Leadership and Motivation

This article will focus on the relationship between leadership and motivation. A history of leadership theory is presented, followed by the link between leadership and motivation as it pertains to today's mainstream leadership theories. The major theories of motivation are presented in the context of leadership. This article will explore how leadership theories have developed and converged, and how motivation has become an integral part of the leadership construct.

Keywords Herzberg; Human Relations; Leadership; Leadership theory; Maslow; McClelland; Motivation; Needs; Situational leadership; Transformational Leadership

Management > Leadership & Motivation

Overview

Leadership is not a new concept in organizational theory. While many leadership theories have developed and converged in the last century, most business professionals and scholars consider leadership to be a critical individual skill set for employees that are committed to helping their organization succeed and to helping their own careers develop. Part of the leadership construct is the ability to motivate one's constituents, whether they are subordinates, peers, or others in an employee's work group. The best leaders know how to intrinsically motivate and inspire their employees through a variety of techniques. This article will explore how leadership theories have developed and converged, and how motivation has become an integral part of the leadership construct.

Evolution of Leadership Theory

In the last two centuries, many theories of leadership were developed and considered valid during their time. However, in most cases, each new theory was generally short-lived, with a new one quickly following. There is a logical progression of leadership theories through which many of them converged to create Transformational Leadership Theory, today's predominate and current mainstream leadership theory.

The Great Man Theory & Scientific Management

In the 1920's, Frederick Taylor was instrumental in applying a much-needed management model, based on productivity, after the tremendous factory boom caused by the Industrial Revolution. No longer were organizations small, and operating out of the home through small shop owners or agricultural farmers. Instead, the birth and fast expansion of large-scale factories were changing the face of the workplace. Wren (2005) stated, "The Industrial Revolution had provided the impetus; Taylor provided the synthesis" (p. 274). Taylor was the first to expose the importance of worker productivity through studying the motions and habits of production workers. He was the first to functionally separate the "manager" from the "worker," by essentially classifying the worker as the one who does the work, and the manager as the one who makes the decisions.

At the same time, simple yet formal leadership theories began to develop. These theories were simplistic and without scholarly research and empirical data. The predominate leadership theory that existed during the Scientific Management era was the Great Man Theory developed by Thomas Carlyle (1841-1907). Dorfman's study (as cited in Tirmizi, 2002) stated, "According to this theory, a leader was a person gifted by heredity with unique qualities that differentiated him from his followers" (p.270). This was the first theory that laid the foundation for several subsequent trait-based theories that evolved decades later, and were often referred to as the Trait Period or Trait Theories. In the meantime, beside Carlyle's Great Man Theory, the practice of leadership was being molded by the factories and production lines, and by the work of Frederick Taylor. Taylor's work in these areas was very authoritarian. According to Rost (as cited in Harrison, 1999), "From 1900 to 1930, leadership definitions focused on control and centralization of power." Taylor's work clearly had influences not only on management development, but also on leadership methods.

As new leaders emerged, scholars realized that there were some inconsistencies in the Great Man Theory. The reality was that there were many respected leaders that were quite different from each other, which questioned the validity of Carlyle's assertion. In addition, Taylor's work with management theory also demonstrated some inadequacies. There was clearly something missing with viewing the employee as just a 'tool' to get the work done, and the theories' ineffectiveness was likely due to the lack of in-depth scholarly research and empirical data. This led to the next era of leadership theory, which was primarily centered on relationships and behavior.

Behavior Era of Leadership

Mary Parker Follet was one of the first people to introduce elements of psychology theory into the workplace, and viewed leadership from a group and organizational perspective. These views subsequently developed into the fields often referred to as Organizational Behavior and Human Relations, of which leadership is a critical component. This period in time is often referred to as the Behavioral Era in leadership theory development (Van Seters & Field, 1990).

