Understanding Globalization for Managers

What is Globalization?

            Globalization refers to the alliance of the global economic order amalgamating through the reduction of international trade barriers such as import and export fees, trade embargoes, quotas and other tariffs.  The overall goal of globalization is to simply increase the wealth of nations on a global scale.  The means in which this can be accomplished is through policies, specialization, competition, and international relations.  Globalization is often described as the way regions, nations, people, societies, cultures, and economies have been connected through trade, communications, direct investments, migration, military presence, technology, and transportation.  Globalization can also mean the integration of popular culture (i.e. movies, art, and literature), sociocultural events, languages, and even ideas.  Once one culture, which is considered “advanced”, shares knowledge with another less advanced culture, the less advanced culture is then said to be globalized.  

            The term globalization is generally used to explain a flow of goods, ideas, and culture between nations; it does have a series of advantages as well as disadvantages which must be considered when sharing goods, services, and even information with other nations.  There are many aspects of globalization that must be taken into account, such as: industrial, political, financial, language, economic, informational, ecological, technical, ecological (regarding a nation’s resources), and religious.  Globalization is an extremely important topic to understand in today’s society and this paper is a breakdown of the most important economic aspects and effects regarding the issues and how they affect the United States.

The Globalization Effect

            In the United States of America, globalization is not a new issue.  We, as Americans, are constantly changing the face of our culture.  It is certain that we hold many traditions, morals, and values as a people; however, Americans naturally love change, shopping, communications, as well as technology.  Many businesses, as well as the employees within a business, have had to alter their ways of doing business because of globalization.  But how does globalization affect our nation in other economic ways, on a grand scale?  How do businesses, as well as managers, have to change due to globalization in the United States in order to stay in business?  Are all businesses affected by globalization?  Which facets of business have to change due to globalization? And, what has happened to a manager’s responsibility within a business since globalization? What are the effects of globalization on competition within and outside of the United States?

            Globalization has been a part of the United States since the birth of our nation. (Boudousquie & Leavell, 2007)  The United States traded tea, cotton, tobacco, and silver with England, traded fur with France, and traded various other commodities such as rum, slaves, sugar, and spices with the Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese just to name a few.  Since colonial times, globalization in the United States has grown expansively throughout the nation and has affected the United States economy in many ways – which includes the way big and small businesses operate.  Globalization started rather small with businesses trading in colonial times, then later on when banks and investors began exchanging money across borders.  (Boudousquie & Leavell, 2007).  Today, American citizens are able to purchase knickknacks and even Japanese stock online from the comfort of their American home.  So, on a grand scale, globalization affects the entire economy, namely in the areas of technology, competition, political policy, culture, and even various other social issues such as immigration and online trade.  

            Competition is a very important aspect of globalization – it is competition which is the precursor to demanding that businesses and managers within businesses adapt their behavior to survive in the face of globalization.  Because globalization enables outsourcing and lower prices on domestic goods through importing, businesses in the United States are facing more financial issues.  For instance, some companies have closed factories in the United States because they have moved to foreign countries where they are able to cut labor costs. It is hard for United States’ businesses to compete with Chinese household commodities pricing when importing.  The main idea here is that importing is cheaper than making the goods in the United States.  When companies outsource for cheap labor, well, this exacerbates the current United States unemployment issues as well as the recession. So what must managers do in the face of globalization?  Should they compete with lower prices thus enhancing a recession? Or should they simply maintain their prices and risk losing their investment in their business?  Or should they move operations overseas (outsource) in order to keep costs low and still stay in business?  This is a true dilemma with companies and there is no real answer to this question.  However, as a business person, I would more than likely move operations overseas until things got better at home unless I could get by with lower prices for an indefinite period of time.  But then again, how will things get better at home with businesses doing this?  It truly is a dilemma and one that is an important question in the United States’ current state of affairs.

            Not all businesses are affected by globalization – yet.  I say yet because as time marches on, businesses who want to stay in business will have to compete with those businesses that are adapting and embracing technology as well as international relations.  As more and more businesses become integrated into the realm of globalization, managers and businesses will have to adapt to this change.  They can either adapt or go out of business; these are the rules of a competitive marketplace.  If companies are not able to compete with other companies, then they will eventually go out of business.  For instance, nowadays business are able to compete globally with the internet.  Many small businesses and some large businesses still do not have a website for their business.  As emerging nations gain broadband access, the market is growing, and fast.  These nations who are experiencing new policies (such as allowing internet sales globally and the use of at-home broadband access) are jumping at entrepreneurial opportunities and thus expanding the global market of trade.  (Renski, 2009).      

