We all know that using the stick, punishing employees, and frequently repeating this process extensively on a number of employees or sometimes on the same set of employees for several times, is an unpleasant task and can at best be justified as an inevitable evil. Is there not, any less unpleasant and less painful alternative to secure a pure and productive work atmosphere? This question can be answered easily by putting you a counter question. Is it necessary that you should swallow bitter pills all your life to upkeep good health? Is there no way to maintain robust health without recourse to medicines? Follow hygiene and disciplined habits to keep doctors and medicines away. So too you can keep indiscipline away, if you follow the correct policies positively directed to secure devotion and respect for duty by the employees.
If you read Indian history under East India Company of the 18th Century, You will come to know that a British Viceroy, Lord Warren Hastings, who faced and surmounted turbulent times to consolidate the rule of the East India Company in India, as the second Governor General, had to undergo ordeal beyond description. He was impeached in the House Of Commons by eminent orators like Edmund Burke, Fox and Sheridan, for what was described as misdemeanours committed by Hastings in India).
This is only a sample. The charges were several. The result of this process:
(Those interested in English Literature may access the web page for an illustrious article on the impeachment of Hastings by Lord Macaulay, who served in India as the law member of the Governor General in Council and drafted some of the time-honoured legislation of India including the Indian Penal Code ,1860 - the web page
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/MacaulayImpeachHastings.htm)
It is like saying that the treatment is successful, but the patient expired. That was the cruel fate that Hastings had to undergo. He did not die immediately, but lost all charm of life. After continuous mental torture and insults, he came out declared as innocent, but what was left in life for him thereafter to celebrate and rejoice the success. It is like the British, who won the 2nd World War, but lost the British Empire to shrink as a second rate power in the world. This will show what can be in store for a faithful, but overactive public servant. But today public service in the West is not like this. So too is political rivalry in Europe. The western nations of Europe, who were fighting bitter wars in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, have learnt to live in peace and mutual cooperation and constructive commercial competition. There is no place for witch-hunting for you to encounter, if you secure service in a corporate employer in the west.
The paragraphs to follow will inform you the contrast in the current thinking about service ethics in the West. It is no longer the Master & Servant approach. Employees are deemed as human resources. The question is how to develop the resources to their full potential and value to turn then to generate productive results.
But I should also caution you, that what is stated here is now an outmoded philosophy in the West, where the Industrial Age is already over. The dawn in the West is now for the 'Information Age'. The management philosophy of the Information Age has changed value concepts totally. Today the assets of the business enterprise in the West (partly also in India in respect of progressive IT concerns) are not of their material possession or what is called tangible assets, but intellectual properties (referred as intangible assets). Microsoft as a concern may be worth several billions, but if it is verified in terms its physical assets, it will not exceed a few million. The assets of Microsoft that generate huge recurring earnings for it are its databases and intellectual possessions. But knowledge is not a commodity that can be stored in currency chests or deposited in Bank Vaults. It has necessarily to be retained in human brains and backup storage devices. Employees who hold the knowledge assets of the Company form the 'human capital' of the business enterprise in this Information Age. IBM purchased Lotus as a going concern. The book value of the assets of Lotus was worth half a billion. But IBM's purchase price was three and a half billion. Will any company charge sheet its employee, who is deemed a part of its human capital? Today it is not the employees being sacked. The concerns like GE Capital or IBM will jealously safeguard against the migration of its talented workforce, and against predatory efforts of rival organizations to woo and steal away the best brains from their work-force. They will prevent this happening with all their power on earth. But in India a good part of our organizations are still managed in outmoded systems and procedures. This is like generating a few sets of rules and procedures, as inputs for guidance and asking managers to manage and also expect them to show results.
HRD Management - Theories of Motivation
Herein below is described the Management philosophy of Motivation, that remained popular for three decades from the Sixties of the last century.
