Basics of Human Behavior

Firstly, culture can be defined as; a perceived truth (rather than reality) about a group and its members regarding their beliefs, values, attitudes and norms of behaviour, which have evolved from a common history, collective knowledge and similar conditioning. Culture is strongly influenced by race, religion, political and social structures and the geographical and physical environment. Culture manifests as etiquette, communication style, the arts, groupthink, symbols, traditions, behaviour patterns, shared ideas, common ideals and a way of life.

A few definitions to make sure you and I are thinking similarly;

Reality: What is! …or as the dictionary puts it “real things or the real nature of things rather than imagined, invented or theoretical ideas”.

Truth: A narrow perspective on reality developed as a result of the accident of the place and time of our birth, reinforced by those who seek an ally to support and perpetuate their own version of the ‘truth’. The dictionary defines truth as ‘all the facts… rather than that, which is imagined or invented’.

Beliefs: Faith in a set of learnt ‘truths’ formed as a result of our indoctrination by the influential when we are to young to resist, or if you prefer the dictionary definition, ‘a feeling of certainty that something exists, is true or is good (or bad)’.

Values: A subjective point of view regarding the worth of our beliefs and the worth of the assumed or perceived beliefs, values and attitudes of those we view or interact with, based on our own narrow perspective. Once again the dictionary, “the values of a person or group are the moral principles and beliefs that they think are important”.

Attitudes: Personal opinion governing rules of behaviour we think we can get away with when dealing with others from whom we are taking, or to whom we are giving, in the interests of our personal wellbeing. The dictionary ‘the way that you (or others) think and feel about something, especially when it shows in the way you (or others) behave’.

Perhaps you could see these definitions as a little cynical however when we get into the motivational theories and ‘motivational rules’ later in this chapter you may change your mind and agree with the thinking.

To understand what is happening with cultural influences perhaps the following ‘cultural iceberg’ will shed some further light. The iceberg is made up of the above factors and is shown below.

Remember as a manger (or for that matter as a human being) that you can only see what is above the waterline and that your actions and influence will only at best encourage or discourage behaviours. Perhaps if you are extremely effective you may (and should) change attitudes, however it is almost impossible and would be foolhardy to attempt to change another’s Cultural Assumptions, Beliefs or Values. You just don’t have the time to invest.

In the 1980’s Geert Hofstede came up with four contrasting dimensions that influenced how people from different nationalities behaved at work. Based on studies of over 116,000 workers in 50 countries he found that people where inclined towards four fundamental dimensions, SMALL v’s LARGE POWER DISTANCE (minimal status differences v’s wide gap between those in power and the ‘followers’), INDIVIDUALISM v’s COLLECTIVISM, (my interests take priority v’s the groups wellbeing takes priority), MASCULINITY v’s FEMININITY (no sexism intended), (assertive, quantity v’s caring quality of life) and LOW v’s HIGH UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE (risk is OK v’s safety first tendencies). He later added the fifth dimension of SHORT TERM versus LONG TERM orientation.

‘Power distance, that is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power be distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that the followers endorse a society’s level of inequality as much as the leaders’ back it’.

‘Individualism on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) that continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

‘Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. It ultimately refers to a persons search for truth and indicates to what extent members feel either comfortable or uncomfortable in unstructured, novel, unknown, surprising or different from usual situations. Individuals from uncertainty accepting cultures are more tolerant of differing opinions; they try to have as few rules as possible. People within these cultures are more matter-of-fact, thoughtful and reflective and not expected by others in their environment to express emotions’. The opposite type uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures and tend to believe in one absolute truth’; 'there can only be one truth and we have it'. ‘People in uncertainty avoiding cultures are also more emotional and motivated by inner nervous energy’.

‘Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity, refers to the distribution of roles between the genders. The studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values; (b) men's values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women's values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women's values on the other. The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap between men's values and women's values.

Long-term versus short-term orientation: this fifth dimension was found in a study among students in 23 countries around the world, using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars. It can be said to deal with virtue regardless of truth. Values associated with long-term orientation are thrift and perseverance; values associated with short-term orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's 'face'. Both the positively and the negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of Confucius, the most influential Chinese philosopher who lived around 500 B.C.; however, the dimension also applies to countries without a Confucian heritage. The following is my interpretation of the consequences.

