| Management |
 | |  | |  | |  |
Great leaders naturally think of others, and make the people around
them better. A good example of institutional power was basketball star
Ervin Magic Johnson. Everywhere he went he won championships. At
Michigan State University the 1979 basketball team dominated the
college ranks by winning the NCAA championship. Yet, nobody from
that team went to the next level for long. Johnson left to the National
Basketball Association (NBA) after his sophomore season. He joined
the struggling Los Angels Lakers and their aging center Kareem Abdul-
Jabbar. In his rookie season the six foot nine guard switched to center
in the playoffs after Kareem suffered an injury. Johnson not only filled
the role of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, but he led the team to an NBA
championship in his first year. Ervin Magic Johnson made everyone
around him great by leading the NBA in assists. Johnson created a
dynasty where ever he went, regardless of the talent level around him.
In fact when Ervin Johnson came to the Lakers, some were wondering if
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was going to retire. Instead, Kareem’s career
was resurrected and played another ten years. Magic Johnson was the
ultimate institutional leader and wasn’t afraid to give others the glory.
them better. A good example of institutional power was basketball star
Ervin Magic Johnson. Everywhere he went he won championships. At
Michigan State University the 1979 basketball team dominated the
college ranks by winning the NCAA championship. Yet, nobody from
that team went to the next level for long. Johnson left to the National
Basketball Association (NBA) after his sophomore season. He joined
the struggling Los Angels Lakers and their aging center Kareem Abdul-
Jabbar. In his rookie season the six foot nine guard switched to center
in the playoffs after Kareem suffered an injury. Johnson not only filled
the role of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, but he led the team to an NBA
championship in his first year. Ervin Magic Johnson made everyone
around him great by leading the NBA in assists. Johnson created a
dynasty where ever he went, regardless of the talent level around him.
In fact when Ervin Johnson came to the Lakers, some were wondering if
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was going to retire. Instead, Kareem’s career
was resurrected and played another ten years. Magic Johnson was the
ultimate institutional leader and wasn’t afraid to give others the glory.
Leadership Theory
I identified countless theories on satisfying needs and creating
motivation. Some theories were basic and very broad in there definitions
to analyze followers in the workplace. For example Douglas McGregor
defined followers into two separate theories. “Theory X”, believes
followers naturally dislike work, and must be forced to work hard.
Followers need direct supervision in the workplace. “Theory Y”, believes
followers naturally like work, and will perform well if the job is satisfying.
I would certainly describe my leadership philosophy in the “theory Y”
category. The theory also recognizes that each follower is at different
levels of maturity. Some followers may need tighter controls placed on
them until the employee develops into a more responsible worker. I’d
prefer to save the hassle and only promote workers that thrive under the
leadership of “theory Y”. What good is an employee that needs tight
controls? If I need to implement strict controls on a particular worker, I
will demand improvement. An organizations goal is to make money, not
to play a parent role to their employees.
I identified countless theories on satisfying needs and creating
motivation. Some theories were basic and very broad in there definitions
to analyze followers in the workplace. For example Douglas McGregor
defined followers into two separate theories. “Theory X”, believes
followers naturally dislike work, and must be forced to work hard.
Followers need direct supervision in the workplace. “Theory Y”, believes
followers naturally like work, and will perform well if the job is satisfying.
I would certainly describe my leadership philosophy in the “theory Y”
category. The theory also recognizes that each follower is at different
levels of maturity. Some followers may need tighter controls placed on
them until the employee develops into a more responsible worker. I’d
prefer to save the hassle and only promote workers that thrive under the
leadership of “theory Y”. What good is an employee that needs tight
controls? If I need to implement strict controls on a particular worker, I
will demand improvement. An organizations goal is to make money, not
to play a parent role to their employees.
As the leader, I have the duty to identify employees with a good attitude
that can be properly developed. The employees with a poor attitude
should be weeded out. Poor attitudes can spread like wildfire within an
organization. The remaining employees then know the limitations of
behavior. As a leader, I have the duty to create a healthy and positive
working environment for my followers. Under positive working conditions
followers feel freer to take more responsibility. The followers feel more
committed to their work objectives and feel closer to the organization.