Performance rating of any institution can be postulated as equal to the overall performance rating of its work force. Industry and organizations face global competition. To survive they have to reach operational excellence and look to swiftly changing customer expectations to emerge in the future. Techniques and concepts quickly get outdated, in a rapidly moving world. For example international Banking today is not what it was before the eighties. It is the challenge of quick obsolescence of old concepts and products. Employees have to be trained for the future requirements of the competitive global market. Consequently Human Resource Management theories are undergoing rapid changes in the West ever since the advent of management philosophers like Douglas McGregor, Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg in the post World War II Scenario. This era can be considered to have heralded with the advent of the publication of "Human Side of Enterprise" by Douglas McGregor in 1960, when he expounded the widely accepted and implemented 'theory of Y' as contrasted to the theory of X, which was implicitly in vogue earlier. Below are extracts of his philosophy.
"People are our most valuable asset' is a cliché, which no member of any senior management team would disagree with. Yet, the reality for many organizations is that their people remain under valued, under trained and under utilized.
The rate of change facing organizations has never been greater and organizations must absorb and manage change at a much faster rate than in the past. In order to implement a successful business strategy to face this challenge, organizations, large or small, must ensure that they have the right people capable of delivering the strategy."
(http://www.accel-team.com/human_resources/index.htm)
The new management thinking that emerged in the West from the Sixties centers on the theories of 'Employee Motivation'. Performance is considered to be a function of ability and motivation, thus:
Job performance =f (ability) (motivation)
Ability in turn depends on education, experience and training and its improvement is a slow and long process. On the other hand motivation can be improved quickly. You may access the web site address given below for a more detailed understanding of this concept.
(http://www.accel-team.com/motivation/index.html).
Briefly stated the assumptions of these two theories (Theory X and Theory Y) are as under:
Theory X Assumptions:
Theory Y Assumptions:
People view work as being as natural as play and rest
People will exercise self-direction and -control towards achieving objectives they are committed to
People learn to accept and seek responsibility
(http://choo.fis.utoronto.ca/FIS/Courses/LIS1230/LIS1230sharma/motive2.htm)
Other contemporary thinkers on the subjects supplemented the concept with additional theories as under:
Hierarchy of Needs Theory (Abraham Maslow - Motivation and Personality, 1954)
(http://www.accel-team.com/maslow_/index.html)
Hygiene Factors Theory (Frederick Herzberg -Work And Nature Of Man, 1966)
(http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=5&n=11)
Three NeedsTheory (David McClelland- The Achieving Society,1961)
(http://www.incentive-rewards.com/motivatheories.htm)
Goal Setting Theory and
Equity Theory (J. Stacey Adams, 1965)
(http://www.incentive-rewards.com/motivatheories.htm ) (Both 4 and 5)
Expectancy Theory (Victor Vroom - Work and Motivation,1964
(http://managementlearning.com/ppl/vroovict.html)
"McGregor argued that there was nothing wrong or bad about exercising authority or giving instructions. However if exercising unilateral management authority is less than effective then the alternative of democratic involvement offered more returns than more doses of authority. Humanistic values were introduced into management thinking. However these values served managerial purposes of efficiency, measurement and control - the tenets of traditional scientific management.
New systems and techniques of management were to be adopted to bring predictability and control into the work place - new approaches informed by 'behavioural science'. The practice of staff appraisal was an important extension of McGregor's argument.
Theory X Propositions
A manager holding to these would be inclined to believe and state that
On average my staff really do not want to work. If they had a choice they would not want to commit themselves to work for the employer in the employer's time. They avoid it wherever possible. Basically they are self-interested and prefer leisure rather than working for someone else.
Because of this I have to structure work and energise my staff. Tasks need to be well specified. Even then many need pushing and more direction and control so that they apply adequate effort towards what has to be achieved. Even though I provide good rewards - many of my staff are still disinclined to apply consistently the kinds of effort the organisation needs. Many accept the rewards, complain that they need more and yet behave in ways that are less than fully committed. I have to resort to more checks, instructions and exhortations - sometimes-even punishments. If I relax my gaze and I am too soft sloppiness sets in.