Obviously if you manage/lead, a group of people with a collective attitude, that see you the boss as all-powerful, who value relationships over material gain and that ‘suffer’ from high uncertainty avoidance, they are going to become quite unsettled if you casually announce say, a company, division or department restructure.

Often the culture issue is subtler than obvious ‘national differences’. Perhaps more importantly for those in management are the problems and misunderstandings occur between those that are often seen as integrated groups of one nationality or of one company. For managers, cultural differences between, a sales team, financial control, administration, human resource, production, service, and research & development can cause difficulty and hamper the performance of both the individual and the organization. Cultural diversity and the difficulties associated with this diversity is the subject of much intense debate in many companies. One company for whom I conduct training surveyed their managers to find the areas of their function that created the most operational stress and the results showed interdepartmental cultural differences as a major cause of problems.

Example; you can see why difficulties may occur between members of the research & development department who are interested in ‘long term visions, superior features, safety, the best product for the customer and who talk a lot of technical jargon’, when they are meeting with the finance division who are interested in ‘cost minimization, immediate cash flow, long term profitability and the shareholders who talk using a lot of financial jargon’. Add a representative from sales, ‘market share, need it now, the price has to be more competitive, using sell, sell, sell talk’ and perhaps a HR director, ‘they’re not trained, it’s too much of a strain on the staff and they’ll all leave, who is using long words from the last book he/she read on the psychology of the workplace’ and cultural issues can explode.

As leader/managers with an ever increasing mix of people from different backgrounds combined with ever increasing rates of change and the need for greater levels of specialisation, we all need to spend more time in understanding and managing the cultural differences in our organizations. To help us there are some guides that we should personally adopt and encourage others to embrace.

· Moral judgements on a persons value based on culture are best left to the stupid among us

Generalising about people based on preconceived ideas, cultural background, gender, race, technical or professional disciplines and career choices or on any other basis you can think of has no place in a manager’s mind or heart. Although this chapter offers for your consideration a number of ideas based on research and to some extent categorizes or groups people by such things as cultural predispositions, personality type, or ego states this is done purely to demonstrate the complexity of individuals. As an astute manager you will always need to see people as infinitely complex individuals that have their own hopes, desires and motivations that will be constantly changing as an almost unlimited variety of personal and business situations evolve.

Much has been written about the role of personality on human behaviour. I think a good place to start is with Freud. Michael Maccoby (anthropologist and psychotherapist) succinctly summarises Freud’s three personality types in his Harvard business Review, OnPoint Article on ‘Narcissistic Leaders’. Maccoby reports that “while Freud recognized that there are an almost infinite variety of personalities, he identified three main types; erotic, obsessive and narcissistic” and that “most of us have elements of all three”.

According to Maccoby, Freud defines the ‘erotic’ personality type, ‘not as a sexual personality’, “but rather one for whom love and above all to being loved is most important”. “This type of person is dependant on those people they fear will stop loving them”. Careful observation can help you recognise these people as they will be the ones who are “outer-directed”, caring, helpful, supportive and tend to avoid conflict. “Obsessives, in contrast are “inner-directed”. They are self reliant and conscientious”. Obsessives “create and maintain order” and “look constantly for ways to help people listen better, resolve conflict and find win-win opportunities”. You recognise these people buy ‘the self help books’ on their desk, ‘their strict conscience, need for personal improvement, moral stance and strong reliance on their values’. These people tend to “lack vision, daring and charisma”, can usually be relied upon to ‘live up to high standards, communicate effectively, follow instructions and stick to the budget’. ‘Narcissists, the third type, are independent, goal oriented, often aggressive and not easily impressed’. “They are innovators, driven in business to gain power and glory”. Narcissists are the ones that “pose critical questions”, seem to want to “learn everything about everything” in their area of interest and seek to be the admired expert in their field. ‘These people are not victims of their own ego, can live with isolation and are always on the look out for enemies’.

In the same article Maccoby describes a fourth personality type proposed by psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, called the “marketing personality”. “Marketing personalities are more detached than erotics” and “less likely to cement strong ties”. “They are also less driven by conscience than obsessives. Instead they are motivated by a radar-like anxiety that permeates everything they do”. ‘Because they are so eager to please (serve) and to alleviate this anxiety, marketing personalities excel at selling themselves’. These types can on the negative side, ‘lack direction and the ability to commit themselves’. On the positive side marketing personalities can be ‘good team facilitators that add value from the colleague and/or customer perspective’. Finally this personality type tends to “lack the daring needed to innovate and are to responsive to current, rather than future customer demands”.