         Looking at new nations joining the global market, competitiveness cutting into profits, and overall changes around every corner, how has a manager’s responsibility changed due to globalization? I feel that looking through just the last 50 years, it is very clear to note that a manager’s responsibilities are becoming more diverse and decisions are becoming more and more difficult to make with any amount of certainty.  Managers need to keep one thing in mind, and this is that the global market is a very dynamic place.  For instance, one day steel may be worth $500.00 per pound and the next day it could be worth as little as $50.00 per pound.  Because demand and supply varies greatly just within one nation, it would be wise of the manager to keep in mind that globally this principle will be larger.  It is important to realize that as time goes on, this change will only be greater as more and more nations / people / businesses enter the market.  These “patterns of evolution are dynamic; terrains often undergo significant changes as globalization proceeds.” (Collis & Carr, 2011). 

Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization

            There is a great debate currently on the advantages and disadvantages of globalization.  This debate is largely political and economic in nature and both sides have very good arguments and points to be made.  However, this paper is not designed to take sides on the issue, but rather to portray an objective point of view which highlights the important points of both the advantages and disadvantages of globalization.

            According to G. L. Breedon, of darkseptemberrain.com, some of the advantages of globalization are:  increased trade between nations, increased liquidity of capital which allows investors to invest in developing nations, businesses / firms / corporations have greater flexibility to operate or trade across borders, globalized mass media integrates world events, the sharing of information is increased, there is a great ease and speed of transporting goods, with globalization there is the chance of democratic ideals that can be spread to developing as well as other non-democratic developed nations, reduction of the likelihood of war breaking out between developed nations (because if they are trading partners, they will have more incentive to remain allies), and increase in policies that can help with environmental protection.

            Some of the disadvantages are: outsourcing – when developed nations send skilled workers to undeveloped countries due to the cut in labor costs and when companies hire other people in different countries who will work for much less than their home country; increased likelihood that if there is a problem with one nation that many nations could be affected (i.e. war, or natural disasters); threat of cultural limitations posed by the media favoring corporation interests; a chance that a nation may create a threat of violence when reacting to the transition of globalization in an attempt to preserve their heritage (culture clash); greater risks of disease being transported across borders;  transfer of capitalism or seeing prosperity in only materialistic terms; international organizations such as the World Trade Organization could infringe on national sovereignty; and decreases in the integrity of the environment of the developing nations as corporations move in and take advantage of lax environmental regulations.

Neutralizing the Disadvantages of Globalization

            As the previous section shows, there are just as many disadvantages to globalization as there are advantages.  How could we, as a global entity, neutralize some of the disadvantages in order to make globalization more of a smooth process for developing as well as developed nations?  For globalization to work well in the future, it will eventually be mandatory to make adjustments in order to fix some of the issues that are already inhibiting the advancement of people. Neutralizing the disadvantages of globalization would help the overall cause and effect of globalization in many ways; it would even perhaps help new nations embrace globalization in the future.  I agree with the statement by Mike Gordon, “"Made in China" is not necessarily a bad thing”. (Gordon, 2007).  I do feel that it is important to embrace developing nations in order for trade, technology, and information sharing to advance in every society simply because the advantages listed above create jobs and can help both developed as well as developing nations if the disadvantages were taken care of properly.  But the overall feel of globalization in America is generally bad.  This is that the people feel anxious, nervous, discontent, and anger regarding globalization due to the disadvantages.  A Professor in the Practice of International Trade says this of the overall American attitude: “globalization is highlighting two alternative visions for America: one vision is of a state with a cohesive set of purposes and interests and a commitment to the economic security of the middle class. A second (newer) vision sees the state as neither promising nor providing a larger sense of purpose.” (Janow, 2003).  This section contains some suggestions to negate a few of the aforementioned disadvantages of globalization. 

            First, outsourcing – anytime I hear about globalization critics have claimed that it is removing United States jobs to foreign countries.  This actually translates into developed nations hiring cheaper labor in other countries to cut costs.  Outsourcing sometimes also includes sending skilled workers to undeveloped nations to train these new, lower paid employees.  So what could we, as a nation, do in order to keep jobs here in the United States?  I feel that perhaps a good idea for this would simply be to not cut the costs and offer prices here that reflect United States wage demand.  I understand this is a hard concept, especially for companies who save millions per year in profit, not to mention that outsourcing creates jobs in other countries.  Therefore, why not simply expand without closing businesses in the United States?  Job loss due to outsourcing is a serious problem of globalization; according to Robert Morley of thetrumpet.com, “In reality, outsourcing makes Americans poorer over time, because America’s wealth and technology slowly migrate to other nations.” (Morley, 2011).   Obviously outsourcing is one of the major disadvantages of globalization that needs attention before it spirals out of control for developed nations.   I do not feel, however, that this is necessarily the case.  I feel that American wealth is simply branching out and the United States should be able to compete in international markets without the nation crumbling to the ground.