The Behavioral Era in leadership theory was the genesis of the classic argument about whether leaders are born or made: nature versus nurture. Where the trait theories supported the idea that leaders are born (leadership skills are hereditary), the behavioral theories contended that leaders can be trained by modifying their behavior to emulate the behavior of past effective leaders. These two schools of thought diverged after World War II. Stogdill (1975) opined that one theory was based on the role of the leader while the other was based on relationship between leaders and their followers, and the effectiveness of group performance. Nearing the tail end of this period, behavioral theories took over as "Carter (1953) and Startle (1956) maintained that the trait approach had reached a dead-end and suggested that the attention be directed toward the behavior of the leader" (Stogdill, 1975).

The early behavioral theories began with studies done at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. The focus of these theories was on what effective leaders do, and not on what they are. For the first time in history, leadership theories now became multi-dimensional. Johns and Moser (1989) stated, "The University of Michigan leadership studies under the direction of Likert and the Ohio State leadership studies under the direction of Stodgill and Shartle were antithetical to the trait or single-continuum approach" (p. 116). Leadership theories now included both task and relationship elements.

Behavioral theories subsequently converged with the continued development of management principles. One example is Blake and Mouton's managerial grid, which plotted consideration against initiating structure, and another example is McGregor's development of the Theories X and Y (Van Seters et al., 1990). From this point forward, the development of leadership theories had begun to emerge at a progressively rapid rate.

Where supporting research in the past had been thin to none, this era was full of scholarly research and empirical data relating to leadership. As a result, the theories became more applicable than ever, and researchers felt as if they have made tremendous progress toward finally defining leadership. In their studies, Johns and Moser (1989) stated, "Empirical research began to challenge personal trait and one-dimensional views of leadership. Empirical studies suggested that leadership is a dynamic process varying from situation to situation with changes in leaders, followers, and situations" (p. 116). Scholarly research had finally taken foot in the development of leadership theories.

Situational, Contingency, & Transformational Era of Leadership

The pace of management development and the evolution of new management theories accelerated significantly from the 1960s to the present, and the knowledge and information available for continued management and leadership studies is abundant. Wren (2005) stated, "It is not possible to examine the full extent of modern management writings, for they are too diverse and too extensive for any in-depth analysis" (p. 395). During this time, the evolution of leadership theories was also at a record pace, and research findings were at an all-time high as more scholars set out to finally define the concept of leadership.

Scholars continued to discover that trait and behavior theories were not enough, and that there was still something missing. They discovered that leaders who went beyond modeling their behavior after previous leaders by adjusting how they act to situations became more effective. This led to two theories that are commonly used in organizations today: the Situation and Contingency theories. Fielder's concept of Situational Favorability was based on influencing others (Maslanka, 2004). The Hersey-Blanchard situational model continued building on previous task-relationship models, and added the element of the readiness of the follower. This was a significant development, because it meant that leadership might be more about the relationship between the manager and subordinate, and less about the leader himself, including his or her traits or behavior. The idea of leadership being a function of the relationship was expanded upon by House and Mitchell's path-goal theory (Maslanka, 2004). Leadership theories had evolved from being based on the individual, to being based on the relationship between the leader and the follower.

Leadership theories began to emerge around the concept that it takes two to tango. Theories now went beyond the relationship, and included groups and teams. From Vroom and Yetton's Normative model came the idea that the environment also plays a critical role for the effective leader, by placing significance on the need for acceptance and/or quality within the organization. In addition, scholars began to realize that theories were starting to converge. Leadership theories during the contingency stage included elements from past throes, such as behavior, personality, influence, and situation (Van Seters et al., 1990). For example, Wren (2005) points out that Max Weber's Charisma theory from the scientific Management era returned to leadership theory after remaining dormant for many years. The research and empirical data became as sound and valid as ever, yet scholars still maintained that something was missing. The theories were not well-integrated, and they were difficult to put into practice (Van Seters et al., 1990). In other words, while the research and data was sound, the theories could not be effectively employed.

