Organizational Development

The Content Theories of Motivation In a historical perspective, the content theories tend to be the earliest theories of motivation or later modifications of early theories. Within the work environment they have had the greatest impact on management practice and policy, whilst within academic circles they are the least accepted. Content theories are also called needs theories, because they are generally associated with a view that concentrates on the importance of determining 'what' motivates us. In other words they try to identify what our 'needs' are and relate motivation to the fulfilling of these needs.

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs "Management Assumptions" (Theory X and Theory Y) ERG Theory McClellands Need for Achievement, Affiliation and Power Herzbergs' Two Factor Theory

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs This is the most widely known theory of motivation and was hypothesised by American psychologist Abraham Maslow in the 1940s and 1950s. Maslow put forward the idea that there existed a hierarchy of needs consisting of five levels in the hierarchy. These needs progressed from lower order needs through to higher level needs.

The basic premise of the theory is that we all have these five levels of needs and that starting at the lowest level we are motivated to satisfy each level in ascending order. As each level is sufficiently satisfied we are then motivated to satisfy the next level in the hierarchy. The five different levels were further subcategorised into two main groups, these being:

Deficiency needs - Maslow considered these the very basic needs required for survival and security. These needs include:

physiological needs safety needs social needs

Growth needs - These are needs associated with personal growth and fullfilment of personal potential.

esteem needs self-actualisation needs

In Maslow's theory we can never run out of motivation because the very top level, self-actualisation, which relates to the achievement of our full potential, can never be fully met. Maslows theory has been widely embraced and taught within the business world and few people who have attended a company supervision or basic management training course are unlikely not to be familiar with this theory.

"Management Assumptions" (Theory X and Theory Y) Douglas McGregor further developed the needs concept of Maslow and specifically applied it to the workplace. McGregor maintained that every manager made assumptions about their employees and adopted a management approach based upon these assumptions. He maintained there were two main categories and that managers adopted one or the other. The first category, which he termed Theory X, he maintained was the dominant management approach and assumed:

the average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if possible, because of this most people needed to be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment to get them to put adequate effort into the achievement of organisational objectives, and the average person prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has very little ambition and wants security above all else.

McGregor maintains that the application of this approach, as well as misunderstanding the real needs of employees, creates a self-fulfilling outcome because it forces people to become like thisthey have no alternative. McGregor proposed an alternative set of assumptions which he called Theory Y. The assumptions here are virtually the opposite to Theory X. They are :

Work is as natural as play or rest. External control and threat of punishment are not the only means of bringing about effort towards organisational objectives. People will exercise self-direction and self-control towards the achievement of objectives they are committed to.

Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. The average person learns under proper conditions to not only accept responsibility but also seek it. The ability to seek and develop innovative problem solving approaches is widely, not narrowly distributed across the whole population. In most work organisations the abilities of most employees is only partially utilised.

McGregor advocated that the application of Theory Y, would not only meet the needs of the organisation but also those of the employee. He believed that Theory X at best only met Maslows Deficiency needs, whilst Theory Y also met the Growth Needs. You would thus have more motivated employees if you adopted Theory Y.

ERG Theory Clayton Alderfer revised Maslow's theory in 1972. He reduced the levels in the hierarchy from five to three and termed these Existence needs, Relat edness needs and Growth needs. His most significant contribution, however, was to alter Maslow's concept of a one-way progression up the hierarchy, to one that allowed for regression to lower levels if these needs are no longer being met. This is a more realistic approach as it recognises that, because a need is met, doesn't mean it will always remain met. For example, if I were to remove all the air from the room you are in, would you be motivated to keep learning? McClellands Need for Achievement, Affiliation and Power McClelland's model argues that all people have these three needs. He further maintains that there is a direct link between high-performing managers and their need for achievement, and to a lesser extent their need for power and affiliation. In other words, people with a high drive to succeed are more likely to be more highly motivated than people with a low drive to succeed. He also maintains that it is possible to arrange work situations and conditions to gain the high motivational benefits from those with a high need for achievementstarting by employing people with a high need for achievement.

Herzbergs' Two Factor Theory Next to Maslow, Herzberg's theory has probably received the most attention within the workplace. He developed a theory that differentiated between factors that satisfied employees, and factors that dissatisfied employees. In his theory the opposite of 'satisfaction' is not 'dissatisfaction' but rather 'no satisfaction'. Likewise, the opposite of 'dissatisfaction' is 'no dissatisfaction'. Herzberg related job satisfaction to five factors :

achievement recognition work itself responsibility advancement

He termed these factors 'motivators' and related the m back to growth needs. Herzberg related job dissatisfaction to:

company policy and administration supervision salary interpersonal relationships working conditions

These he termed 'hygiene factors' and equated them with deficiency needs. His major impact was to argue that providing hygiene factors (more money, better working conditions, etc) wouldn't create more motivation, only less dissatisfaction. Only motivators could motivate.