Most importantly, “theory Y” builds trust between the leader, the
organization and the follower. The best employees end up staying
longer which increases productivity and reduces expenses over the long
term. The followers and leader could then focus on developing and
creating innovative and efficient systems. Although my argument is
similar to Deming’s (1981) “theory Z”, extreme loyalty between the
organization and the follower I find very unreasonable in the current
competitive market and outsourcing. I prefer building trust rather than
loyalty. Loyalty obligates management to protecting jobs, rather than
protecting the competitiveness of the company while building
shareholder value. Trust says as long as the employees work here, they
will be treated with dignity and respect, yet does not promise loyalty to
the employees. An organization must consider all their stake holders
when making decisions.
that can be properly developed. The employees with a poor attitude
should be weeded out. Poor attitudes can spread like wildfire within an
organization. The remaining employees then know the limitations of
behavior. As a leader, I have the duty to create a healthy and positive
working environment for my followers. Under positive working conditions
followers feel freer to take more responsibility. The followers feel more
committed to their work objectives and feel closer to the organization.
Most importantly, “theory Y” builds trust between the leader, the
organization and the follower. The best employees end up staying
longer which increases productivity and reduces expenses over the long
term. The followers and leader could then focus on developing and
creating innovative and efficient systems. Although my argument is
similar to Deming’s (1981) “theory Z”, extreme loyalty between the
organization and the follower I find very unreasonable in the current
competitive market and outsourcing. I prefer building trust rather than
loyalty. Loyalty obligates management to protecting jobs, rather than
protecting the competitiveness of the company while building
shareholder value. Trust says as long as the employees work here, they
will be treated with dignity and respect, yet does not promise loyalty to
the employees. An organization must consider all their stake holders
when making decisions.
Critics of both “X” and “Y” theories believe they are only the two
extremes of motivation, and that most fall in between the two. Although
I agree with this criticism, Douglas McGregor clearly states that the
leader needs to develop the followers into a “theory Y” environment. In
other words, “theory Y” is a progressive approach that adapts to the
maturity level of the followers. In this case, “theory Y” is an effective
approach I truly believe in.
David McClelland (1975) describes a person’s needs are acquired over
time and are shaped by experiences in life. Many of these needs are
separated into three categories, the high need for achievement, a high
need for affiliation, and a high need for power. McCleland used the
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to measure individual needs of
different people the TAT presents the subject with a series of
ambiguous pictures. The subject must develop a story for each
picture. The subject should project their own needs into the story.
McClelland focuses on the higher order of needs. Achievement and
power are both on the higher end of the accomplishment side.
Affiliation focuses on the lower order of needs. Well known motivational
theories usually focus on the lower and middle part of satisfying needs.
I believe most people never achieve the top portion, so theorists usually
focus on the lower or middle end of the satisfying needs. McClelland
skips the lower end of needs, such as survival.
extremes of motivation, and that most fall in between the two. Although
I agree with this criticism, Douglas McGregor clearly states that the
leader needs to develop the followers into a “theory Y” environment. In
other words, “theory Y” is a progressive approach that adapts to the
maturity level of the followers. In this case, “theory Y” is an effective
approach I truly believe in.
David McClelland (1975) describes a person’s needs are acquired over
time and are shaped by experiences in life. Many of these needs are
separated into three categories, the high need for achievement, a high
need for affiliation, and a high need for power. McCleland used the
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to measure individual needs of
different people the TAT presents the subject with a series of
ambiguous pictures. The subject must develop a story for each
picture. The subject should project their own needs into the story.
McClelland focuses on the higher order of needs. Achievement and
power are both on the higher end of the accomplishment side.
Affiliation focuses on the lower order of needs. Well known motivational
theories usually focus on the lower and middle part of satisfying needs.