This led to the development of the two most recent leadership theories, transactional and transformational leadership. Kinicki & Williams (2003) define transactional leadership as "focusing on clarifying employees' roles and task requirements and providing rewards and punishments contingent on performance" (p. 464). While effectively gaining compliance, transactional leadership failed to gain commitment from followers. Transformational leadership solved this dilemma. Kinicki and Williams (2003) defined Transformational leadership as something that "transforms employees to pursue organizational goals over self-interests" (p.465). Tirmizi (2002) opined, "Transformational leadership is defined in terms of the leader's effect on followers. They feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do more than they originally expected to do" (p. 270). Most scholars today agree that the most effective style of leadership is one that combines elements of both transactional and transformational leadership. Antonakis and House (as cited in Kinicki and Williams, 2003. p.465) have researched this subject and came to the conclusion that a combination of these two leadership styles, with an emphasis on the transformational portion, is the best method for leaders to motivate their employees. The implication of this suggests that a good leader must adapt to the necessary leadership style for different situations and objectives. These two leadership theories finally closed the loop with research and effectiveness. They are validated through extensive research, and are also effectively employed in the workplace.

Current State of Leadership Theory

The evolution of leadership theories clearly shows a convergence of ideas over more than two centuries into the mainstream theories of today. The first main convergence of ideas came in the 1970s with the contingency theories. The theories combined new ideas with elements of past theories that had been discarded as invalid or inapplicable. These theories contained elements of the Great Man and Trait theories, behavioral theories, influence-based theories and situational theories (Van Seters et al., 1990), but remained stand-alone theories. The second main convergence of theories came with the transactional and transformational leadership theories. Not only did these theories contain elements from past theories but they were well-integrated and could easily be applied to today's organizations. Wren (2005) stated, "Leadership theories cycled from traits through contingency notions and back to leader styles and leader-member relations in transformational, charismatic, transactional, and leader-member exchange theories (p. 454). In addition to these points of convergence, theories have progressed from being based on the individual, to dyad of manager and subordinate, to the group, and finally to the organization.

Today's leadership theories have become complex and specialized. Since the development of transformational leadership, other mainstream theories have emerged. Some examples include Level 5 leadership (Collins, 2001), leadership best practices (Kouzes & Posner, 2003), Servant leadership (Joseph & Winston, 2005), contingent leadership (Manning, 2013), and leadership by creating a learning organization (Senge, 1990). Transformative leadership is described by Caldwell et al. (2012) as an ethical approach that seeks the benefit of all stakeholders with sustained wealth creation as a goal.

A Linkage between Motivation & Leadership

With the historical evolution of leadership in perspective, one can begin to understand the linkage between motivation and leadership. In a well-known Harvard Business Review article, Kotter (2001) set out to describe the differences between leadership and management. In the article, Kotter suggested that leadership is about dealing with change, while management is about dealing with complexity. Kotter explained that leaders set directions while managers plan and budget; leaders align people while managers organize and hire staff, and leaders motivate people while managers control and problem solve. The article was based on the continued discussion on this topic since being introduced by Abraham Zeleznik in 1977 (Kotter, 2001). In the article, Kotter referred to the argument by stating, "the theoreticians of scientific management, with their organizational diagrams and time-and-motion studies, were missing half the picture-the half filled with inspiration, vision, and the full spectrum of human drives and desires. The study of leadership hasn't been the same since. Within this perspective, motivation is clearly a significant part of the leadership construct.

Another example of how motivation and leadership are linked can be seen in how transformational leadership is defined. Bass (1999) discussed the importance of the leader-follower relationship in a transformational leadership setting. Bass stated, "Transformational leadership refers to the leader moving the follower beyond the immediate self-interest through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration. It elevates the follower's level of maturity and ideals as well as concerns for achievement, self-actualization, and the well-being of others, the organization, and society" (p.11). Further, Bass (1999) asserts that these four factors will result in the followers wanting to identify with this leadership. In other words, a leader who embraces and practices these elements of leadership would certainly help motivate his or her employees to achieve common organizational goals.