Criticism of the content theories Despite their wide use and impact on the workplace, major criticisms exist of these theories. Whilst specific criticisms can be levelled at particular theories, the following general criticisms apply to all of the content theories.

Universality - the theories pertain to be universal theories and apply to everyone. They take no account of gender, age, culture, religious or other factor differences. Most were developed in the USA and at best can only represent middle-class Ameri can business needs and values in the 1940s to 1970s. Research support and methodology biases - despite many research projects little to no support has been established for these theories. Many of the theories, such as Maslow's, weren't based on research at all, but opinion, whilst others researched biased samples (only males, only accountants and engineers, etc). In some instances where evidence was found that didn't support the theory, it was re-defined to make it fit. Work focus - the theories tend to assume that our workplaces are the places (and only places) where our needs and personal development is met. They ignore the importance of other aspects of our lives and their impact on our work lives. Individual differences and stability over time - not only do the theories ignore the significance of individual differences but they largely fail to recognise that individual needs are constantly changing, and consequently what may be a motivator one day may not the next. Their static nature doesn't relate to the real world. Process simplicity - The theories assume that the connection between needs and behaviour is non-problematic. They ignore the processes that must be evaluated and implemented to achieve the desired end result. Overall they are far too simplistic to account for the complexity of the real world and the complex decision making process that individuals must often make in the motivation process.

Despite these criticisms, these theories have been critical in focusing attention on the area of motivation and the importance of 'needs'. They have helped managers evaluate their own perceptions about their employees and themselves. They have also helped to provide a basis for further study in this area.

five Stages of Group Development

Summary This paper focuses on the five Stages of Group Development and the targeted goals for a well-functioning team. Introduction Published in 1965, Bruce W. Tuckman's Stage Model of Group Development is one of the most widely used models today. Tuckman's model was formed from a meta-analysis of 50 research-based studies of group development and is identified by the labels Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing (Cassidy). It wasn't until 1977 when Tuckman added the fifth study, Adjourning. These phases help us to understand and interpret the changes and developmental stages that occur within teams, and they facilitate analyses of team behavior and aid in developing what are the necessary traits or behavior patterns for a team to become high-performing (Edison). While some businesses prefer the use of a specific kind of group, whether it is formal or informal, the stages of group development can still be useful. Just like the members of the team, the group itself goes through many different changes and life cycle stages. By instilling the five steps of group development, the group members can cope with any and all changes together. Stage 1: Forming The first stage of group development is called forming, and sometimes may be referred to as the dependency and inclusion stage. This stage is crucial to the development process because it defines the goals of the team and orientates the team members. During this stage, individuals ask a number of questions as they begin to identify with other group members and with the group itself (Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn 174). When team members spend time focusing on getting to know each other, working together to achieve a common goal is easier. The first stage of group development may manifest itself as compliance with plans proposed by the group leader or by a powerful member (Wheelan 24). During this stage, the work output is generally low, if there is any at all. Team members should concentrate more on getting to know each other, examining each others' work styles and ethics, and understanding what his/her role is in the group. This stage of development also allows members of the group to consider and observe prospective group leaders. If the group leader has been chosen beforehand,

group participants tend to test the tolerance of the leader. The leader is often expected to answer many different questions, mostly about the function and objectives of the group. In fact, members often urge the leader to take charge and tell them what to do (Wheelan 24). The forming stage is accompanied by many different feelings and behaviors. Team members tend to be more eager and excited about their work at the point. The team also decides what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable. This is a comfortable stage to be in, but the avoidance of conflict and threat means that not much actually gets done ("Chimaera Consulting"). During the early stages of formation, it is important to examine how the group is organized. If group members have not yet developed a strong, effective team, it is still early enough to reorganize the team and find and train any additional members that may be needed. Stage 2: Storming The second stage of Tuckman's model for group development is called storming. During this stage, group members are no longer worried about getting to know each other and their purpose on the team. Instead, they are more focused on their individual strengths being noticed by team members and team leaders. At stage 2, the group seeks to free itself from its dependence on the leader and members fight among themselves about group goals and procedures (Wheelan 25). Although Storming can be viewed as the most difficult stage, it is necessary for the growth of the team. The storming stage of group development is a period of high emotionality and tension among group members. During this stage, hostility and infighting may occur, and the group typically experiences many changes. Coalitions or cliques may form as individuals compete to impose their preferences on the group and achieve a desired status position (Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn 175). Key characteristics of the storming stage include competition, tension, disunity, and uncomfortable differences. The role of the leader(s) is crucial during this stage of development. Team members need to organize themselves as a team, rather than viewing other team members as competition. In order to maintain control over the group, it is best if the leader(s) keep everyone focused and organized. It is important that everyone is aware of their specific role and duty within the group, and any questions should be answered clearly and concisely. Since the main function of the group is to make progress, any uncertainties will interrupt progress. By clarifying every detail during the storming stage, future conflict can be avoided. In some cases, the storming stage may be brief, as some teams work better

