarchical and the most basic needs must be fulfilled before graduating to the next level. Maslow’s work has spawned a great deal of research in this century. Now lets look at two theories very similar to Maslow’s.

Motivator-Hygiene Theory

Herzberg (1966) attempted to isolate what motivated workers in organizations. He reveals two groups of activities that satisfies worker’s needs; maintenance and motivators.

Maintenance and hygiene factors are related to the context or environment of the job, rather than the job itself. These issues are related to pay, supervision, organizational policies, and interpersonal relationships with peers, employers and subordinates. When they are present there is no motivation but when they are absent there is dissatisfaction.

Motivators are those aspects of work related to job satisfaction but not to dissatisfaction, such as recognition of good work and granting greater feeling of freedom and responsibility of work. In short, Motivator-Hygiene Theory was developed by Federick Herzberg to explain the motivations of workers in the workplace. His theory closely mirrors Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs but diverges from him in structure. Herzburg classified needs under two much larger categories of, motivator (belongingness/esteem/self-actualization) and hygiene (physiological and safety) needs.

ERG Theory

C.P. Alderfer (1972 ) identifies three categories of human needs that influence worker’s behavior; existence, relatedness and growth. Existence needs include things such as hunger, thirst and sex. Relatedness needs includes some involvement with family, friends, co-workers and employers. Growth concerns those desires to be creative, productive and to complete meaningful tasks.

While it is obvious that ERG theory is also very similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Alderfer did diverge from Maslow in two important ways. Maslow insisted that one prepotent need should be relatively satisfied before and individual could move on to the next level. Therefore, a person would be unable to fulfill esteem needs if they were homeless or without the ability to feed themselves. Alderfer argues that (1) hierarchy is not included and (2) although a need may be satisfied that need may continue to dominate.

In short, Alderfer’s ERG theory identifies three categories of human needs that appear to influence a worker’s behavior. These factors are existence, relatedness and growth. Now, let’s take a closer look at how these three theories compare.

A Comparison of Maslow, Alderfer and Herzberg

Each theory describes the physiological, psychological and self-actualization aspects in near identical terms. Herzberg’s maintenance factors mirror Maslow’s physiological, security and belongingness needs and Alderfer’s existence and relatedness needs. Maslow’s esteem and self-actualization needs are similar to Herzberg’s motivator traits and Alderfer’s growth requirement. It should be clear that the similarities vastly outweigh the differences. It should also be clear that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory was a remarkable piece of social science, and very influential to future scholars.

 

[bonddonraj]

Expectancy Theory of Motivation
This theory of motivation was put forward by Victor Vroom. It examines motivation from the perspective of why people choose to follow a particular course of action.

Vroom introduces three variables which he calls Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality.

Valence is the importance that the individual places upon the expected outcome of a situation.

Expectancy is the belief that output from the individual and the success of the situation are linked, e.g. if I work harder then this will be better.

Instrumentality is the belief that the success of the situation is linked to the expected outcome of the situation, e.g. it's gone really well, so I'd expect praise

At first glance this theory would seem most applicable to a traditional-attitude work situation where how motivated the employee is depends on whether they want the reward on offer for doing a good job and whether they believe more effort will lead to that reward.

However, it could equally apply to any situation where someone does something because they expect a certain outcome. For example, I recycle paper because I think it's important to conserve resources and take a stand on environmental issues (valence); I think that the more effort I put into recycling the more paper I will recycle (expectancy); and I think that the more paper I recycle then less resources will be used (instrumentality)

Thus, this theory of motivation is not about self-interest in rewards but about the associations people make towards expected outcomes and the contribution they feel they can make towards those outcomes.

I like it because it allows for non-motivation, or simply for someone to be unmotivated. It questions the assumption that people know or feel that action leads to result. For many people action does not lead to desired result in their lives, so it is critical for any theory to take this into account.

Other theories, in my opinion, do not allow for the same degree of individuality between people. This model takes into account individual perceptions and thus personal histories, allowing a richness of response not obvious in Maslow or McClelland.

Expectancy theory could also be overlaid over another theory (e.g. Maslow). Maslow describes which outcomes people are motivated by and Vroom describes whether they will act based upon their experience and expectations.

 

[bonddonraj]

ATTRIBUTION THEORY

1. Name of Theory: Attribution Theory

2. Originator(s) and Professional Background: Attribution theory was developed overtime from the theories of Fritz Heider, Edward Jones, Keith Davis, and Harold Kelley. All were social psychologists. Edward 'Ned' Jones was born August 11, 1926 in Buffalo, NY. He received his doctorate degree from Harvard University in 1953. He taught at Duke University in the psychology department and was chair of the department from 1970-73. He was on both the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Mental Health's advisory boards. He has written several books including Foundations of Social Psychology.

3. Institution(s) with which identified: Harold Kelley was at the University of California and most of his research involving attribution theory was funded by the National Science Foundation. Edward Jones spent his entire career at the Duke University.

