How is workplace compatibility developed?

Many factors go into making a relationship work; the biggest ones is compatibility. If two individuals have nothing in common and share little or no interests once the newness of the relationship wears off, there’s not much left to work with. Compatibility is the like-mindedness shared by two people or a group. Therefore, when people work together the compatibility component is very important.

How does compatible relationship helps organization

Compatible relationships create individual peak performance and collective organizational reciprocity, resulting in an organization that functions at optimal levels of organizational effectiveness. Performance in an organization is influenced by compatible relationships between the leadership style and the motivational needs of followers. Organizations fail badly when they hire employees who don’t “fit” into the organizational culture and policies. The misfits cost a lot in terms of money and cultural pilferage. It includes cost to recruit, train the employee, and other employee morale gets affected. Wrongly selected employees can hamper an organization even if it is well established. Bad hires negatively affect organization.

While oil and gas companies are prime targets for a lot of negative PR and public ire, Chevron Corporation employees are well-versed towards the company’s culture. They are dedicated to safety, supporting employees and team members looking out for each other. Chevron cares about its employees by providing health & fitness centers on site through health-club memberships. It offers other health-oriented programs such as massages and personal training. Chevron insists employees take regular breaks. In other words, the company shows it cares about the well-being of employees, and employees know that they are valued.  The level of freedom are empowerment is understood in tight sense by its employees. Chevron grew as a corporation because it cares a lot about compatibility with its workers.

How does workplace compatibility affect Mergers and acquisitions

Mergers and acquisitions fail staggeringly and cultural incompatibilities play a dominant role in most of these problem mergers. Across industries, the failure rate of M&A is almost at 50%.  The unfortunate thing is that a majority of M&As, simply do not make the expected return on the investment and the toll on employees in merged or acquired organization is much higher.  In a muddled atmosphere key people leave organization which increases fear and resentment in other employees. Organizations lose the momentum on sales, product development, R&D, infrastructure etc. Hence each employee’s compatibility with the organization’s core values matters. The cultural fit is very important.

For a healthy union of two organizations, cultural norms of the two organizations need explicit attention, if it is ignored everything fails. The cultural norms are what drive almost every aspect of the respective companies; instead of assuming, there should be clarity on how the business should be run, how decisions are made, even how people should be treated. The bottom line is that leaders who ignore the role of culture during an M&A activity simply are not fulfilling their responsibility towards all stakeholders.

In Abraham Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs, self-actualization is located at the very top of the pyramid, it embodies the need to fulfill one’s individual potential. According to Maslow, peak experiences plays an important role in self-actualization. This experience is really rare, which makes the peak experiences elusive. Not all people reach the peak of Maslow’s pyramid. In one study conducted across business firms the researchers found that only about two-percent of individuals surveyed had ever had a peak experience.

Peak experiences are not restricted solely to self-actualized individuals, however. Maslow believed that all people are capable of having these moments, but he also felt that self-actualized people were likely to experience them more often. Maslow also felt sure that the more emotionally healthy we are, the greater the likelihood of a peak-experience.

Workplace compatibility and leadership

This bring the focus on the relationship between leadership style and the motivational needs of the followers. When the leader-follower relationship is compatible, the followers feel motivated to give their best. Compatible relationships create individual peak performance and collective organizational tradeoff, resulting in an organization that functions at optimal levels of organizational effectiveness. Performance in an organization is influenced by compatible relationships between the leadership’s style and the motivational needs of followers. Employees who clearly understand their individual goals-and how they relate to those of the organization they work in are more engaged with their work. When the employees see how they can make a direct contribution, they become successful. They begin to focus on finding ways to work smarter and more efficiently. This boost in employee productivity is most essential for running organizations smoothly.

Southwest Airlines has been in operations for over four decades. They enjoy customer loyalty because of their happy and friendly employees who are extremely hospitable. This airline has managed to communicate its goals and vision to employees in a way that makes them a part of a unified team. Southwest believes in permitting its employees to go that extra mile to make customers happy, empowering them to do what they need to do to meet the organizational goals and vision. Employees who are convinced of a larger common goal are people who are excited to be part of a larger purpose.