I believe most people never achieve the top portion, so theorists usually
focus on the lower or middle end of the satisfying needs. McClelland
skips the lower end of needs, such as survival.
People with a high need for achievement want to stand out, by avoiding
low and high risk conditions.
Achievement clearly describes me. I only feel moderately comfortable
doing work that has a moderate chance of getting done successfully.
I call this, “calculated risk”. The more risky the work becomes I need
more feedback from my leaders. When I don’t know my leader as well, I
constantly need reassurance to know if I’m on the right path and that I’m
in good standing on the quality of work I do. The more I know the
expectations and trust in a leader, the more comfortable I feel in taking
on greater amounts of work. I usually always get along with everyone,
but I still like to work alone, rather in groups. I believe the main reason
is that I don’t want to let the group down. A second reason is I have a
creative imagination. Sometimes in a group my creativity is stifled in the
confines of a group. If I’m in a group, I prefer to have a separate time
alone to reflect and generate ideas in creating solutions to a problem.
The few times I like to be in a group are when I’m in a group of people
with similar views and philosophy as myself. Not particularly in
agreement, but trying to view problems from a different perspective than
the common way of doing things.
low and high risk conditions.
Achievement clearly describes me. I only feel moderately comfortable
doing work that has a moderate chance of getting done successfully.
I call this, “calculated risk”. The more risky the work becomes I need
more feedback from my leaders. When I don’t know my leader as well, I
constantly need reassurance to know if I’m on the right path and that I’m
in good standing on the quality of work I do. The more I know the
expectations and trust in a leader, the more comfortable I feel in taking
on greater amounts of work. I usually always get along with everyone,
but I still like to work alone, rather in groups. I believe the main reason
is that I don’t want to let the group down. A second reason is I have a
creative imagination. Sometimes in a group my creativity is stifled in the
confines of a group. If I’m in a group, I prefer to have a separate time
alone to reflect and generate ideas in creating solutions to a problem.
The few times I like to be in a group are when I’m in a group of people
with similar views and philosophy as myself. Not particularly in
agreement, but trying to view problems from a different perspective than
the common way of doing things.
Money is not the most important motivator for me. A positive working
environment is more important than an extra four or five thousand
dollars per year. My survival and basic needs must be met and have
room for advancement. Once all my basic needs are met, only then
would I consider pushing for more money. Clayton Alderfer an American
psychologist who further expanded Maslow's hierarchy of needs by
categorizing the hierarchy into his ERG theory (Existence, Relatedness
and Growth). Alderfer categorized the lower order needs (Physiological
and Safety) into the Existence category. He fit Maslow's interpersonal
love and esteem needs into the relatedness category. The growth
category contained the Self Actualization and self esteem needs.
Alderfer also proposed a regression theory to go along with the ERG
theory. He said, when needs in a higher category are not met then
individuals redouble the efforts invested in a lower category need. For
example if self actualization or self esteem is not met then individuals will
invest more effort in the relatedness category in the hopes of achieving
the higher need. Some continue to regress and others continue to
fluctuate up and down the need categories. Maslow's hierarchy did not
include a regression perspective.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Alderfer
environment is more important than an extra four or five thousand
dollars per year. My survival and basic needs must be met and have
room for advancement. Once all my basic needs are met, only then
would I consider pushing for more money. Clayton Alderfer an American
psychologist who further expanded Maslow's hierarchy of needs by
categorizing the hierarchy into his ERG theory (Existence, Relatedness
and Growth). Alderfer categorized the lower order needs (Physiological
and Safety) into the Existence category. He fit Maslow's interpersonal
love and esteem needs into the relatedness category. The growth
category contained the Self Actualization and self esteem needs.