Transactional Analysis originated by Eric Berne is the study of sets of ego-states of an individual and the way in which those sets of ego-states (we are all in subjected to and need all three) shape our social interactions. Berne’s three states are Child, Parent and Adult. As a child we (and those with whom we are dealing) rely on immature childlike reasoning based on feelings, strong emotions and desires such as fear, anger, delight and joy. As a parent we imitate or "borrow" perceived prejudiced parental attitudes and rely on rules & regulations that we learnt from our parents such as the need for criticism, guilt and the way things should be. Both of these states are fraught with problems from a management (and personal) point of view. It is only when we act as an adult that we become capable of non judgemental, accurate reasoning, logical thought and astute reality driven behaviour. Transactional Analysis also studies the use of these ego-states in communication strategies in what are described as Transactions, Scripts, and Games. The transaction is the most basic unit interaction and, ‘consists of a single verbal or nonverbal stimulus and a single response’. Scripts are ‘complex sets of transactions, that recur’. They are the patterns of life’s dramas, developed during childhood, that determine the ‘destiny and the identity of us as individuals’. Games are agreed-upon (although not always consciously) rules of transacting in which there is always a pay-off to one of the parties.

The adaptive child can be the compliant, socially acceptable, rule obeying that tries to please others. In this state we (and others), hide, such emotions as anger and greed in an attempt to be rewarded for doing what is supposed to be done. In this state an individual is driven by guilt, fear or shame (or avoidance of those emotions) and wants to be seen as “good”. The adaptive child can take a less positive stance and become driven by a need to rebel due to the pressure of being dependent on the goodwill of others and suppression of emotions that can lead to resentment. Thus, the adaptive (rebellious) child also contains urges to subtly resist orders and tradition. It may procrastinate rather than openly rebel; it may get sick to get attention; it may devise a "script" (a life plan) to please the parent that wants it’s son or daughter to fail or to be "bad;" or it may play "games" to hurt itself or others. Unhappy and grouchy behaviour is a mild for of this state and at worse it may become neurotic or psychotic.

The Little Professor is the intuitive, clever, observant, conniving, manipulative part of us which figures out how to relate to others to get what we want. Typical of this ego state are such things as, "if I'm nice to you" or "if I'm cute” or “I put on a happy smile" or "I tell you I love you” I should get my way. In the negative "if I throw a premeditated temper tantrum" or “if I pout and grumble” then I'll get what I want. The Little Professor may be doing what is supposedly “good” or it may be a way to create trouble.

The natural child in the positive is the, carefree, fun loving, impulsive, creative, excited and spontaneous part of us that can provide much of our motivation. The natural child also provides some of our important “happy” emotions, such as joy and curiosity. On the negative side when we are unhappy it shows up us demonstrated anger and frustrated unbridled vengeance. This part of us provides both our sense of fun and of course the need to be mean and nasty. In the natural child state all this occurs as freely expressed feelings without censoring or reference to society's norms.

To recognise childlike behaviour you need only listen to the words and tone and watch the body language. If the child ego is dominating you or when others are attempting to face up to you, the terms being used will be “I want” (demanding), “It’s not fair” (complaining), “Yes that’s right however I” (placating) or “If you do this, I’ll do” (bargaining). If someone is using a child ego state and they are attempting to avoid something you will hear things like, “It’s not my fault” (pouting), “I just don’t know” (confusion), “I won’t do it” (angry) or “alright if I must I will try” (avoiding).

Our child is the part of us that is self centred and very powerful and I guess for some our greatest positive as it contains our most intense feelings such a love and joy. Of course on the other side it can give us much trouble as it also contains our fear and anger and stimulates our need to fight some of the oppressions of growing up.

THE PARENT decides, without reasoning, how to react to situations, what is good or bad, is judgemental can be controlling or supportive and tells us how others (and we) ‘should’ behave. The Parent comes in two forms: firstly the Critical Parent, which is the voice in our head that provides us with, negative self-talk, “the truth” that can bar or filter reality, gives opinions of low self worth, induces self reprimand and conjures up expectations of disaster. The Critical Parent is what makes us say such negative things as: "You're a bad person”, “I’m a stupid person”, “hey ugly”, “your crazy”, or “you’re lazy”. The Critical Parent can make people feel “not OK” and force them to do things they don't want to do. The second type of parent is the Nurturing Parent. This ego state loves our child unconditionally and says things like: "I love you", "You're a winner”, "smart move", "wonderful” or "now how good is that”. The nurturing parent is sensitive, empathetic full of understanding, is caring and undemanding.