than others. However, in some cases, teams never leave the storming stage. The maturity level, cooperation of individuals, tolerance, and patience of everyone involved all determine the amount of time the group spends in this stage. "Some groups become mired in conflict and remain stuck at this developmental stage. Other groups are overwhelmed by the stress of this phase and revert to leader dependence in an attempt to avoid further conflict" (Wheelan 25). Stage 3: Norming After the storming stage, the group has begun to create a shared understanding, a sense of trust, and a commitment to the group. They can now move into the next stage of development, the norming stage, or initial integration. This is when the group will establish mutually-accepted work processes and norms for the project. Conflict typically subsides as the group has come to agreement on the nature of the task and the way group members will work together. At this stage of development, the group typically begins to show a concern for the development of interpersonal relationships and a desire to build group cohesiveness (Dennis, Garfield, and Reinicke). The most significant development of this stage is that the members of the group are working together to achieve unified results, answering the question, "How are we going to accomplish our work as a team?" The individual members of the group have recognized the established work methods, allowing easier decision-making processes. Some key characteristics of the norming stage include increased cohesion, trust among team members, appreciation of each others' differences and honest communication and feedback. At this stage, the leader(s) of the group is focused on supporting group communication and ensuring the flow of data, as well as communicating in a less directive manner. During the norming stage, the team is highly focused on goal completion. Individuals have had to work hard to attain this stage and may resist any pressure to change, especially from the outside, for fear that the group will break up or revert to a storm ("Chimaera Consulting"). Although the team has successfully passed through the storming stage, it may regress back to it when serious issues arise and need to be resolved. If this happens, the team should recover quickly and advance through to the norming stage once again. Regressions will happen less often when team members and leaders truly understand each other and have fully matured.

Stage 4: Performing The performing stage of group development, sometimes called total group integration, marks the emergence of a mature, well-organized, and well-functioning group (Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn 175). At this point, the group has settled into an established set of behavioral patterns and has come to a consensus on how to work together as a unified team. As its name implies, the fourth stage of group development is a time of intense team productivity and effectiveness. At this stage, the group becomes a high performance team. Having resolved many of the issues of the previous stages, the team can focus more of its energy on goal achievement and task accomplishment (Wheelan 28). Many groups never reach the performing stage of group development, but the few that do ask themselves, "How can we do our best?" Successful groups achieve the performing stage by using skilled communication among team members and leaders. Using creativity, the group is able to overcome disagreements and complex tasks. Group opportunities and demands will change over time, but exceptionally successful groups will handle any challenges with no problems. Stage 5: Adjourning In 1975, Bruce Tuckman revisited his model and added a fifth and final stage, adjourning. When a group reaches the adjourning stage, all tasks have successfully been completed. The adjourning stage of group development is especially important for the many temporary groups that are increasingly common in the new workplace, including task forces, committees, project teams, and the like. Members of these groups must be able to convene quickly, do their jobs on a tight schedule, and then adjourn - often to reconvene later if needed. Their willingness to disband when the job is done and to work well together in future responsibilities, group or otherwise, is an important long-term test of group success (Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn 175). The adjourning stage is not as simple as it sounds, though. Group members' sensitivities and vulnerabilities to Tuckman's fifth stage may be high at this time. Members may have formed close bonds with other team members. Adjourning from the group may cause an individual to feel insecurity from this sudden change.

Conclusion Group development does not always proceed in a positive direction. Groups can get stuck at a particular stage for extended periods of time, resulting in long-term ineffectiveness and low productivity. Also, groups may fluctuate widely based on the circumstances and forces affecting them at a given moment. Changes in membership, external demands, and changes in leadership can all affect the work of a group (Wheelan 29). It's important to understand that not all groups will work, and that not all people are able to work in groups. However, with dedication, patience, and understanding, group work can be instilled effectively in just about any organization or business