Alderfer also proposed a regression theory to go along with the ERG
theory. He said, when needs in a higher category are not met then
individuals redouble the efforts invested in a lower category need. For
example if self actualization or self esteem is not met then individuals will
invest more effort in the relatedness category in the hopes of achieving
the higher need. Some continue to regress and others continue to
fluctuate up and down the need categories. Maslow's hierarchy did not
include a regression perspective.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Alderfer
Why is understanding the theories of needs help the
marketplace? Understanding what motivates the stake holders helps
organizations meet their full potential, by setting goals and objectives by
what the stake holders want. Shareholders want a rising stock price,
management wants efficiency, employees want a safe work environment
with competitive salaries, customers want quality products for a fair
price, suppliers may want consistent buying to plan for the future.
marketplace? Understanding what motivates the stake holders helps
organizations meet their full potential, by setting goals and objectives by
what the stake holders want. Shareholders want a rising stock price,
management wants efficiency, employees want a safe work environment
with competitive salaries, customers want quality products for a fair
price, suppliers may want consistent buying to plan for the future.
The Need for Power
People with the need for power either have personal or institutional
needs. Needs for personal power has a desire to control and influence
others.
These people are confident in their abilities because they know their
own strengths and weaknesses, and trust their own judgment. They
often do not trust other people’s abilities, so they naturally want to be in
charge. They enjoy the higher status positions and love the
competitive nature of business. McClelland does admit however that
their enjoyment of prestige can get in the way of their effectiveness.
But overall, McClelland viewed these characteristics as very healthy.
I firmly disagree with McClelland on this issue. As a follower in many
organizations I’ve worked around people with a need for personal
power. I’ve found these people are capable of doing anything to gain
personal power. They walk a fine line of confidence and arrogance.
These individuals are not only alpha type personalities but are very
aggressive and are never content with their status within an
organization until they have reached the status they deserve.
Everything is centered on them. Everyone else is going to feel
miserable until they get what they want. Who wants a leader like that
over them? These types of leaders are the last to empower others and
the first to raise them selves up. These are the same people that feel
they are irreplaceable, and things just would not get done without
them. They lead based on politics instead of the organizations goals
and objectives. They end up hiring people that only go along with their
agenda, rather than expressing their own views.
People with the need for power either have personal or institutional
needs. Needs for personal power has a desire to control and influence
others.
These people are confident in their abilities because they know their
own strengths and weaknesses, and trust their own judgment. They
often do not trust other people’s abilities, so they naturally want to be in
charge. They enjoy the higher status positions and love the
competitive nature of business. McClelland does admit however that
their enjoyment of prestige can get in the way of their effectiveness.
But overall, McClelland viewed these characteristics as very healthy.
I firmly disagree with McClelland on this issue. As a follower in many
organizations I’ve worked around people with a need for personal
power. I’ve found these people are capable of doing anything to gain
personal power. They walk a fine line of confidence and arrogance.
These individuals are not only alpha type personalities but are very
aggressive and are never content with their status within an
organization until they have reached the status they deserve.
Everything is centered on them. Everyone else is going to feel
miserable until they get what they want. Who wants a leader like that
over them? These types of leaders are the last to empower others and
the first to raise them selves up. These are the same people that feel
they are irreplaceable, and things just would not get done without
them. They lead based on politics instead of the organizations goals
and objectives. They end up hiring people that only go along with their
agenda, rather than expressing their own views.
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has run the company with an iron fist. As co-
founder of the software company, Ellison took the company public in
March of 1986 and has built a billion dollar empire. In fact, if you would
have invested five thousand dollars in Oracle in 1986, you would be a
millionaire today. Yes, that is after the bubble burst in 1999.
In Larry Ellison’s case, his credibility and ego rose along with the
inflated price of the stock. Whenever Wall Street thought their might be
a successor to Ellison, the candidates found themselves on the outside
looking in. Indeed Ellison has created a notorious reputation as one of
the largest egos on Wall Street. Ellison’s, “my way or the highway”,
attitude has created an enormous revolving door of talented
executives. Former Oracle executives have created many new
companies in which directly compete with Oracle’s large market share.
founder of the software company, Ellison took the company public in
March of 1986 and has built a billion dollar empire. In fact, if you would
have invested five thousand dollars in Oracle in 1986, you would be a
millionaire today. Yes, that is after the bubble burst in 1999.