If a parental ego state is coming to the fore and you are being confronted the dialogue will be more like this; “what are you up to here?” (angry), “you must fix this problem now” (demanding), “I knew this would happen”, (condescending) or “I you don’t do something about this I will” (threatening). If the parent is trying to avoid a problem the language will be more like, “it’s your responsibility” (blaming), “I want you to do exactly as I instructed you” (controlling); it’s a small matter or it could be worse (avoiding).

Remember that in a ‘transaction’ you have to deal with your inner parents and children as well as the other persons parents and children. If for example you as acting with your ‘critical parent’ ego state you are going to have great difficulty if you are dealing with someone else’s ‘rebellious child’. You will need to overcome your parental attitude and activate their positive child, nurturing parent or their (and your) adults.

THE ADULT. “When in the Adult ego state the person functions as a human computer. It operates on data it collects and stores or uses to make decisions according to a logic-based program”. “When in the Adult ego state the person uses logical thinking to solve problems making sure that Child or Parent emotions do not contaminate the process”. You may be tempted to “conclude from this that emotions are not good”. This is not the case (except where you and others become immobilised by those emotions) and “it only means that in order to be rational and logical we need to be able to separate ourselves from our emotions”. “Being a mature human being or grownup is not the same as being in the Adult ego state”. “Little children can be in their Adult and well-adjusted grown-ups use their Parent and Child all the time”. The thing to remember when being an adult is that the answers you and those with whom you deal come up with will only be sound if the data or facts you are using are correct. The computer cliché of ‘garbage in garbage out’ definitely applies. ‘Sometimes the Adult uses information which has its source in the Child (delusion) or in the Parent (prejudice) and which may be incorrect’.

If we are to be effective, problem solving managers we need to use such terms when confronting others as; “we can solve this problem together” (looking for solutions), “let me explain my problem (informing)”, can you help me” (rational request) or “I am upset because” (personal disclosure). If you are on the receiving end facing an adult who wishes to maintain an adult to adult stance you hear such things as, “I will help you solve your problem” (support in finding a solution), “please tell me more” (information seeking), “can I ask you a few questions to ensure I understand” (confirming the facts) and “I believe understand how you feel” (empathising and defusing tension).

In his book “I’m OK - You’re OK”, Thomas A. Harris another famous proponent of transactional analysis develops the idea even further. Harris explains as children we decide on one of the following three “life positions”:

The basis for this decision is what Harris calls stroking and non-stroking. Strokes are literally the physical contacts and comforting such as being picked up and nursed that occur in infancy. Harris says, “during the time of helplessness there are an infinite number of total and uncompromising demands on the child”. “On the one hand, the urges to explore, to know, to crush and bang, to express feelings and to experience all the pleasant sensations associated with movement and discovery”. “On the other hand, there is the constant demand from the environment, essentially the parents, that he (or she) give up these basic satisfactions for the reward of parental approval”. “The predominant by product of the frustrating, civilizing process is negative feelings”. “The child by virtue of its small size and helplessness inevitably considers itself inferior to the adult figure(s) in its environment”. ”On the basis of these feelings the little person concludes I’m not OK”, in a situation that perhaps is not “OK”. The other major conclusion the infant comes to is that the persons who provide warmth, food and stroking are obviously therefore automatically OK. The first and most common or “universal” life position, formed by the first year of life is; I’m Not Ok - You’re OK.

Harris believes ‘that by the end of the second year of life, or early in the third, the child has decided on one of the three positions by confirming the 1st “universal position” or by “giving way to position 2 or 3”. ‘The position at this stage is and even though it is an unconscious decision - cannot be changed’.

The second position I’m Not OK - You’re Not OK comes as “by the end of the first year the child is walking”. If the parent (“mother”) is “cold and non stroking, if she only put up with him (her) during the first year because she had to” a sense of hopeless will develop. If “in addition punishments become harder and more often” the child is likely to conclude that the rest of the world is hopeless and in severe cases may reject all future loving overtures, be difficult to reach or even become mentally disturbed.