            Other disadvantages such as environmental control (air, soil, and water pollution) issues that corporations bring with them to the undeveloped nations, the spread of communicable diseases via the trade of goods, and threats upon national sovereignty can all be very easily neutralized by the addition of new policies and laws to create new margins of trade.  My suggestion would be to eventually create global standards for health and environment procedures in order to create a common understanding of the rules of trade.  For instance, if all countries were no longer allowed to use lead paint, if all countries had to make sure their food processing equipment was cleaned properly, or if all countries had to abide by cape and trade laws, then perhaps there would be much less disease and environmental issues on a global scale.  The culture clash between corporations and the people of the underdeveloped country could easily be averted by simply learning the culture and becoming less ethnocentric and more open minded to new customs, languages, traditions, mores, values, and norms of the particular country.  I understand this could create more costs for the companies who are outsourcing to teach/train their managers on the different cultures, and if policies are in place to protect people and the environment then possibly it could even out the trade playing field a little in terms of cost.  I have learned something new when doing research for this paper and that is globalization is occurring on very uneven terrain.  For instance, developed nations choose to outsource mainly to cut costs by hiring cheap labor, and in some cases the corporations are able to surpass strict laws in the United States by going to another nation with lax health / environmental policies.  And simply because the laws are different in each nation, the playing field is uneven.  There are many trade laws in effect for certain nations, some nations simply do not comply, some nations are not required to comply  I truly believe that if laws were as globalized as trade, that the negative effects of globalization would not be nearly as bad.      

Conclusion

            Globalization is the integration of knowledge, goods, and services with an overall goal to promote wealth and prosperity to every nation it touches.  Globalization encompasses every facet of an economy that is currently, or will be, partaking in trade with a different nation.  Globalization is not a new concept to the United States as we traded in early colonial times with England, Portugal and various other nations for goods; therefore the overall principle is the same, but many details have changed throughout the years since that time.  Because of globalization, managers, corporations, employees, and corporations themselves have had to evolve in numerous ways just to keep up with domestic as well as international competition.  Today, the average consumer is able to purchase spices and herbs from India via the internet instead of going to a local store.  Globalization has created much new work for managers and corporations as well as creating much ease for the average consumer. There are many advantages and disadvantages to globalization; within the past few decades especially, there has been a very heated debate regarding globalization.  This debate is largely due to technological advances and globalization spreading faster than are the policies which are able to control trade.  The major advantage is that globalization can help emerging economies / nations but the downside is that it could also hurt an already developed country if proper precautions are not taken.  I feel that with the correct balance of policy and knowledge that most, if not all, of the disadvantages of globalization could be neutralized in the future.

References

Boudousquie, R., Maniam, B., & Leavell, H.. (2007). Globalization: Its Impact on the United       States             Economy. The Business Review, Cambridge, 9(1), 94-100.  Retrieved October      30, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1416813331).

Breedon, G. L. (n.d.). Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization. Home. Retrieved             November 1, 2011, from http://www.darkseptemberrain.com/ideas/advantages.htm

Collis, D., & Carr, C.. (2011). Should You Have a Global Strategy? MIT Sloan Management        Review, 53(1), 21-24.  Retrieved November 2, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global.       (Document ID: 2478300251).

Gordon, Mike.  (2007, July). The world is flattening at an ever-hastening pace. Aftermarket             Business, 117(7), 62.  Retrieved November 4, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Trade &             Industry. (Document ID: 1310806121).

Janow, Merit E..  (2003). The Rules of the Global Game: A New Look at U.S. International         Policymaking / The Politics of Globalization in the United States. Journal of Policy       Analysis and Management, 22(2), 322-324.  Retrieved November 4, 2011, from       ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 310004431).

Morley, R. (2011, January 18). TheTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God. The Death   of American Manufacturing. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=article&id=1955

Renski, H.. (2009). New Firm Entry, Survival, and Growth in the United States: A Comparison   of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Areas. American Planning Association. Journal of the             American Planning Association, 75(1), 60-77.  Retrieved November 2, 2011, from        ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1843935431).

Management: Real Power vs. Authority

Real Power vs. Title of Authority:

Many managers / teachers / leaders feel that they have power simply due to a title or position of authority. Authority is the position of leadership; however, power is actually “the ability to influence various outcomes” (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2008, p. 209).  There are many people who are managers or who are in the position of leadership (those who have authority over others), though to have power is to be able to influence the environment and make changes where changes need to be made.  Power is a tool that is earned, not granted due to a position or a title given.  

