Question.4187 - Unit 2 - Discussion Board (75 points) Due: Thu, Jan 16 |Printer Friendly Version Description Primary Discussion Response is due by Thursday (11:59:59pm Central), Peer Responses are due by Saturday (11:59:59pm Central). Review the Specialty Metalworking Company Case Study before proceeding with the following scenario. Scenario: Al Waysright, a Project Engineer for Metallico, joined the team earlier this year. He had met Win Easily from Project Management Consultants during the interview sessions and was looking forward to working under him. Al’s team members seemed warm and friendly and comfortable with their work. He had acquainted himself with his team members quite well. Out of curiosity, Al causally asked one of the team members about Mr. Easily. His team member responded, “Mr. Easily does not interfere with our work. In fact, you could even say that he tries to ignore us as much as he can.” Al was surprised by the comment but decided that Mr. Easily was probably leaving them alone to do their work without any guidance to allow them to realize their full potential. Al’s previous job was at Expert Industrial Developers (EID) working for Ivar Kontrack. Al had worked under Ivar and had looked up to him as a guide and mentor—always guiding, but never interfering. Ivar had allowed him to make his own mistakes, and he learned from them. He had always encouraged individual ideas and let the dream team discover the flaws, if any, through discussion and experience. He rarely held an individual member of his team responsible if the team as a whole failed to deliver; for him, the responsibility for any failure was collective. As Al was going through the initial project plan, he saw that there were several problems with the project scope that would cause scope creep in the future. Excited to bring this up to Mr. Easily in the hopes of gaining praise and recognition, Al waited the next day in front of Mr. Easily’s office for an opportunity to discuss this with him. After Al waited for an hour, Mr. Easily called him in. When Al went in, Mr. Easily looked at him blankly and asked, “Yes?” Not sure whether he had recognized Al, he introduced himself. Mr. Easily said, “Ok, but why did you want to meet me?” Al started to tell him about the problems he saw with the project scope and his solutions, but before Al could even finish, Mr. Easily told him that he was busy with other things and that he would send an e-mail with the solution to all members of the team by the end of the day that the team could then implement immediately. Al was somewhat taken aback. He slowly realized that Mr. Win Easily was the opposite of his old boss. Although he was efficient at what he did and extremely intelligent, he had neither the time nor the inclination to groom his subordinates. His solution to problems was always correct, but he was not willing to discuss or debate the merits of any other ideas that his team might have. He did not hold the team down to their deadlines nor did he ever interfere. In fact, he rarely said anything at all! If work did not get finished on time, he would just blame the team and totally disassociate himself from them. Time and again, Al Waysright found himself thinking of Ivar Kontract, his old boss, and how he had been such a positive influence. Win, on the other hand, without actively doing anything, had managed to significantly lower Al’s motivation levels. As a result, Al gradually began to lose interest at work. It had become too mechanical for his taste. He didn’t really need to think; his boss had all the answers. Al was learning nothing new and felt his career was going nowhere. As he became more and more discouraged, his performance suffered. From being someone with immense promise and potential, Al was now in danger of becoming just another mediocre project engineer. Primary Task Response: Within the Discussion Board area, write 400–600 words that respond to the following questions with your thoughts, ideas, and comments. This will be the foundation for future discussions with your classmates. Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas. After gaining a deeper understanding of your own leadership and communication style, it is time to turn your focus outward to your team. To keep your team performing at a high level, it is first assumed that you have taken them through the stages of building a team: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. In this Discussion Board, you will explore what you believe are the goals of motivation, some of the theories driving motivation, and what instrument you might use to measure how each project team individual is motivated. The following Discussion Board research will assist you in determining what each of these dimensions means. Research at least 2 sources (which may include your textbook) to support your response. Include an introduction and conclusion to this topic. Be sure to include your references and citations, and format your submission in APA format. Based on the above scenario, discuss the following questions: What are the differences between the levels of satisfaction that Al felt while working for the two different managers? Answer the question using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Analyze with Alderfer’s EGR theory the needs of Al that are not being met at his current job. Al began his current job with great enthusiasm; however, despite his positive outlook, he quickly became unmotivated. Using Herzberg’s content theory, explain the probable reasons for this. Al’s gradual performance drop in the new division was due to a lack of intangible rewards for his needs. Analyze this statement using equity theory. The key factor in why Al felt demoralized was that his expectations were not being met. Using Vroom’s expectancy theory, explain this. Responses to Other Students: Respond to at least 2 of your fellow classmates with at least a 100–200-word reply about their Primary Task Response regarding items you found to be compelling and enlightening. To help you with your discussion, please consider the following questions: What did you learn from your classmate's posting? What additional questions do you have after reading the posting? What clarification do you need regarding the posting? What differences or similarities do you see between your posting and other classmates' postings? For assistance with your assignment, please use your textbook and all course resources.