I’m OK - You’re Not OK, is the most dysfunctional position and results in cases when a child is battered during childhood and the child realizes that the parents are not OK. Out of sheer self-defence, or ‘while this little individual is healing in the sense of “lying there licking his(her) wounds”, the child experiences a sense of comfort (self stroking) alone and by his/herself, if for no other reason than his/her improvement is in such contrast to the gross pain he/she has just experienced’. It becomes a case of “I’ll be all right if you leave me alone”. I’m OK by myself.

The only exception to the three OK positions above, according to Harris, occurs when a person consciously decides to replace his or her dysfunctional life position with the fourth and healthiest life position - I’m OK - You’re OK. “The first three positions are based on feelings”. “The fourth position is based on thought, faith and the wager of action”. This confidence or belief in better outcomes based on our actions is the “transcending” into the “why not” rather than being locked in the “why” of the first three states. Being in a state of I’m OK – You’re OK is a conscious individual decision.

Harris proposes that people should strive to keep their transactions in the Adult state. Parent and Child feelings cannot be ignored or erased however these are states that can inhibit relationships and cause psychological difficulties if not recognized and kept in check. This final position will only come from “a collection of recordings which play OK outcomes to transactions, successes in terms of correct probability estimating, successes in terms of integrated actions which, make sense, which are programmed by the Adult and not by the Parent or Child”.

As result of our continuos game playing and acting out of scripts with predicted outcomes we accumulate negative feelings that become our emotional racket. This leads us all to create or see in situations the elements that confirm our negative emotions and the truth about our own existence. We all run these emotional rackets or “unwanted conditions” because it provides us with an “I told you so” payoff. Typical rackets are to endure personal suffering such as “having something you don’t want or wanting something you don’t have”. When you suffer, you and others get to feel sorry for you. When feeling sorry for yourself you can convince yourself you are victim of circumstances. You can say I am not really in control so it is not my fault. ‘Rackets are ways to compensate for, or help us resist life’s undesirable events without taking responsibility for doing something to change the inevitability of it all. The compensation or “dynamics of resisting actually keep the racket and the related mood of suffering in place”. Some examples of rackets, I’m too old, I’m too scared, it’s too hard for me to be do, you don’t understand my culture, safety first, I was destined to be poor, I come from an underprivileged back ground, I owe a loyalty to my working class background, that’s my lot in life, life is unfair and I will suffer it in dignity, I’m a victim of circumstances, I’m not to blame. ‘Continually apologizing, scolding yourself, or resorting to giving (or receiving) abuse and feeling perpetually sorry are all rackets’. “It’s much easier being sorry or apologetic than responsible and proactive”.

So how do you know when you or (someone else) is running a racket? If you or they are; not taking responsibility, being willing to suffer in silence, playing the role of the victim, feeling justified with telling “little white lies’ constantly resiting a similar set of circumstances, refusing to change, inactive in to overcoming obstacles or procrastinating a racket is in play.

What are the payoffs for running our racket? We can pretend life is beyond our control. We can “co-conspire with others by not mentioning when we see them play their rackets” because “misery enjoys company”. This self-limiting racket behaviour remains in place because of the extensive and specific payoffs we get by keeping it there. “Some of these payoffs include:

*We get to avoid being responsible for effectively managing relationships and communication.

*We get to be a victim with all the accompanying pity and sympathy that victims deserve.

The only way to solve the problem of rackets is to acknowledge reality and deal with it by developing honesty in relationships, open communication, expression of feelings, a willingness to expose your emotions, honouring your and others values and refusing to remain in an unacceptable situation. You as a manager must act and encourage others to act with integrity and make it legitimate for you and others to seek happiness, dream of a better future and take some measure of control of your life and allow and help others take control of theirs.

As a leader/manager, you need to interact with followers, peers, ‘superiors’ and other people whose support you need to accomplish your objectives. To gain their support, you must be able to understand and influence them. The key to influencing people is in understanding the inherent qualities of human nature and of at least the basics of motivation. Human nature can be defined as the common qualities of all human beings. We all behave according to certain principles of human nature some of which have been described above. It is a fact that we develop these principles based on a number of influences that to some extent are a matter of chance.

“The emotional forces, wants, needs, urges or drive within us that influence our behaviour” or ‘a willingness to exert high levels of effort conditioned by the efforts ability to satisfy some individual need’.