I have personally witnessed managers who are promoted to a greater title but they have absolutely no control or power over subordinates due to a lack of relationship-building techniques.  It almost seems as though many people equate positions with power and feel that just because they have a title that they should automatically have power and respect.  One particular manager I encountered had been hired from outside the company directly as a manager because she had her 4-year degree with a major in accounting.  None of the employees knew her and even though we tried to get to know her, she was often short, rude, and holier than thou.  She had the feeling, because she was hired directly to a position of authority that employees had to automatically give her respect.  She truly believed due to her title that she had power over the employees under her and she was not shy in sharing her sense of entitlement with employees.  She was an appointed leader, but was not a true leader in the sense that she did not have any influence or power over employees; nor did she have the authority to carry out many organizational tasks as she thought she did.  As Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart (2008) state, “although an individual may be granted a formal leadership position, this does not mean that the person will necessarily be effective in ‘leading’ others or exerting influence on them” (p. 209).  I agree with this very much - I found from observing my manager that in order to be a true leader, one that can influence changes and one who has real power, a person needs to network and to build social relationships, to have the trust of others, but to also give trust to others, and in order to gain respect of employees a manager must first respect the employees. 

 Expanding the thought:

The insight that I gained when researching this topic was the difference between real power and title of authority; how real power is obtained through relationships and how to use the power once it is obtained.   Power is gained through relationship-building, trust, commitment, and knowing what to do with the power once it is in your grasp.   It is important to note how to get power, but as the Pfeffer article points out, it is also very important to understand something about power and that is the identity of power itself.  Pfeffer (1992) stated that some people choose to remain powerless because it is easier to simply do nothing at all rather than to be saddled with the label of the person who may have done a bad thing or who may have made a mistake.  “In many domains of activity we have become so obsessed with not upsetting anybody, and with not making mistakes, that we settle for doing nothing. Rather than rebuild San Francisco's highways, possibly in the wrong place, maybe even in the wrong way, we do nothing, and the city erodes economically without adequate transportation” (p. 48).  This says a lot to me because contrasted with the over-zealous boss I had, who had a seriously flawed sense of entitlement, I have also witnessed a very close friend of mine and noticed that he will never take the lead in any situation because he is afraid of making a mistake; he is also afraid of being responsible for his own actions/decisions.  Is that simply being lazy?  Or is that insecurity?

“Obtaining power is not always an attractive process, nor is its use” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 48).   Being a leader and obtaining power may have a tainted name due to some leaders in history; it is important, however, not to allow a few bad apples to ruin the entire bushel.  Power is a good thing in the right hands, and power makes things happen - it is with power that things get done and it is necessary in today’s workplace.  If no one ever wanted to step up and take a risk or make a change, then not much would ever get accomplished.  We would have an entire group of people just sitting around analyzing situations instead of getting up and taking action.  Reading the sources for this week, I have noticed that people shy away from responsibility in organizations because they do not want to take the risk of making bad decisions, but at the same time people want that large salary with a nice title.   Perhaps that is the issue with some managers is that they rush to get the title without first working on gaining real power?  Or perhaps those who have real power have no clue how to apply it to real-life situations?  What does anyone else think about this?      

References:

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 7: Leadership. Power, and the Manager. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., p. 155). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding Power in Organizations. [i]Columbia University. [/i]Retrieved November 27, 2012, fromhttp://columbiauniversity.us/itc/hs/pubhealth/isett/Session%2003/Pfeffer%201992%20Power.pdf

Expectancy Theory: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy & Selective Perception

The Theory

           I became interested in this theory because human perception is as individual as individuals are themselves and with each perception being unique, the outcomes of situations are often a product of subjective inference more so than being a solid reality. The expectancy theory occurs when a person sees only what they expect to see through a variety of different means such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, selective perceptions, projection, and perceptual defense mechanisms; however I have chosen to discuss two of these sub-theories: the self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perception. These expectancy factors deeply influence how we, as humans, perceive situations around us, how we interpret information, and how we see other peoples’ behaviors.