A third linkage between leadership and motivation can be observed in the five best leadership practices as presented by Kouzes and Posner (2003). Kouzes and Posner (2003) stated, "As we looked deeper into the dynamic process of leadership, through case analysis and survey questionnaires, we uncovered five practices common to personal-best leadership experiences" (p.73). These five practices are model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. The authors asserted that by following these practices, employees could be intrinsically motivated to be committed to the organization's goals and objectives. These five behaviors are directly related to motivating the employee, especially in reference to inspiration, encouragement, and empowerment.

By looking at these examples of current leadership theory, one can see how motivation is linked to leadership and how motivation is a critical aspect within modern leadership theory. With this link now set, a closer look of what motivation is, and how a leader can incorporate motivational techniques in the workplace can be discussed.

Application

Organizational practitioners often concentrate on developing leaders and managers to effectively motivate their employees. Kinicki and Kreitner (2006) defined motivation as "those of psychological processes that caused the arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed" (p.149). The employee's performance is directly related to how motivated they are to achieve their goals. Having the skills alone is often not enough for an employee to achieve high performance at their job. As such, it is the leaders' jobs to motivate their employees to the extent that they can achieve high performance with their current skills and limitations. Motivation can be looked at from three perspectives: needs, process and reinforcement (Lussier, 2005). The needs theories of motivation are critical to the effectiveness of one's leadership. It is in the context of the needs theories that the leadership principles discussed in the first section can be applied. The process and reinforcement theories of motivation are better viewed from a management perspective, rather than a leadership perspective. The following sections give an overview of the most well-known needs theories of motivation.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The most widely known motivational theory preached by today's organizational practitioners is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory. Tutt (1989) noted that human behavior continues to be based on instinct, and that humans desire to fulfill their institutional needs. The theory suggests that one's needs are categorized into five categories of a hierarchy- that is, one must satisfy the lowest level of needs before satisfying the higher level needs. These levels, from lowest to highest, are physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and the need for self-actualization (Lussier, 2005). Many suggest that excellent leaders understand where their employee's needs fall within this hierarchy, and as such can satisfy them accordingly.

McClelland's Needs Theory

A second widely-used needs theory was developed by David McClelland (Kinicki et al., 2006). McClelland suggested that individuals have three needs: a need for achievement, a need for power, and a need for affiliation. He suggested that every individual is different with regards to his or her needs, and in order to adequately motivate someone, a leader should have a clear understanding of their own employees needs with regards to these three areas. For example, someone with a high needs for affiliation might be well-suited for a human resources position, while someone with a high need for achievement might be well-suited for a sales position. Understanding each employee as a unique individual can help a leader or manager determine the best position and the best job tasks for a particular employee.

Herzberg's Hygiene Theory

The third prevalent "needs" theory was developed by Frederick Herzberg, and is often referred to as Hygiene theory of job satisfaction (Kinicki et al., 2006). Herzberg suggested that organizations have things that can be classified as satisfiers and dissatisfiers, and that in order to satisfy and motivate employees; a leader and manager should alleviate the things that dissatisfy employees and improve the things that satisfy employees. Such things as rules and regulations, salary, work environment, and supervisors are examples of things that are classified as dissatisfiers, or hygiene factors. Promotion opportunities, learning opportunities, job recognition, and challenging work are things that are classified as satisfiers. While both are important to motivating an employee, oftentimes organizations only concentrate on removing the dissatisfiers, which does not intrinsically motivate the employee, especially in the long run.

Viewpoint

Leadership and motivation have a direct relationship to employee performance. Leadership theories have evolved since the late 1800s, and today's current leadership theories include motivation as a major part of their construct. Mainstream leadership theories such as Bass's transformational leadership, Collins' Level 5 leadership, and Kouzes and Posner's best practices of leadership are built on the concept that effective leaders need to know how to motivate their employees. Motivation theories can be broken down into needs, process, and behavioral reinforcement. Leadership relies heavily on understanding the needs of theories of motivation, such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs, McClelland's need theory, and Herzberg's hygiene theory of job satisfaction. A leader can be most effective by understanding the needs of his or her employees, which will result in optimizing the overall performance of the leaders' constituents as well as the organization.