Needs, wants, urges (henceforth grouped and referred to as a cravings) ‘are internal states that make certain outcomes’ or results appear attractive. ‘When a craving is not satisfied tension is created within us which in turn stimulates an urge or drive causing us to seek a solution or attain a goal in an attempt to satisfy the craving and thus reduce our tension’. A vivid example of how this works is the craving smokers experience particularly when they are trying to quit.

If we understand that our ‘followers’ are also influenced by various states of tension and if we are able to increase this tension then our followers will exert higher levels of effort as they attempt to reduce their tension levels. We also obviously need to direct this effort toward some type of shared vision that we, as the leader and they, as followers believe is worthwhile. In a work situation as managers we must obviously ensure that the individuals’ cravings are in harmony with organisational goals. ‘If not appropriately directed, followers might (and usually do), exert effort in wasted activities that could run counter to the interests or the organization’.

Abraham Maslow (1908 - 1970) felt that the basic human needs were arranged in a hierarchical order. He based his theory on healthy, creative people who used all their talents, potential, and capabilities. At the time this differed from most psychology research studies that were based on the observation of disturbed people. There are two major groups of human needs: basic - including physiological, such as food, water, and sleep and psychological - such as affection, security, and self-esteem. The basic needs are also called ‘deficiency needs’ because if an individual does not meet them, then that person will strive to make up the deficiency. The higher needs are called ‘growth needs’. These include such things as justice, ‘goodness’, order, unity, glamour, status, beauty and self-fulfilment. Deficiency needs Maslow argued take priority over growth needs. People who lack food or water cannot attend to justice or beauty.

Maslow proposed that due to the immediacy of the need for such things as food and water that they are primary source and direction of a person's goal. A need higher in the hierarchy will only become a motive of behaviour if the needs below it have been satisfied. He therefore proposes that each level must be fully satisfied before a person can strive to reach the next level. It follows therefore that if a leader/manager knows where a person is located on this scale it can help him or her in determining an effective method of influence. For example, offering an individual who is motivated by in self esteem cravings some form of public recognition (a certificate, employee of the month status) will have a far greater impact than using the same reward to a minimum wage person who is struggling to satisfy lower level Physiological or Safety cravings. Maslow also proposed that lower level needs where satisfied externally and those on higher levels internally.

Almost no one stays in one particular level for an extended period. We constantly strive to move up, while at the same time forces outside our control try to push us down. For example single successful young males seeking public recognition may move ‘down’ from craving status and recognition to being driven by safety considerations when they marry and start a family. Conversely self-improvement, promotion, ‘luck’ or a change of job can ‘push’ those on the lower levels ‘up’ the hierarchy. I believe our goal, as leader/managers should be to help our people obtain the competencies that will permanently push them up the hierarchy.

Note Maslow offered no evidence for his theory and several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it. Personal experience and observation however tells me that the theory has some validity.

Psychologist Frederick Herzberg in 1959 published The Motivation to Work in which he offered a list of motivational factors more closely related to work. The lists are based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and were the result of investigations where he asked people to describe situations where they felt exceptionally ‘good’ and ‘bad’ about their jobs.

Factors Affecting Job Attitudes

Leading to Dissatisfaction	Leading to Satisfaction
Company policy Supervision Relationship w/Boss Work conditions Salary Relationship w/Peers	Achievement Recognition Work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth

From his research Herzberg concluded that intrinsic (inner) factors such as achievement and recognition lead to job satisfaction whereas extrinsic (external) factors such as company policy, administration and interpersonal relationships can lead to job dissatisfaction. He stated that if a manager removed the dissatisfying element from work it did not follow that the job then became satisfying. Herzberg also concluded that this meant that there were duel continuums that came into play. Rather than the traditional view that the opposite of satisfaction was dissatisfaction he offered the following:

Herzberg introduced the concept of Hygiene factors to the equation. Hygiene factors he suggests must be satisfied in a work environment before motivation can be addressed and the appropriate stimulus applied. That is, you cannot use a person’s motivation until all the Hygiene factors are met. Herzberg's needs are specifically job related opposed to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which reflect all needs in a persons life.

Note: Many have criticized Herzberg’s work claiming that his procedures where invalid in that we tend to blame others for our failures and credit ourselves with successes. Herzberg assumes a relationship between satisfaction and productivity and no proof was offered to support a high level relationship between these issues.