            According to Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart (2008), our expectations influence behaviors and attitudes toward other people, situations, and can even distort reality based on what we expect and choose to see (p. 48).  A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person anticipates a particular behavior from another person and due to that expectation the other person actually behaves in accordance to the expectation. Vroom (1995) reinforces and expands the Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart text, stating: the “expectancy theory asserts that human choice is subjectively rational” (p. xviii).   This means that people expect certain outcomes and they view these expectations with their own perceptions and prejudices; also that these viewpoints are deemed as completely rational by the perceiver, even if the human choice, behavior, or perception is not considered rational by other people.   This subjectivity often leads to a distortion of reality and often alters the behaviors of others, usually unbeknownst to the person who perceives the situation.  Specifically so considering the self-fulfilling prophecy wherein an individual actually makes the outcome of a situation occur simply due to their own expectations and actions.  The selective perception exacerbates the subjectivity of the situation and sets the framework for a self-fulfilling prophecy because an individual is only looking for attributes which he/she expects to find and ignores other attributes that are not expected (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2008, p. 48).  It is important to note that the expectancy theory can work for or against organizations and individuals; it is exclusively dependent upon the individual who is making choices in situations and ultimately who guides the direction of the organization with their perceptions (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).

Application of Theory

Appling the Theory to the Workplace:

            Expectancy theory and the theory sub-sets are used quite frequently in organizations to study human behaviors and the effect of these behaviors on particular organizational settings fundamentally in order to enhance motivation in employees; as Lawler and Suttle (1973) stated, “expectancy theory has evolved in recent years as a basic paradigm for the study of human attitudes and behavior in work and organizational settings” (p. 482).  The self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perception are often prevalent in organizations, specifically to entrepreneurs/small business owners (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).  I understand this as true because I owned a small business between the years of 1998 and 2009 and personally enacted expectancy theory through the self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perceptions on employees.  For instance, I hired a friend as an employee and expected that as a friend she would do the duties assigned to her correctly and efficiently.  I did not watch her work and failed to have accurate performance appraisals on her mainly because she was a great friend and I expected she would also be a great worker.  I failed to notice that she was causing issues with other employees, slacking on the job, and ignoring her duties, even in the face of facts from other employees.  I enacted the expectancy theory and especially the selective perception factor in this instance.  Also, at work, I often expected employees to do well when we had large shipments come in.  I expected it so much that I worked overtime; I helped employees meet quotas, and gave employees drive by continuously telling them we could get the job done.  I did not simply think we would get the job done, I knew we would.  However the main reason that we did get the job done was due to my actions and positively reinforcing my employees, as well as motivating them to work harder and longer hours in order to get the job done.  We never missed a deadline using this technique and after each time, I would say, “See? I knew we could do this.”  This is not the only instance where I have enacted the self-fulfilling prophecy with my employees.  In the year 2005, at the request of a female friend employee, I hired a young man to work in the shipping department.  I immediately felt as though, because of his age, that I would have to watch him carefully and stay on him to ensure that he was doing his job correctly.  I felt that he would not do the job I needed him to do and verbally made that clear to him on a few occasions.  I would say things such as, “just leave that for Emily, she has been here longer and will do it right.”   My forecast was that he would not do the job right and that he would quit soon, and again I felt this way simply due to his age.  It was because of my own negative actions and behaviors toward this young man, that I was ultimately correct.  He quit because of my failure to note any of his good qualities, my lack of confidence in him which was ever so evident in my actions, and my bad managerial practices; thus I enacted the expectancy theory and both sub-sets of the theory (a self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perceptions) in this instance.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Application:

            The expectancy theory and the theory sub-sets have great strengths when used positively in organizational settings for the purpose of motivating employees.  Primarily when a manager expects positive outcomes from employees and that manager expresses their expectations and standards in the form of praise, recognition, and rewards.  Using the expectancy theory in this way gives confidence to employees and influences their behaviors in a productive way.   This is evident with the Pygmalion effect (a.k.a., the Rosenthal effect) which is a situation where a manager, educator, or other leader holds positive expectations for their students, employees, or followers.  It is the simple fact that there are positive expectations held that feed the students’, employees’, or followers’ inner beliefs that they can accomplish what the authority figure expects from them.  According to Dr. Ronald Riggio, “Research has clearly shown the power of holding positive expectations of others; we get the outcomes that we expect” (2009).

            Unfortunately, the expectancy theory and the sub-sets can also create a negative effect in organizational settings.  As seen in my personal application of the theories, a poor manager may use the expectancy theory with negative intent and expect bad things from employees, only look for the negative attributes of employees, and enact a self-fulfilling prophecy based on his/her own negative actions and behaviors.  If a manager holds negative expectations, it follows that the Pygmalion effect with also apply with an equal but opposite effect.  Also, it is important to note that organizational decline due to expectancy theory and sub-theories can occur with little or no awareness; “organizational decline through the self-fulfilling prophecy is particularly important because it is a subtle process, and it tends to unfold without the awareness of the managers or external constituencies that are its agents” (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).  Therefore, it is imperative that managers are self-aware and make sure they are expecting only positive outcomes with their employees, as to not influence employee behaviors inadvertently negatively.    