To strike the compatibility with assistants’ leaders must talk with clarity; explain what is expected from the assistants. Why is the organization in business? Why should customers care? What is the next level the business wants to move? What strategies to adopt, what policies to make, clarity matters.

Actions speak louder than words. Followers watch their boss: is he doing all that he is speaking?  Employees appreciate a boss who is transparent about the processes and methods, everybody appreciates transparency. Fortunately, transparency does not require the leader to fork over trade secrets but it does mean being honest about how one conducts business. Openness and information sharing helps to build that trust.

That little motivation matters a lot; profitable and sustainable enterprises thrive on original thinking while copycat businesses shutter their doors as soon as the idea they have stolen loses its relevance. Since the successful conception and development of viable business ideas takes time and requires a flexibility motivates employees. Google does this by giving its engineers 20 percent of their time to work on any project they want. This allows team members to develop products they are passionate about. Many times, that means more care and attention goes into each effort. Gmail is the most famous consequence of Google’s generous 20 percent time policy.

So job fit refers to the degree the person hired can perform the responsibilities that the position requires while culture is how well the employees are compatible with core values and norms of the organization. The fact is that different people work and live at different tempos in life. Discovering and acknowledging a person’s tempo before hiring him is an important step to finding someone with a similar and compatible tempo.

Some people are laid-back and let little get to them, while others take every one of life’s challenges to heart. Some people value work, seeing no problem in working 12-hour days, while others value spending time with family and one’s children. What kind of person will suit the organization’s culture, requires decision. Both employees and management need to tune in on same note for deciding priorities, and once the priorities are set there will be lesser hassles and lesser arguments about any issues.

Abraham Harold Maslow was an American psychologist who is best known for creating ‘hierarchy of needs’. This is a psychological theory which relies on fulfillment of natural human needs in priority, which culminates in self-actualization (fulfillment of one’s talents and potentialities). Human needs are a never ending series; no sooner one need is fulfilled, the other need arises and this is how man is always busy in struggling to fulfill one need after the other. Maslow felt that people keep on fulfilling their never-ending needs from birth till death which are distinct from rewards and unconscious desires.  He illustrated the human needs in hierarchical order in five stages starting from physiological needs to self-actualization needs.

All of us are motivated from within by needs. All through our life, we struggle to fulfill our needs. For example, if you are hungry and thirsty, you will tend to try to take care of the thirst first.  After all, you can do without food for weeks, but you can only do without water for a couple of days!  Thirst is a “stronger” need than hunger. Similarly, if you have not slept for two days and you are hungry, again you will tend to first sleep when you will get chance, because sleep is “stronger” need than hunger. Each individual’s desires and wants vary as per his character. Maslow says that only when the lower order needs of physical and emotional well-being are satisfied, we reach the higher ranking needs of mastery, independence and realization of personal potential.

The deficiencies in fulfillment of needs motivate people to achieve their unmet needs. The longer the time is taken to attain, the needs become stronger.  For example, the longer a person goes without a rise in his salary, the more he gets aggravated and works harder to achieve his desire. Every person is capable and has the innate desire to move up the hierarchy of needs toward the level of self-actualization. But, the fact is that most of us have to struggle with many failures to meet our lower level needs. For example, completing graduation in desired stream, getting suitable job, coping up challenges in job, buying a house, disrupted progress in life due health, marriage, kids, their education, problem in matrimony, higher education etc etc – the list is big. The needs keep fluctuating between lower level and higher level irrationally. And, this disruption of needs keeps a person busy all through his life. Maslow noted that only one in a hundred people become fully self-actualized.

Maslow described the needs as per hierarchy as follows:

1. The physiological needs: These include the need of breathing, satisfying hunger, thirst, sleep, rest, and sex.

2. Safety needs: These include protection from bad elements in society, security, law and order, stability, strength and freedom from fear.

3. Social needs: These include friendship, family, friend’s circle, work group, community belonging etc, in short love and kindness.

4. Esteem needs: This category includes achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, self-respect, and respect from others.

5. Self-Actualization needs: This is at the peak of need pyramid. This includes realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.

