"Critically evaluate the extent to which the role of leaders and managers contributes to employee motivation and engagement within organisations."
To exist and prosper in today's dynamic and competitive environment, organizations need leaders and managers who realise the benefits of performance for organizations' and employees' development (Yukl, 2008: p. 717). Organizations search for strategic leaders who understand that the employees' performance should be enhanced not only when it is low, because "even the best performance can be improved (Forsyth 2010: p. 2). The aim of this report is to analyse how managers and leaders can increase employees' performance by increasing motivation and engagement. The paper will assess responsibilities, relationships, reasons and rewards as the main paths managers and leaders may use to motivate and engage employees. This study will analyse how feedback, goals, organizational culture may be crucial aspects of employees motivation and engagement with the organization.
Management and leadership overlap in theory and practice, but differences between them found in recent research (Toor 2011: p. 318) suggest that leadership is more linked with change and sustainability, while management is more preoccupied to maintain control over the outcomes. Furthermore, the study suggests that leaders exercise personal power to gain authority and to empower employees, while managers appeal to position power to impose authority. This paper will not treat leading and managing as roles, it will focus on tasks and perspectives needed in different situations, because as literature indicates (Leary-Joyce 2011, p. 293; Toor 2011: p. 318) in order to achieve competitive advantage and growth, organizations need both leaders that can manage and managers that can lead.
Work motivation was defined by Latham and Ernst (2006: p. 181), as a psychological process resulted as interaction between individuals and the environment, influencing a person's choices, determination, and energy. Literature suggested that motivation can be used to stimulate the achievement of results by increasing employees' performance (Sandhya and Pradeep-Kumar 2011: p. 1779; Forsyth, 2010: p. 7). When investigating motivation drivers is significant to consider the distinction between extrinsic motivation, which is controlled and awarded by the organization, and intrinsic motivation, which is awarded to the employee by himself or herself (Broedling 1997:p. 271). Employees' motivation may be analysed by looking at theoretical and practical implications of motivational theories. In order to do so, this paper will use as a guide the theory of 4Rs of motivation suggested by Maccoby (2010: p.60) [1] ; assessing responsibilities, relationships, reasons and rewards, key aspects and practices in strengthening the employees' intrinsic motivation will be suggested.
Managers and leaders may consider Herzberg's two-factor theory, which distinguishes between hygiene factors and motivators, as a starting point, in ensuring that employees' basic needs are met, and moving their strategies toward motivators, that can make people feel good (Forsyth 2010: p. 13). According to the theory dissatisfaction refer to aspects as salary, working conditions, and interpersonal relations (House and Wigdor), while motivators relate to work itself, recognition, responsibility, achievement, and opportunities for advancement (Latham, 2007). Assessing the importance of motivators, Brooks (2009) claimed that job enrichment is an attempt to build upon Herzberg's two-factor theory by designing jobs which enrich individuals by giving them opportunity for responsibility and involvement and increase their intrinsic motivation.
A weakness of the theory to consider is that it did not define satisfaction and dissatisfaction as being at opposite. For example even if the motivating factors themselves are addressed correctly if the extrinsic factors are not effectively satisfied they can cause dissatisfaction (DeShields et. al). Furthermore, Herzberg's theory was often criticized, especially because it does not make any evaluation of the relation between satisfaction and performance (Lefter et al. 325).
Applying Herzberg's theory managers and leaders may start by analysing the work environment, and evaluating if the work conditions correspond to each individual's needs. For example leaders and managers have to ensure that relationships among employees are cooperative and conflict situations are fixed rapidly (Maccoby 2010 p.60). Furthermore, giving employees roles with responsibilities that will fit their values and beliefs will influence their motivation to perform a particular task (Maccoby 2010: p.60). In allocating responsibilities a significant aspect for managers to consider as Grant (2008: p.49) argues is the difference between intrinsic motivation, which is based on interest and enjoyment, and prosocially motivation, which is based on a desire to help others. Managers may to hire employees who show tendencies to have high levels of both motivations, because as research show (Grant 2008: p.56) synergy between prosocial and intrinsic motivations may enhance determination, performance, and efficiency. Moreover, managers have not to become over-reliant on extrinsic rewards but need to enrich work by resourceful job design and acknowledgment of individual development needs (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd).
Unlike Herzberg's theory, which focuses solely on the motivational factors, Vroom's expectancy theory (1964) explains motivation as a result of three components called expectancy, instrumentality and valence (Kolman et al. 2012), in order to analyse the effort, the outcome of high performance emanated from effort, the connection between performance and the rewards one expects to receive as result of this performance, and value of the rewards (Latham, 2007). Brooks (2009) noted that the theory succeeds to recognise that the individuals are unlikely to value the same outcome equally. As result, individuals need different stimulus in order to succeed (Forsyth, 2010). Furthermore, Steers and Mowday (2004) suggest that the attractiveness of a particular task and the effort spent in it will be influenced by the employee believes that its accomplishment will lead to valued outcomes.