In Larry Ellison’s case, his credibility and ego rose along with the
inflated price of the stock. Whenever Wall Street thought their might be
a successor to Ellison, the candidates found themselves on the outside
looking in. Indeed Ellison has created a notorious reputation as one of
the largest egos on Wall Street. Ellison’s, “my way or the highway”,
attitude has created an enormous revolving door of talented
executives. Former Oracle executives have created many new
companies in which directly compete with Oracle’s large market share.
When CEO’s gain credibility like Larry Ellison has, they have two
options:
1. Take the credibility and empower others to reach the organizational
goals and the company’s vision.
2. Take the credibility to entrench themselves in as CEO for years to
come.
Obviously Ellison chose the later.
What happens if Larry Ellison suddenly dies or can’t perform his
duties? The company will falter to a second rate software company,
while searching for another leader with the direction. Great CEO’s and
the Board of Directors should always have a handful of names that
could step in and takeover with little transition.
If I became CEO of Oracle I’d implement a two front offensive to improve
the leadership problem. The first would be the implementation of an
executive development program. One of the most important positions
in Oracle would be the Human Resource Director. The best leaders
and developers with the proper resources can create a great software
company. You can’t make it happen without a good relationship
between the CEO and the H.R. Director. One of the highest leadership
directives is hiring the right people with the right character, and
competence.
options:
1. Take the credibility and empower others to reach the organizational
goals and the company’s vision.
2. Take the credibility to entrench themselves in as CEO for years to
come.
Obviously Ellison chose the later.
What happens if Larry Ellison suddenly dies or can’t perform his
duties? The company will falter to a second rate software company,
while searching for another leader with the direction. Great CEO’s and
the Board of Directors should always have a handful of names that
could step in and takeover with little transition.
If I became CEO of Oracle I’d implement a two front offensive to improve
the leadership problem. The first would be the implementation of an
executive development program. One of the most important positions
in Oracle would be the Human Resource Director. The best leaders
and developers with the proper resources can create a great software
company. You can’t make it happen without a good relationship
between the CEO and the H.R. Director. One of the highest leadership
directives is hiring the right people with the right character, and
competence.
The second front would create a challenging work environment which
can bring out the most potential in executives. Empowering and
challenging these executives would also improve the bottom line by
reducing the soft costs involved when losing talent. The new
environment would build on the talent with fresh ideas.
I experienced these people in many work environments, and I found
them counter productive to the overall team. McClelland would rebuttal
my viewpoint by pointing out; these people need to be placed in higher
roles to be happy. But I say, institutional power has a desire to
organize others to further the goals and objectives of the overall
organization. I believe institutional power tends to be more effective
than personal power. I prefer institutional power because it leverages
everyone’s abilities for the cause of the entire organization.
can bring out the most potential in executives. Empowering and
challenging these executives would also improve the bottom line by
reducing the soft costs involved when losing talent. The new
environment would build on the talent with fresh ideas.
I experienced these people in many work environments, and I found
them counter productive to the overall team. McClelland would rebuttal
my viewpoint by pointing out; these people need to be placed in higher
roles to be happy. But I say, institutional power has a desire to
organize others to further the goals and objectives of the overall
organization. I believe institutional power tends to be more effective
than personal power. I prefer institutional power because it leverages
everyone’s abilities for the cause of the entire organization.
Another great institutional leader is linebacker Ray Lewis of the
Baltimore Ravens. Ray inspires his team mates with passion, excellent
performance and pure intensity. Each leader has their own traits, but
one thing is for sure, Ray Lewis and Magic Johnson make the people
around them better while utilizing the teams potential to reach the
organizations goals. They're every coach and fan's dream to inspire a
winning attitude.
Baltimore Ravens. Ray inspires his team mates with passion, excellent
performance and pure intensity. Each leader has their own traits, but
one thing is for sure, Ray Lewis and Magic Johnson make the people
around them better while utilizing the teams potential to reach the
organizations goals. They're every coach and fan's dream to inspire a
winning attitude.