Terms & Concepts

Constituent: Refers to the follower in the leadership/follower relationship.

Transformational leadership Theory: A mainstream leadership theory that includes intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspiration, and idealized influence.

The Great Man Theory: Refers to one of the first formal leadership theories that asserts that leadership is exclusively a function of one's traits and characteristics.

Scientific Management: The process in early American industry whereby production workers were managed in a way that optimized their productivity through time and motion studies.

Trait Theories: Refers to leadership theories that are based on an individual's traits.

Organizational Behavior: The study of organizational dynamics, including individuals, groups and teams.

Human Relations: School of thought that is based on a cooperative relationship between the organization and the employees.

Situation Leadership: A leadership school of thought which asserts that leaders should adapt their style depending on the situation and maturity of their employees.

Hygiene: refers to things that dissatisfy employees but do not necessarily satisfy them. Refers to Herzberg's satisfaction theory.

Hierarchy: Refers to the pyramidal structure of the organization, usually presented in an organization chart format.

Bibliography

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32. Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4437836&site=ehost-live

Berry, J. (2014, Oct.). Revolutionising motivation. Training Journal, 10–13. Retrieved November 17, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=98788793

Buble, M., Juras, A., & Matic, I. (2014). The relationship between managers’ leadership styles and motivation. Managment: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 19, 161–93. Retrieved November 17, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=97022493

Caldwell, C., Dixon, R., Floyd, L., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas, G. (2012). Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 175-187. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=78333229&site=ehost-live

Collins, J. (2001). Good To Great (1st ed.). New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishing.

Harrison, R. (1999). The nature of leadership: Historical perspectives & the future. Journal of California Law Enforcement, 33, 24.

Johns, H. E., & Moser, H. R. (1989). From trait to transformation: The evolution of leadership theories. Education, 110, 115. Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4717838&site=ehost-live

Joseph, E., E. , & Winston, B., E. . (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1/2), 6.

Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2006). Organizational Behavior; key concepts, skills, and best practices (2nd ed.). New York, N.Y.: McGraw Hill.

Kinicki, A., & Williams, B. (2003). Management: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.

Kotter, J., P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79, 85-96. . Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5634852&site=ehost-live

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). The Leadership Challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Lussier, R., N. (2005). Human Relations in Organizations (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Manning, T. (2013). A "contingent" view of leadership: 360 degree assessments of leadership behaviours in different contexts. Industrial & Commercial Training, 45, 343-351. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=90609232&site=ehost-live

Maslanka, A. M. (2004). Evolution of leadership theories. Unpublished M.S., Grand Valley State University, United States -- Michigan.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (1st ed.). New York, N.Y.: Doubleday Dell Publishing.

Stogdill, R. M. (1975). The evolution of leadership theory. Academy of Management Proceedings, 4-6. Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4975786&site=ehost-live

Tirmizi, S. (2002). The 6-L framework: A model for leadership research and development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(5/6), 269.

Tutt, B. (1989). Great instincts: nature vs. nurture Questions fire ongoing debate. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext), p. 6.

Van Seters, D. A., & Field, R. H. G. (1990). The evolution of leadership theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 3, 29. Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6552392&site=ehost-live

Wren, D. (2005). The History of Management Thought (5th ed.): John Wiley and Sons.

Suggested Reading

Humphreys, J., Einstein, W. (2004). Leadership and temperament congruence: Extending the expectancy model of work motivation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 10, 58. Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=14746484&site=ehost-live

Ilies, R., Judge, T., Wagner, D. (2006). Making sense of motivational leadership: The trail from transformational leaders to motivated followers. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 13, 1. Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=21955772&site=ehost-live

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., Haslam, S. Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review. 29 459. Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=13670967&site=ehost-live

Rao, M. S. (2014). Transformational leadership: An academic case study. Industrial and Commercial Training, 46, 150–4. Retrieved November 17, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=95891807