References:

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 2: Perceptions, Attitudes, and   Individual Differences. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., p. 48-49). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

John, C. E., McKinley, W., & Moon, G. (2002). The enactment of organizational decline: The self-fulfilling prophecy.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(1), 55-75. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198626894?accountid=38003

Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. l. (1973). Expectancy Theory and Job Behavior. ORGANIZATIONAL   BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 9, p. 482-503. Retrieved November 27,   2012, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/33872/1/0000133.pdf

Riggio, R. (2009, April 18). Pygmalion Leadership: The Power of Positive Expectations | Psychology Today. Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist.     Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge- leadership/200904/pygmalion-leadership-the-power-positive-expectations

Vroom, V. H. (1995). Introduction to the Classic Edition. Work and Motivation (p. xviii). San       Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. (Original work published 1964)

Job Characteristics Model and Theories

Hackman & Oldham’s job characteristics theory essentially states that the job (or task) that the employee is doing is the key to employee motivation.   That is to say that if the job or task is monotonous, not challenging, tedious, and in general not fun, then the employee(s) will not be very motivated to do said job or task.   The job characteristics theory states that there are three ways to enrich or add challenge to a job or task and these three ways are:  autonomy, decision authority, and variation in the job/task.   The job characteristics theory (and model) is based on the assumption that there are five main job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback).  These five components have a direct impact of three psychological states of the employee(s) which are: experienced responsibility, experienced meaningfulness, and knowledge of the results of the job or task.  The five fundamental characteristics and the three impacted psychological states, in turn, will influence work outcomes such as employee motivation, work performance, satisfaction with work, and absenteeism/turnover (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2007).   The job characteristics survey is a tool used to measure the motivation of employees and is a good guideline to see “how likely a job is to affect an employee’s attitudes and behaviors” (Ball, 2012).      

Now, which theory in the text best complements the job characteristic model?   In the text, the theory categories listed are: 

1.  Static-content theories which are based off energizing the behavior of employees - (which is where the job characteristic theory is situated).

2. Process theories which are concerned with channeling employee behavior.

3. And environmentally based theories which are concerned with how to maintain specific behavior over time. 

Immediately, I can see that all three of these categories are related to the job characteristics model and with reading all of the theories in the text I noted that they are all somehow connected to the job characteristics model.   However, I feel that since the job characteristics model has to do mainly with the task itself and how to make the job more appealing to employees, that the theory that best complements the job characteristics model is the Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory.   This theory is a static-content theory and essentially states that the motivators need to be put into the job itself, just like the job characteristics model assumes. As stated in the text on page 76, “for employees to be truly satisfied and perform above minimally accepted standards, motivators had to be built into the job” (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2007).  This statement is directly related to the job characteristics model in regards to making the job more interesting to employees by not focusing mainly on their psychological well-being (such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs dictates), or by the manager setting up a system of rewards based on outcomes (as the expectancy theory does), but rather by making the job more interesting itself.  Even though there are validity concerns with this theory, I feel it best supports the job characteristics model.  Furthermore I feel that the motivator-hygiene theory was a foundation to the job characteristics model because it laid the framework of different thinking in the field of employee motivation.  Overall, Herzberg’s theory not only states that it’s the job itself that motivates people but also “achievement, recognition for that achievement”, “responsibility, and the opportunity for growth or advancement” in an organization (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2007).  Again, this directly relates to experienced responsibility, experienced meaningfulness, and knowledge of the results of the job or task as the job characteristics model suggests.  

Motivational differences among generations and cultures

Human behavior and psychology has always fascinated me; therefore I have chosen to discuss the motivational differences among different cultures and generations. The fact that there is a direct link between different types of people and the way they respond to reward systems/incentives in the work place is a very interesting topic. Motivation strategies are difficult to implement when an organization just has one culture, or one generation; the implementation of such strategies becomes even more of a challenge when the workplace is more diverse in generations, culture, and the type of organization culture that is present. 

Cultural differences in motivation - 

"At the global level, culture affects reward structures" (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   There are so many differences between cultures such as morals, values, and even what motivates an employee in an organization.  For instance, the German culture is individualistic which means it focuses more on personal growth and personal monetary gain; whereas in Japan, where it is a collective society, employees are more focused on group rewards.  But, there is an internal culture made up of many different cultures – for instance, an organization that employs Japanese, American, Germany, and Indian workers has cultural diversity; however the organization itself has an overall culture that it has created through the types of employees hired, and overall company practices.   

I feel that the difference in organizational culture is the best to discuss for this forum and not simply the collectivist vs. individualistic nature of particular cultures from around the globe.  The Orr and Lockwood article points out that there are three types of organizational cultures based on an adaptation from T.B. Wilson’s book entitled Innovative reward systems for the changing workplace.  These three organizational cultures are: entitled, compliant, and achievement-oriented.  