Answer Below:
Introduction Motivation plays a vital role in team performance and individual productivity, especially in project environments. The case of Al Waysright highlights how differences in managerial approaches can significantly impact employee satisfaction, motivation, and performance. This discussion examines Al’s experiences using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Alderfer’s ERG theory, Herzberg’s content theory, equity theory, and Vroom’s expectancy theory, providing insights into the psychological and motivational dimensions of leadership and team management. Satisfaction Differences Using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Maslow’s hierarchy of needs identifies five levels of human motivation: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization (Rojas et al., 2023). At EID (Under Ivar Kontrack): Al’s needs were well addressed. Ivar’s mentorship provided a sense of security and belonging (social needs) and opportunities for growth, recognition, and personal achievement (esteem and self-actualization). Al felt valued, motivated, and supported. At Metallico (Under Win Easily): Al’s social and esteem needs were unmet. Win’s lack of engagement left Al feeling isolated and unrecognized. There was no room for professional growth or self-actualization, causing Al to lose interest and motivation. Analysis Using Alderfer’s ERG Theory Alderfer’s ERG theory condenses Maslow’s model into three categories: Existence, Relatedness, and Growth (Protogerou, 2019). Existence Needs: These were met in both roles, as Al had job security and basic resources. Relatedness Needs: At Metallico, relatedness needs were unfulfilled. Win’s detached style led to a lack of meaningful interpersonal connections, leaving Al feeling unsupported and undervalued. Growth Needs: Al’s growth needs were neglected at Metallico. Without challenges or opportunities to learn, his professional development stagnated, eroding his initial enthusiasm. Herzberg’s Content Theory and Al’s Lack of Motivation Herzberg’s two-factor theory identifies hygiene factors and motivators as key elements influencing job satisfaction: Hygiene Factors: At Metallico, basic hygiene factors like salary and job security were present, but the absence of good leadership and team collaboration created dissatisfaction. Motivators: Metallico lacked motivators such as recognition, autonomy, and meaningful work. Win’s authoritative, impersonal approach denied Al the opportunity to contribute creatively or receive acknowledgment for his efforts, diminishing his intrinsic motivation. Equity Theory and Intangible Rewards Equity theory suggests individuals compare their input-output ratio to others, influencing their sense of fairness and motivation. Input-Output Imbalance: Al likely perceived an imbalance at Metallico. Despite his enthusiasm and proactive efforts, he received no acknowledgment, guidance, or rewards, creating a sense of inequity. Intangible Rewards: The lack of intangible rewards—such as trust, respect, and recognition—led Al to feel undervalued, which contributed to his declining performance and morale. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and Unmet Expectations Vroom’s expectancy theory links motivation to three factors: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence (Vroom et al., 2015). Expectancy: Al believed his skills and efforts would lead to meaningful contributions. However, Win’s dismissive attitude diminished this belief. Instrumentality: Al expected his contributions to be recognized and valued. Instead, Win’s approach conveyed that Al’s efforts were irrelevant, eroding his motivation. Valence: Al valued personal growth and recognition, but Metallico failed to meet these expectations. The absence of these key motivators left Al demoralized and disengaged. Conclusion Al’s experience at Metallico underscores the profound impact of leadership styles on employee motivation and performance. Effective leaders recognize the importance of fulfilling psychological needs, fostering growth, and maintaining equitable and rewarding environments. By applying motivational theories such as Maslow’s hierarchy, ERG theory, Herzberg’s content theory, equity theory, and Vroom’s expectancy theory, managers can better understand and address the factors influencing team dynamics and individual motivation. References Protogerou, M. (2019). Strategic management based on employee motivation: the case of a car spare parts family business. Rojas, M., Méndez, A., & Watkins-Fassler, K. (2023). The hierarchy of needs empirical examination of Maslow’s theory and lessons for development. World Development, 165, 106185. Vroom, V., Porter, L., & Lawler, E. (2015). Expectancy theories. In Organizational Behavior 1 (pp. 94-113). Routledge.More Articles From Management
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