Indeed most people prefer to be directed. They do not really wish to carry the burden of responsibility indeed they tend to avoid this. They have little ambition and prefer a secure, steady life.
Such a manager thus gives close supervision and defines jobs and systems that structure how a worker allocates and applies their time. They place stress on workers being calculative.
The above statements are spin-offs from McGregor's originals but the sense remains the same. McGregor felt that such managerial views led to behaviour and organisational systems which relied on rewards, promises, incentives, close supervision, rules and regulations, even threats and sanctions all designed to control workers.
Soft X and Hard X
There are soft and hard methods in the Theory X list. Hard approaches are represented by "the stick" - coercive language, harsh authoritarian management. Soft applications- "the carrot" - dangle rewards and promises in front of the employees nose i.e. more pay (cash and non-cash), more work, a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. The relationship is a wage-work bargain, an exchange.
Theory Y
A Theory Y manager tends to believe that
Given the right conditions for employees, their application of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as rest or play. Work is play, offers satisfactions and meaning.
There are alternatives to reliance on external controls, pushing and threats - implied or real. These are not the only means for linking individual effort with organisational objectives. If people feel committed, they will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of the firm's objectives.
Their objectives will complement the firm's and commitment is a function of the "intrinsic" rewards associated with their achievement i.e. not just extrinsic rewards/punishments.
The Theory Y manager recognises the influence of learning. He/she believes that if the right conditions are created the average person learns not to accept and seek responsibility.
The capacity to exercise imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the solution of organisational problems is widely not narrowly distributed in the work force
In modern organisations, the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially utilised. People are capable of handling more complex problems.
Again these are (my) extensions to McGregor's original, sparse propositions.
A more difficult management approach...?
On asking managers which is the most difficult management approach to adopt - will they reply that being a Theory Y manager is more fraught and difficult?
A Theory X communication style can be largely one way. It is quick and orderly. If employees do not respond or deliver the goods - they can be blamed for inattentiveness, lack of interest, unreliability. After all "you just cannot get good staff these days".
But the Theory Y manager has to be more sensitive. He/she has
to take the time out to explains
to comprehend the needs of the individual,
to engage in joint-problem solving and interpersonal exchange with each member of staff.
This requires trust building (McGregor accepted the need for trust, consistency and faith. If a member of staff lets the manager down, the latter cannot revert in a knee-jerk way to a Theory X monster - blaming or criticising. Such swings characterise the Jekyll and Hyde manager. The punishing parent who then returns to nurturing may not be believed.
Theory Y and Abdication
Theory Y is the opposite of abdication, giving staff licence to interpret and implement organisational objectives themselves. The manager remains at the centre facilitating the initiation and control processes. Essential to the Theory Y culture is a monitoring, feedback and control system.
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
Mechanisms of management control remain key ingredients in Theory Y propositions - to the extent that analysts such as Salaman (1981) see Theory Y as a glossy, re-formulation of Theory X. The extra, consumer-oriented ingredient is its humanistic ethic - the purpose of which is to capture worker motivation and groom higher performance.
The Manager as Developer
Theory X and Y both have it that managers are responsible for organising the elements of the production process, getting workers to co-operate and align with organisational goals. A developer and facilitator role - setting up and targeting social, technical system performances - mediates downside of the controller function. Managers set the parameters but work systematically and conscientiously with junior staff defining jobs and priorities, planning operations and agreeing programmes, reviewing achievements.
Empowerment - the Emperor's New Clothes
Theory Y recommended what Herzberg in 1964 called "job enrichment" and Peters in 1982 and 1985 called "empowerment ". Re-designing jobs to expand opportunities for self-control and self-direction would, it was stressed, contribute to improved performance. Even though the maintenance aspects of the controller's role are retained, the manager was encouraged to remove job restrictions and create more scope for job development enabling employees to grow and give more of their innate potential to the business.
Conclusion
The McGregor Message?
Use Theory Y principles to shape your Organisation's culture and management style!
[Source: http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/motivation/mcgregor.html]