 “In an entitlement environment, people simply expect that they will receive the rewards because senior management will find a way to adjust the measures to justify the payout” (Wilson, 1995).   The entitlement culture expects to be promoted, they expect more rewards from their work, and they “feel that they deserve more” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  The entitled culture simply feel that the need a raise just because they are employed with the organization; they feel that they are entitled to a reward “without having to do anything special for it” (Wilson, 1995).   In cultures who feel entitled, the employees do not connect pay and performance well – in other words, employees do not link their pay increases with their performance and therefore do not exert any special effort for a raise, since there is no need to do so.   

As a previous manager, I feel that creating this type of culture or rewarding a person “just because” is not a good or correct step for any company to take.  I feel that specific cultures who feel they are entitled already need to be taught that hard work is what pays and rewards are not handed out to employees just because they work in the organization and have a pulse.  Standards should be held high and rewards should be given to those who earn them.  The second type of culture is the compliant.  In this culture, employees “do what is expected and seek clarity of goals; focus on the leader” and do not take risks very often.  In the compliant culture, employees understand very well what they need to do and they may or may not be rewarded for the efforts; however “the negative responses to problems or failures to meet certain goals are well known” (Wilson, 1995).  The third type of culture is achievement-oriented.   In this type of environment, “people are rewarded for achievements and feel that they have earned what they receive” (Wilson, 1995).   Employees in this type of organizational culture directly link pay to performance; a demotion or lack of reward is very noticed with achievement-oriented employees and it is understood that the reason for the loss of merit is due to their poor performance.  “Members of the organization will know why these awards did not materialize” (Wilson, 1995).   Achievement-oriented cultures “do what is necessary to achieve desired results; challenge conventional practices;” and “focus on the tasks to be done and communicate freely” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  So, essentially, the culture has a serious affect on the reward structure and if a company is just handing out rewards for no other reason that being present, the company has an entitlement culture.  If the company punishes people for not meeting goals and rarely rewards their employees for their efforts, then this is a compliant culture.  And if the organization reinforces good behavior with rewards, then the company s operating in an achievement-oriented environment.

Generation differences in motivation -

Currently, the United States labor pool consists of four major generations:  Traditionalists (also called veterans or seniors), Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y.  Due to the variety in the workforce, “a ‘one size fits all’ approach to total rewards will no longer be adequate” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   These generations are grouped by birth year: traditionalists (pre-1945), Baby Boomers (1945-1964),   Generation X (1965-1980), and Generation Y (post-1980).  There is some slight variation in the years according to research; however the years of the generations are usually congruent with each other, as are the typing of the generations.  “Traditionalists (also called Veterans, Silents [sic], or Greatest Generation; 75 million born before 1945; 10% of the workforce), Baby Boomers (80 million born 1945-1964, 45% of the workforce), Generation X (46 million born 1965-1980, 30% of the workforce), and Generation Y also called Echo Boomers, Millenials [sic], Internet Generation, or Nexters [sic]; 76 million born after 1980; 15% of the workforce)” (Eisner, 2005).

Traditionalists are the eldest of the generations and have experienced in their lifetime immense hardships such as the stock market crash in 1929, the Great Depression, and World War II (mainly).  These groups of employees understand scarcity and hard times and therefore they “have a tendency to be disciplined and respectful of rules and regulations” and “Individuals in this generation believe in a hard day’s work in exchange for fairness and pay” (Crampton & Hodge, 2009).    Traditionalists have the assets of wisdom, perseverance, and experience; however lack in technology skills and therefore should be communicated to via face-to-face methods instead of emails or text messaging.   Traditionalists also tend to take charge and do what is needed, and if there is a dilemma they are usually the group that does what is considered ethically right (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  To motivate the traditionalists, managers should let these employees know that “their experience is respected and important to the company and that their perseverance is valued and will be rewarded” (Eisner, 2005).  The manager should let the traditionalists share information with the younger employees in order to teach them what has or has not worked in the past.  And if the traditionalist employee retires, it was also suggested in Eisner’s article to hire them as a part-time employee to coach and teach younger employees.   Baby boomers are the children of the traditionalists and they comprise the largest percentage of the total current workforce.  Baby boomers have the asset of social skills however they also lack in technology skills; they respect authority, are good at micro-managing, they are hard workers, proactive instead of reactive, and they enjoy networking (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   Baby boomers have seen a lot such as the invention of the television, the JFK assassination, the invention of the birth control pill, the space race between Russia and the United States, the Vietnam War, and the start of the Civil Rights movement (to name a few pivotal moments).  They were the first generation to watch the world change via media and therefore tend to judge their performance with material incentives (in order to keep up with the Jones’).   Managers can motivate this group of employees by letting them know that they are important to organizational success, that they are considered equals among employees but that they are unique individuals whose contributions are important and needed.  This generation “should be encouraged to become facilitating coaches rather than authoritarian figures dictating expectations and methods. They should be offered flexibility, authority, and respect” (Eisner, 2005).  Both baby boomers and traditionalists “prefer monetary rewards and promotion to benefits, services and workplace opportunities” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).     

