Discuss the relationship between empowerment and self-actualisation and comment up their relevance to motivation at work.

Monitoring is still seen as an important tool of management; simple due to the fact that man can only control what he can “see”, it has also some negative effect. Which can be seen in the “Panopticon prison”, designed by Jeremy Bentham. This was constructed in such a manner, that the jailed, were not only bounded to small restricted area, they were also under constant surveillance of a – due to the construction- invisible guard. Under this conception the jailed persons, would not only be physically punished for their crime by the restriction of his available space. They would also be mentally punished, since there would be no place, where they could go and would have their privacy, without having the feeling of being watched by the “all seeing” guards. (Maguire, 1997: 458)

Robert Owen introduced a similar technique known as the “silent monitor”, which put a lot of pressure on the subject (or objected, in regards of his treatment). Although this was seen as intimidating and as disciplining to the subject mind, this system is nowadays implemented in many companies, and also seen as entertainment (TV –shows such as Big Brother).

Then in 1920 the “Hawthorne study” was done, which results were intrinsically questioning the pure “mechanical and scientific” viewpoint of work. This investigation was done in a factory for telephone equipment and came up with the result, that not only the individual itself is important for the work performance, but also the social environment and other informal networks. This was also seen in the “Tavistock coal-mining studies”, where teams and meaning, had been more important than a bad work environment. In this study shift from small teams to large groups with a supervisor, resulted in a point where the individual needs for meaning, identification weren’t no longer met. Therefore it can be pointed out that as the business world became larger and more complex, companies had to start to create new relationships with their employees, which implied creativity and influence in decision making. Further is it of importance to make work “intrinsically more challenging and meaningful”, to met the demands of the employees. (Schein,1980:31-37)4 In here taylorism is criticised, since “it takes away the workers understand of the whole production process, and within this the possibility of creativity and the chance to show potential and proliferation.” (Schein, 1980: 68)

Nowadays it is believed that Taylor’s system is a very rational model, which represses the feelings of the worker, and therefore work itself becomes meaningless. Money itself does not appear to be the only motivator for humans and therefore another approach regarding motivation, was done by Abraham Maslow. He postulated, that all humans have the same sequence of needs recognition, and that those are always fulfilled in the same distinct order. It is further stated that the lower needs had to be satisfied before the higher needs, become of such a interest, that the individual would start to strive for them.

This order of need is illustrated in the hierarchy-of-needs-pyramid: (Eysenck, 2000)5

Maslow argues that in this the human being can be seen as a “wanting animal” (Maslow, 1970) which hardly ever achieves the level of total satisfaction; and if he/she does so, this is mostly only for a short period of time, were a new motivator (higher positioned) quickly replaces the need which was just satisfied.

According to result of Maslow’s study –which was done in America in 1970- only a few people reach the highest level of his hierarchy, namely 10% of the population. “Esteem Needs” could be fulfilled  by 40%, “Love and Belonging Needs” by 50%, Security Needs by 70% and finally the basic “Physiological needs” by 85% of the population. (Eysenck, 2000: 135)

Maslow studying also included great people, such as A. Einstein, A. Lincoln, A. Schweitzer,
T. Jefferson, and F. Roosevelt – which had reached an outstanding level of self-actualisation. These above mentioned people, had in common that they were all determined, very focused, spontaneous and they all were more concerned on social problems, although at the same time they only had a few, but very close friendships. (Carlson, 2000)

The fact that the higher levels of the this hierarchy are only fulfilled by a small amount people, can be used by managers. Namely does this mean that most people are not completely satisfied. Hence management can take advantage of those unsatisfied needs and use them as motivators, and enticing the employee with the possibility to fulfil the desired position of self-actualisation. Consequently the employees will strive to achieve those, and in order gain the additional satisfaction the might be more motivated in work. But it also has to be said that Maslow pointed out, that there is some amount of the human-needs which have to be satisfied, before a human will act-selfless. This is important because it implies, that this amount of needs have to be pleased, before he or she will start working or if he/she already works is could cause internal resistance in the worker (McKenna: 1987).

One example of using a different system of motivation is outlined by the theorist Ouchi (1980), who studied Japanese organisations, and came up with the concept of “clan approach”. This is different in such manner, that it doesn’t try to control via authority, compliance and rigidity, but instead emphasised on the organisations culture, and created values and norms for the workforce. This form of managing uses the tool of commitment, in which not only the managers but also the “normal” employees feel integrated and as a part of the company.

Herzberg did a different analysis on the problem, why employers feel good at work. He came to the conclusion that there are certain hygiene factors (e.g. adequate salary, job security. Good working conditions), which have a negative effect when they were absent, but interestingly their presence alone does not cause job satisfaction. To achieve this job satisfaction further motivators of mainly psychological nature (Interesting work, feelings of personal growth) are required. This motivators should be closely linked to the aims of the company, and would cause other positive results.