Applying expectancy theory, managers and leaders may improve the strength of instrumentality by liking salary, benefits, and promotions, to performance and change the valence by adapting the rewards to fit each individual's specific needs. An aspect managers and leaders needs to be considerate is to assess the impact of instrumentality used on valence existent because as Maccoby (2010: p.60) argued the promise of more money can stimulate a doctor to see more patients, but not to treat them any better. The motivating effect of money is well represented in the pay-for-performance system, but implementing this scheme, managers and leaders should reduce employees' pay risk perceptions through open communication, improving job training (Chang, 2003, p. 77).
A weakness of the expectancy theory is as (Broedling 1997, p.271) noted, Vroom's limitation to describe work behaviour in terms of perceptions regarding job outcomes, which makes it a primarily theory of extrinsic motivation. Research revealed (Benabou and Tirole, 2003, p. 491) that extrinsic rewards may change the locus of causality from internal to external, making employees bored, alienated and reactive rather than proactive by increasing employees' expectancy to be rewarded every time the task has to be performed again.
Because at the core of the motivation process is goal setting (Meyer et al. 2004: p. 992), it is significant to assess the goal setting theory, developed by Lotham and Locke (1979), according to which the motivation and performance is higher when the individual has specific goals, objectives (Lefter et al, p. 325). When investigating this theory, a significant difference to consider, is between set, accepted goals, arouse as reactions to external incentives, and naturally occurring goals developed from the stimulation of human needs, character traits, and self-efficacy perceptions formed through experience and socialization (Meyer et al. 2004: p. 992). Furthermore, for the goals to be accomplished, Locke considerate feed-back, goal commitment, ability, and task complexity to be the necessary conditions (Meyer et al. 2004: p. 992).
A practical implication of the goal theory will involve the employees in the process of goal setting in order to obtain their approval when setting targets (Lefter et al, p. 325) because the way employees perceive their mission and role may determine their level of motivation and engagement with the organization. Reasons can be the most powerful motivators of all (Maccoby 2010: p.60), for this reason researches investgated (Danish and Usman 2010: p.164; Maccoby's 2010: p.60) that people who take pride in their work, and feel that they contribute to the common good are more motivated. As Maccoby (2010: p.61) recommended, in order to give employees reasons to perform harder or smarter, managers and leaders have to clearly communicate the mission of organization, purpose of the job, and how crucial is everyone's contribution for achieving the targeted results. Literature pointed out that (Cooper; Carter 2009: p. 45), stretched targets and objectives, in order to give employees something higher to aim and to accomplish beside the basic responsibilities may increase their intrinsic motivation. Finally, well-delivered, timely feedback can inspire employees to perform, while poor, negative or even absent feedback can demotivate (Brooks, 2009).
Role of leaders and managers-engagement
Employee engagement is a long-term and continuing process that causes obligations and mutual interdependence Saks 2006: p. 614. Recent studies that investigated employee engagement (Bakker and Demerouti 2007; Gruman and Saks 2011; Wefald and Downey 2009; Markos and Sridevi 2010, p.92) have found, a positive relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance outcomes: productivity, employee retention, profitability. A more recent approach to enhancing employee engagement is represented by the Job Demands Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), which advices that managers should pay attention to job demands like role ambiguity, uncertainty or conflict, and should use job resources like task identity or significance, skill variety, autonomy and performance feedback. As previously investigated (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Kuvaas and and Dysvik 2009 p.231; Kuvaas, 2006, p. 512), job characteristics may develop positive attitudes, behaviour, and well-being. However, it is significant to mention that engagement is an individual-level construct, and it must first impact individual-level outcomes (Saks 2006: p. 614.) because as researchers argued (Gruman and Saks, 2011, p. 127) it is the behavioural engagement that leads directly to job performance. Thus, leaders and managers should focus on employees' opinions of the assistance they get from their organization (Saks 2006: p. 614). Also, useful may be the organizational programs designed to address employees' necessities and concerns (e.g. focus groups, surveys, and suggestion programs) and demonstrate support (e.g. flexible work arrangements) (Saks 2006: p. 614). It is important to consider that a "one size fits all" tactic to employee engagement might not be realistic (Saks 2006: p. 614). Alarcon and Edwards (2010: p. 297) demonstrated that engagement is a valid predictor job satisfaction and turnover intentions, thus engaged employee may invest time and effort into the workplace as a result of job satisfaction. Recent researchers (Crede et al., 2007, p. 532; Wefald and Downey 2009 p.104) have suggested that in order to improve job satisfaction, managers and leaders need to consider environmental factors (e.g., job opportunities), job characteristics, personal dispositions, job withdrawal cognitions, organizational citizenship behaviours, and counterproductive work behaviours and to address as many of these variables as possible simultaneously (e.g. job enrichment and reduction in workplace discrimination).
Employee engagement requires leadership commitment and "Leading by Being example". As any other management decisions, engagement decision should be evaluated in terms of both its benefits and its associated costs (Markos and Sridevi 2010, p.94).