4. Purpose of the theory: Attribution theory is about how people make causal explanations; about how they answer questions beginning with "why?" The theory deals with the information they use in making causal inferences, and with what they do with this information to answer causal questions. The theory developed within social psychology as a means of dealing with questions of social perception. For instance, if a person is aggressively competitive in his/her behavior, is s/he this kind of person, or is s/he reacting to situational pressures. If a person fails a test, does s/he have low ability, or is the test difficult? In both examples, the questions concern the causes of observed behavior and the answers of interest are those given by the man on the street. This is why Heider refers to attribution theory as "naïve" psychology. Attribution theory describes the processes of explaining events and the behavioral and emotional consequences of those explanations.

5. Approximate year of origin: Heider first wrote about attribution theory in his book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships (1958) which played a central role in the origination and definition of attribution theory. Jones and Davis' systematic hypotheses about the perception of intention was published in 1965 in the essay "From Acts to Dispositions." Kelley published "Attribution in Social Psychology" in 1967.

6. Circumstances that led to model development: In the 1970s the field of social psychology was dominated by attribution theorists and researchers. "Attribution theory came to rival cognitive dissonance as one of the most imperialistic theories in social psychology. Attribution theory was seen as relevant to the study of person perception, event perception, attitude change, the acquisition of self-knowledge, therapeutic interventions, and much more" (Ross and Fletcher, 1986). Attribution theory emerged from Heider's (1958) "naïve" or "lay" psychology and subsequent reformulations by Jones and Davis (1965) and Kelley (1967). Heider postulated a set of rules of inference by which the ordinary person might attribute responsibility to another person (an "actor") for an action. Heider distinguished between internal and external attributions, arguing that both personal forces and environmental factors operate on the "actor," and the balance of these determines the attribution of responsibility (Lewis and Daltroy, 1990). Kelley (1967) advanced Heider's theory by adding hypotheses about the factors that affect the formation of attributions: consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus.

7. Key terms:

1. Attributions - the causes individuals generate to make sense of their world.
2. Consistency - the degree to which the actor performs that same behavior toward an object on different occasions.

3. Distinctiveness - the degree to which the actor performs different behaviors with different objects.

4. Consensus - the degree to which other actors perform the same behavior with the same object.

8. Description of Attribution Theory:
Heider's "Naive" Psychology: Heider believe that people act on the basis of their beliefs. Therefore, beliefs must be taken into account if psychologists were to account for human behavior. This would be true whether the beliefs were valid or not. Heider also suggested that you could learn a great deal from commonsense psychology. He stressed the importance of taking the ordinary person's explanations and understanding of events and behaviors seriously.

Correspondent Inference Theory: Jones & Davis described how an "alert perceiver" might infer another's intentions and personal dispositions (personality traits, attitudes, etc.) from his or her behavior. Perceivers make correspondent inferences when they infer another's personal dispositions directly from behavior; for example, perceivers may infer a disposition of kindness from a kindly act. Inferences are correspondent when the behavior and the disposition can be assigned similar labels (e.g. kind).

Kelley's Model of Attribution Theory: Kelley's theory is not limited to interpersonal perception. His theory concerns the subjective experience of attributional validity. He asks the question: "How do individuals establish the validity of their own or of another person's impression of an object?"

Kelley suggested that perceivers examine three different kinds of information in their efforts to establish validity (Ross and Fletcher, 1985):

Consensus information - do all or only a few people respond to the stimulus in the same way as the target person?

Distinctiveness information - does the target person respond in the same way to other stimuli as well?

Consistency information - does the target person always respond in the same way to this stimulus?

Three combinations of this information:

High consensus, high distinctiveness, high consistency: The target person's judgment of the restaurant (it is a good restaurant) should be perceived as valid if the perceiver knows that 1) other people like the restaurant, 2) the target person seldom likes restaurants, and 3) the target person enjoys the restaurant every time he or she goes there. The restaurant is good.
Low consensus, low distinctiveness, high consistency: If a perceiver knows that 1) most people do not like the target person's restaurant, 2) the target person likes most restaurants and 3) the target person enjoys the restaurant each time s/he goes there. Target person's enjoyment at restaurant attributable to something about him/her (likes to eat out) not something unique about the restaurant.
Low consensus, high distinctiveness, low consistency: If a perceiver knows 1) few other people like the restaurant, 2) the target person seldom likes the restaurant, and 3) the target person disliked this restaurant in the past. More than likely the target person's liking this restaurant is attributable to the person liking the company or wine rather than the food.
9. Attributions and Health Education
Attribution theory can be applied to health education in 6 ways (Lewis and Daltroy, 1990):

development of therapeutic relationships between health care professionals and clients,
development of correct attributions,
alteration of incorrect attributions,
altering the focus of attributions,
attributing characteristics to the individual, and
maintenance of perceived personal effectiveness

 

[kartik]

The most awesome OB thread , I have ever seen

Love the Johari window explaination.

 

[bonddonraj]

thanx yaar ------ thanx for reply -----i thought mae vaeelooon ki tarah post kare jaa raa hun == no body saying any thing ===felt so lonely on MP !!! he he