Employees from generation X are the children of the baby boomers and comprise 30% of the total workforce.  Their assets include technology skills, fast achieving, managing capabilities (usually taking over management positions from the retiring traditionalists), and this group has a good education generally; however generation X employees are skeptical, bend rules where they see fit, and are hesitant to network (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  This generation has also seen a lot such as more of the Civil Rights movement, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the Women’s Liberation Movement, the shooting of John Lennon, Woodstock, Watergate, and also during this time Apple released the first personal computer.   Also, many of the baby boomers parented the generation X children via the Dr. Spock method and therefore many of the generation X children want to be the authority figure, rather than the subordinate.  Generation X was also a part of the latch-key generation due to the baby boomers working hard; therefore the generation X (also known as the “me” generation) often feel less appreciated and overlooked (Crampton &  Hodge, 2009).  Motivators for generation X employees are personal freedom in their jobs (autonomy), and they should be provided with up-to-date technology.  This group of employees do not appreciate having orders barked at them, but would rather have a coaching-style of management and they enjoy room for organizational advancement (Eisner, 2005). 

Generation Y is the newest and most difficult to manage generation in the workforce today.  They comprise 15% of the current workforce and have been influenced by world events like AIDS epidemic, MTV, Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, video games, the Columbine High School killings, the Gulf War, soccer moms (strict scheduled childhood), Desert Storm, and the huge growth of the Internet.    This generation is “fundamentally conservative in their lifestyle, with a dislike of ambiguity and risk” (Williams, 2009).   This generation has been called the “why me?” generation, they become easily bored at work, and are considered impatient.  Pinpointing motivational factors for this generation and managing this generation overall is extremely difficult because they are considered the “trophy generation” which indicates that they were raised by soccer moms and in an environment where everyone always wins, even if they really lose (Crampton & Hodge, 2009).  This generation would likely fall into the category of the entitlement culture discussed above.   Generation Y employees are more motivated when they are communicated with through emails, text messaging, and other technologies because they like to be on the go and sitting through meetings or having long work days is considered demotivation for this generation.   Their assets include education, they love to network, they are able to effectively multitask, and they have great technology skills.  Their weaknesses are lack of soft skills (interpersonal), and lack of direction, focus, and confidence.   Generation Y is very fast-paced, open-minded, tolerant of diversity, enjoy blending work and play, and like to get their work done right away in order to start on new goals/tasks (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   

Through researching the different types of generations, I feel that a great motivation for the generation Y employees would be to mentor /coach the baby boomers and traditionalists in new technologies and the Internet.  This way, the generation Y employees are not bored, they feel important, they feel in control, and they will gain knowledge from the older generations in casual conversations and in a work environment (Raines, 2002).   Flexibility and autonomy should be granted to generation Y employees, and job expectations should be clearly explained - sometimes even written out (Eisner, 2005).  Also, since this generation is so face-paced, a manager will need to make sure the praise/ feedback is immediate to the generation Y employee(s).   A manager could also make sure the generation Y employees have enough work, again, because they are fast-paced but also because this generation tends to get bored easily.   As for rewards, generation Y enjoys “time off, flexible work schedules, and specialized training” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006). 

  

References:

Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2009). Generation Y: Unchartered Territory. Journal of Business and Economic Research, 7(4), 1.

Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231242493?accountid=38003

Orr, C. B., & Lockwood, N. R. (2006). Total Rewards: Motivating with strategic rewards. SHRM Online - Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from http://www.shrm.org/research/articles/articles/pages/total_20rewards_20_20motivating_20with_20strategic_20rewards.aspx

Raines, C. (2002). Managing Millenials. Generations at Work. Retrieved on October 31, 2012, from http:// www.generationsatwork.com

Williams, R. B. (2009, June 14). Millennials Poised to Take Over the Workplace | Psychology Today. Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. Retrieved November 3,   2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/200906/millennials-poised-take-over-the-workplace

Wilson, T. B. (1995). Transform Rewards from Entitlement to Achievement. Innovative reward systems            for the changing workplace (pp. 306-312). New York: McGraw-Hill.