This concept is criticised by McGregor’s Theory X, which emphasised the idea that employees are mainly lazy, prefer direction and avoid responsibility.

On the other hand McGregor’s Theory Y implied that it is the duty of the management, to create conditions, where the employee can “develop”, whereby commitment can be gained by partly satisfying Maslow’s level of self actualisation. According to McGregor it is up to the company to find out which of this two theories applies to them, and then the have to act correspondingly. (Rose: 1990)2

Although McGregor Maslow and Ouchi, came up with different theories and models, they all have in common, that the employee needs some extend of satisfaction in work and a strong feeling of belonging to the company and identification with it.

A slightly different concept is the theory of empowerment which is described  by Thomas and Velthouse: “it as intrinsic motivation manifested in four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role. The four cognitions are meaning, competence, self determination and impact” (Spreitzer, 1996: 484) Whereby the idea behind those factors has to be understood:

Meaning is explained in the comparison of his or her personal principles and values and the understanding of ones job.
Competence again is based on the personal judgement between the personal mental and physical abilities, and the from the job demand abilities.
Self-determination is showing the strength to achieve personal goals mainly without any orders of a higher authority.
Impact on the other side is the ability to influence and win other people for the own ideas.

Further can it be seen that not only the attitudes of the workers can be seen in those factors, but that those are not rigid. This concept was therefore very interesting, since the workers orientation is not unchangeable, instead this can be modified and adapted to the companies demands. This transition can be done by adapting the organisation of the company, or by changing the employees perception of the company.

Spreizers study gives interesting insights in into the theory of empowerment, whereby following results could be gained. Firstly, the greater the uncertainty of the role or what is expected in the organisations, the lower the level of empowerment. Thirdly, the higher the participative climate, the higher the level of empowerment and also the better educated the higher the level of empowerment.

Now since, the different theories had been laid out, a comparison between the different concepts can be made, beginning with an attempt to link the four cognitions with the assumptions of self actualisation. The first cognition –meaning. Can be compared with the assumption of McGregors Theory Y. Meaning is seen a as the connection between the workers own beliefs and the work, whereby it is stated that the employee would adapt the his beliefs and targets to the those of the organisations. The difference in this lies in the fact that in the theory of empowerment the organisation has to change their goals to increase the empowerment of the employee. The second point is competence, which concerns the connection between abilities and work. This is connected with the theory that the employee is seeking to be mature in his occupation. The idea of self-determination can be compared the hypothesis that the workers are mainly self-motivated. Although these similarities can be seen the important difference lies in the fact, that in the self-actualisation theory these assumptions are requested to exist already, but in the concept of empowerment the idea is that those can be modified. Further does Maslow’s hierarchy states that, the individual has to work his or her way up the pyramid, in order fulfil his/her potential. Not so in the concept of empowerment, here it is no required to perform his or her way up to the top to achieve the highest possible state. Instead the it is “just” a manipulation of the for cognitions to become or create the most empowered person.

Spreitzer’s field-study results, found out, that if the worker was not sure, what was expected of him, he/she would assume that he or she was not expected to achieve much. This means that there should be clear guidelines, but it also has to ensured, that those are not to constricting. The self-actualisation theory is more specifically and says that the employee should get that amount of responsibility her or she could manage.

To conclude I would like to say, that I think that both theories have their applications, at least some extent. In my opinion, the crucial deciding-factor is, what kind of organisation, these theories are applied to. By that I mean that for example a consulting company has a complete different structure and behaviour than a belt-production. Further is there the same problem, which most models have, namely that they are a simplified version of the reality, thereby a lot of variables are ignored. In most cases, when they are on their own they are close to insignificant, but in sum the can be crucial. This can be seen in the fact, that although we are all humans, and although a great share of our DNA is the same, many people will react complete differently when they are all put in the same situation. Further it is ignored that people have gone through different developments and that they different experiences right from the beginning of their existence. So most people will go to work with the expectation, to find more than monotonous work, but for others it is purely about getting money, and meaning is searched outside the life of “from nine to five”.

---

Bibliography:

Boddy, D. & Paton, R (1998). Management: An Introduction 1st Edition: Prentice Hall Publishing

Carlson, N., Buskist, W. & Martin G., (2000). Psychology the Science of Behaviour, Pearson Education LTD.

Eysenck, M.& Keane, M. (2000). Psychology a Students Handbook 1st Edition, Psychology Press Ltd.

Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (1997). The Oxford Handbook of Crimenology 2nd Edition, New York: Oxford University Press

McKenna, E.(1987) Psychology in Business: Theory and Applications, LEA Publishers

Ouchi, W. (1980) from: Sparrow, P. Machington, M. (1998) “Human resource management: A new Agenda”, Financial Time Publishing

Rose, N (1990). Governing the soul, London and New York: Routledge

Schein, E (1970). Organizational Psychology 2nd Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Spreitzer, G. (1996). Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment, Academy of Management Journal Vol. 39 No.2 483-504

---