Maslow felt that there was a clear distinction between gaining love and gaining respect or esteem. He felt that people get respected for their exceptionality and mastery. As individuals, we naturally wish to excel or be exceptional, to be noticed for our unique talents and capabilities. Each one has some measure of self-esteem and confidence; at some point in time, we try to raise the bar of our performance, and once we achieve mastery we automatically gain the psychological freedom to be creative and grow further. The growth gives us wisdom and the wisdom makes us generous to others.

While the theory is generally portrayed as a fairly rigid hierarchy, Maslow noted that the order in which these needs are fulfilled need not always follow this standard of succession. For example, for some individuals, the need for self esteem is more important than the need for love. Age, race, cast, creed, gender, height, weight, money, status has got nothing to do with the order of achieving each need.

Abraham Maslow also stated that self-actualized people are those who are satisfied with themselves and doing all that they are capable of. Maslow believed self-actualization could be measured through the concept of peak performance or experiences. This occurs when a person experiences all fulfillments in life which gives sense of euphoria, joy and wonder. He also said these people are unusually creative, spontaneous and have an unusual sense of humor. In 1970 he published a list of people whom he felt were self-actualized people. The list included Einstein, Mother Teresa, M.K.Gandhi, Beethoven, Lincoln, and Eleanor Roosevelt and… Abraham Maslow himself.

Maslow felt, a person is always ‘becoming’ and never remains static. The fluctuations in life do not allow a person to remain stagnant. As each person is unique the motivation for self-actualization leads people in different directions. While for some people self-actualization can be achieved through creating works of art or literature, for others it comes through achieving great profit in business, for some it comes through sports, so on and forth. It is worth noting that self-actualization is a continual process of ‘becoming’ rather than a perfect state which we often see in movies ‘happy ever after.’ Success involves many ups and downs, it means going from failure to failure – yet not giving up.

The self-actualizers have few characteristics which allow them to stand out such as they are efficient, they accept other for what they are, they are humorous, they look at life objectively, and they are highly creative people. Such people are child like inquisitive, have great grasping power and great amount of concentration, they don’t dither from trying out new things, they listen to their heart, avoid pretense of any sort, and take responsibility for failures. Although different people achieve self-actualization in different ways (each one has his own unique way), they tend to share certain characteristics.  Maslow said that there are no perfect human beings. Remember, Maslow did not equate self-actualization with perfection. Self-actualization merely involves achieving ones potential.

The greater a person suffers in life, he becomes more realistic. When somebody is offered things on platter, he/she loses value of what has been received by him. I think life is a kind of party.  Lots of people come in your life – some you invite and some come on their own. Some leave early; some stay with you all life; some laugh with you, some laugh at you, and some show up for the heck of it. All, but in the end, each one of these teach you something. Each one changes your learning curve. Some create a mess and some help you to clear the mess. Those who help you clear the mess; most of the times aren’t responsible even little for the mess.  These people are your real friends in life.  In my opinion, you need at least one such friend to reach your self-actualization.

Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human motivation created and developed by social psychologist Douglas McGregor at the MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1960s that have been used in human resource management, organization behavior, organizational communication and organizational development. They describe two contrasting thinking of workforce motivation.

Theory X and Theory Y represent the perceptions managers hold about their employees. It is not about their general behavior outside the work place, it pertains on their job, while working in the organization.

It is contrasting because many people get great satisfaction from their work and take great pride in it while others may view it as a burden, and simply work to survive.

This question of motivation has been studied by management theorists and social psychologists for decades, in attempts to identify successful approaches to management. Every manager’s management style is strongly influenced by his/her beliefs and assumptions. Every manager accordingly treats and motivates members of his team. If the manager feels that his team members dislike work, he will be inclined towards an authoritarian style of management. On the other hand, if a manager assumes that employees take pride in doing a good job, he will tend to adopt a more participative style.

The ‘Theory X’ management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can and that they inherently dislike work. As a result of this, management believes that workers need to be closely supervised and all-inclusive systems of controls be developed. It requires a hierarchical structure with narrow span of control at each and every level. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without a tempting incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can.