McGregor developed a philosophical perception of opposite types of people with his “X” (negative view) and “Y” (positive view). These opposing perceptions outline how people may view human behaviour at work can be summarized as follows:

· People are lazy and must be coerced, controlled, directed or threatened to achieve objectives.

· People avoid responsibility, prefer to be directed, and have little or no ambition.

· People seek mainly security, will place this craving above all else and generally lack ambition.

· People are not lazy and will exercise self-direction and control if they are committed to the objectives.

· Commitment to objectives depends on the rewards associated with an individual’s achievement.

· Creativity, ingenuity, and imagination are widely distributed among the working population.

From my experience “X” is often the view that managers take towards their staff, I guess because it is ‘safer’ and makes it easy to justify our desire for manage through the simple power of our authority. If you take the “Y” approach you will need to delegate authority and maintain personal responsibility, which many find difficult. A ‘boss’ for me can be viewed as taking the theory X approach, while a leader can be thought of as taking the Y approach.

Note: McGregor is reported to have favoured the ‘Y’ assumptions. In my experience both types and mixtures exist.

Clayton Alderfer, in his Existence/Relatedness/Growth (ERG) Theory of Needs, theorized that there are three groups of needs:

· Existence - This group of needs is concerned with obtaining basic requirements for material existence, such as physiological and safety needs. This need may be satisfied by money earned in a job to buy food, home, clothing, etc.

· Relationships - This group of needs centres on or is built upon the desire to establish and maintain interpersonal relationships

· Growth - These needs are met by personal development often provided by a job, career, or profession.

Alderfer's ERG theory also states that more than one need may be influential at the same time. A person can for instance be working on growth although existence or relatedness cravings are not satisfied, or, all three cravings can be operating at once. The theory also states that if the gratification of a higher-level need is frustrated, the desire to satisfy a lower level need will increase. He identifies this phenomenon as the "frustration/regression dimension." Its relevance on the job is that even when the upper-level needs are frustrated, a job may still provide for the basic physiological needs upon which one would then be focused.

The ERG theory seems to be more consistent with modern thinking regarding the differences found in individuals. Cultural, family and educational backgrounds can alter the driving force that a group of cravings have for an individual. Some cultures for example instil a craving to please the family mentor or have a strong social conscience which influences individuals to place there social needs before their physiological needs. A good example of this is found in many Asian families where elder children often pay to educate and support the younger siblings, usually at the request of the family head. In other societies a sense of individual freedom with an implied right to succeed or fail on your own merits is the more likely norm.

The need for Achievement: the need to perform well at a given task or “the drive to excel or to achieve in relation to a set of standards and to strive to succeed”.

Need for Power: “The need to be involved in influence and influence relationships” and “to make others behave in a way they would not have behaved otherwise”.

Need for Affiliation: “the need for friendship and close relationships” or to be part of the group.

As a manager/leader you will need to learn how to recognize and use these traits to successfully utilize the strengths or natural tendencies of your followers.

This theory explores the influence of extrinsic rewards (introduced external factors, such as pay for effort, promotion or improved working conditions) and intrinsic rewards (internal, part of our basic nature, such as achievement, responsibility or competence) on an individual’s level of motivation. The theory and supporting research suggests that if you as a manager/leader offer an employee extrinsic rewards for work that was intrinsically rewarding due to the pleasure of its content, a decreased level of motivation will result.

An explanation for this loss of motivation is that the individual senses a loss of control over their behaviour so the previous intrinsic motivation disappears. Additionally the internal reasoning for doing the job, why he or she wants to do it shifts from an internal to external focus that may be incongruent with the person’s willingness to do the job in the first place. Looking for higher motivation levels and better job performance by offering rewards for performance could create a negative outcome.

Note: Detractors of this theory point out that much of the testing of this theory was done with students not paid employees. ‘Secondly evidence suggests that very high intrinsic motivation levels are highly resistant to the detrimental impacts of extrinsic rewards’. The theory therefore ‘may have limited application to work practices, as most low-level jobs are not very intrinsically interesting, whereas high level and professional jobs have inherently high levels of intrinsic rewards’.

Edwin Locke proposes that an individual’s intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of motivation. His theory is based on a cognitive approach to how human beings function (perception, conception and using ones mental powers/faculties). With a cognitive approach to human behaviour you must assume that an individuals own purposes will be the major force in determining his or her behaviour and the primary influences on the individual are their beliefs, values, attitudes, feelings and expectations. In other words goals tell an employee what needs to be done and how much effort is required. Evidence suggests that specific goals increase performance and that difficult goals, if accepted, will result in higher performance than do easy goals.