Theory X managers rely heavily on threat and intimidation to gain their employees’ fulfillment. Theory X managers present an authoritarian style in which emphasis is laid on productivity or output. These managers expect a fair day’s work from their subordinates. It also reflects that such managers behave as watchdogs and they constantly suspect that people want to avoid work. Theory X is the style that predominated in business after the mechanistic system of scientific management had swept everything before it in the first few decades of the 20th century. This theory is based on mistrust in employees and it styles around highly restrictive supervision, and a disciplinary atmosphere. It gives rise to autocratic leadership. Such leaders provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers. These managers tend to micro-manage and are extremely task oriented.

In a small business environment, the owners often implement Theory X form of leadership when the operation is relatively small and he has a limited number of employees. While an authoritarian style is considered more traditional, and in some instances, outdated form of leadership, it still offers a variety of benefits. An authoritarian style of leadership can be effective in work environments where decisions need to be made quickly. The sole responsibility rests with the leader, and he/she makes the decision without the need to consult others. If a business faces constant change, the autocratic leader is able to respond in a way that prevents the business from falling behind the competition and keeps up with customer demand. In a state of emergency when a riot breaks, or major accidents take place or in a war the army and police chiefs are required to take on the spot decisions and during such times autocratic decision works.

Theory Y is a participative style of management which assumes that people will exercise self-direction and self-control in achieving the organizational goals and objectives. It assumes that employees are committed to organization’s objectives. It is management’s main task in such a system to mould the employees and maximize their commitment.

Theory Y leaders are participative leaders – also known as democratic leaders; it is believed to be the most effective leadership style in today’s business world. Democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, they give reasonable autonomy to their subordinates and allow them to participate in the group. They appreciate inputs and ideas from their group members.   Theory Y leaders encourage group members to participate, but retain the final say over the decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative. This is a more dignified and enlightened management style.

Please understand that theory Y though you feel is liberated, is difficult to practice when goals and objectives are blurred in an organization. It challenges the groups and managers to innovate, to discover new ways of organizing and directing human effort. A perfect organization is like an illusion. Douglas McGregor urged companies to adopt Theory Y. He believed that motivated individuals give far more productivity. It brings the highest levels of achievements. Theory X merely satisfies worker’s basic physical needs and not their social, self esteem needs and self actualization needs. “Man is a wanting animal,” wrote McGregor, “as soon as one of his needs is satisfied another appears in its place.”

Theory X and Theory Y relates to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in how human behavior and motivation are main priorities in the workplace in order to maximize output. In Theory Y, the organization is trying to create the most symbiotic relationship between the managers and workers, which relates to Maslow’s needs for self-actualization and Esteem. For self-actualization, the manager promotes the optimum workplace culture through ethics, morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, without prejudice and by accepting facts. We must realize that prejudice exists in others, even as we try to minimize it in ourselves. A Theory Y manager tries to promote each team member’s self-esteem, confidence, achievement, happiness, respect of others, and respect by others.

Do you know Maslow was indeed greatly influenced by McGregor? So much so that he tried to introduce Theory Y into a Californian electronics business, but found that the idea in its intense form did not work well. Maslow thus concluded that however independent and mature people are; they need some form of rules and regulation for adherence around them and some direction from superiors. Maslow also criticised Theory Y for its callousness – as it hardly works well on the weak and incapable employees who are not competent enough of a high level of self-motivation.

Whereas, Robert Towsend an American business executive and author who is noted for transforming Avis into a rental car giant wrote in his comic classic “Up the Organization”, powerfully in support of Theory Y that people don’t hate work. It’s as natural as rest or play. They don’t have to be forced or threatened. If they commit themselves to mutual objectives, they’ll drive themselves more effectively than you can drive them. But they’ll commit themselves only to the extent they can see ways of satisfying their ego and development needs.

Many studies conducted on Theory X Theory Y indicate that there is no such one best organizational approach; rather, the best approach depends on the nature of the work and the organizational structure. Enterprises with highly predictable tasks perform better with by the highly formal procedures and management hierarchies of the classical approach. On the other hand, organizations with highly uncertain tasks that require more extensive problem solving, are less formalized and they emphasize on employees’ self-control and participation in decision making which works effectively. In quintessence, according to these newer studies, managers must be flexible in delegating and controlling employees.

]]> https://drvidyahattangadi.com/theory-x-theory-y/feed/ 0