This theory explains that the issues of feedback on performance, participation in goal setting, belief in own competence and cultural background all play a major role in the effectiveness of goal setting in motivation. In short the ‘rules’ are:

Goal setting works better in cultures where subordinates are independent and accept empowerment

It is more effective in cultures where work performance is directly related to quality of life

This theory expounds a ‘behavioristic’ approach to motivation and assumes that behavior is a result of its consequences. Theorists who support this approach believe that you need not be concerned about internal mental states, prior knowledge, learning styles or current levels of an individual’s level of understanding (internal cognitive events). Rather they argue that ‘reinforces’, (consequences that immediately follow behavior) will, if they are ‘good’ lead to a repetition of the behavior and if they are bad will lead to an avoidance of the behavior.

Although it can be argued that this theory is widely accepted in many circles, experience shows us that this philosophy ignores much that is known about human behavior. In addition it is likely (if applied in isolation) to stimulate behaviour designed to do as little as possible to avoid the ‘stick’ and as little as possible to gain acceptable levels of reward or the ‘carrot’. If the object of motivation is to strive to create excellence and superior performance the danger of using this technique is that the leader/manager will only create a comfortable state of trouble free mediocrity.

This theory states that individuals compare their level of job inputs and outcomes with those of others and then actively seek to eliminate any inequities. In other words if we believe that we are being correctly rewarded for our efforts in relation to others a state of justice exists, however if we perceive ourselves as being unjustly treated in relation to others we experience equity tension.

The benchmark that is chosen by each individual is important for the leader/manger if he or she is to uncover an individual’s motivation. These benchmarks or ‘referent comparisons are:

Another interesting aspect of this theory is that comparisons can be made on the employees past treatment in relation to another current treatment. This particularly comes into play when you are hiring new staff. If the entry-level wage for an existing employee hired two years ago was $1,000.00 per month and today you offer the same position at $1,200.00 per month it is likely that existing employees will see this as inequitable. This situation will occur, even if the existing employees are paid in excess of the $1,200.00 you are now offering.

· Change there outcomes, where reward is linked to output, reduce quality to improve quantity

Factors that may be used by individuals judging their input levels include, effort experience, education, time perceived competence, skills and knowledge. Factors that may be seen as outcomes include, salary, prospects increasing financial rewards, promotion prospects, levels of praise and levels of public recognition.

Experience shows that any manner of measurements can be devised to test the justice of relative staff situations. For example I once had a colleague who was displeased with a $4,600.00 salary increase because staff in more junior positions where given a $ 2,100.00 increase which represented 12% over their previous pay levels. The cause of the discomfort was that the colleague had only received an 8% increase hence the gap between the two positions had narrowed causing an inequitable margin between the two jobs or a perceived diminution in his relative importance. The validity of this theory really becomes obvious and proven when new company car parks are being allocated or new offices are being designed.

Effective managers must openly share the reward decision-making process with their staff/followers if it is culturally acceptable to do so. If it is not acceptable to share decision-making then at least an open sharing of information on how decisions where made must be offered. The process must also be seen as being consistent and in line with unbiased practices. The object of this approach is to prove:

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory states that an individual will act in a certain way based on “the strength of a person's belief about whether or not a particular job performance is attainable” (expectation) and that the act will be followed by a given outcome (instrumentality) and on the attractiveness (valance) of that outcome to the individual. The theory therefore focus’s on three relationships:

Expectancy theory offers another insight into why many people are not motivated in their jobs. Looking at proposition one, if employees do not perceive themselves as competent they may believe that no matter how much effort they exert they will not receive recognition as a top performer. In addition most appraisal systems take account of other factors such as loyalty, initiative, courage, third party perceptions on ability to be promoted and general presentation. Many employees see the performance reward linkage as being very weak. I have heard people in a number of organizations say ‘why bother with a staff appraisal and then give an across the board 5% increase to everyone’. In the last relation ship the individuals personal judgments and personal goals come strongly into play. If you offer a promotion to someone who is looking for more intellectually challenging technical problems to solve the reward offered will be ineffective. More money may not be attractive to someone who craves more personal time to be with his or her family.

CULTURAL INFLUENCES

A few definitions to make sure you and I are thinking similarly;