Motivation: The Brewster-Seaview Landscaping Co.
Motivation is an integral part of our everyday living. It gives us the drive to do something, and the intensity and frequency of doing it. Motivation is made up of different factors, one of which is our self-determination. According to the study prepared by Gagne, M., and Deci, E., Self-Determination Theory is a distinction between two kinds of motivation, autonomous and controlled (Gagne, M. & Deci, E., 2005). Autonomous motivation means that we engage in an activity because we like it or because we find it interesting. Through autonomous motivation, a person can achieve its highest potential and output compared to controlled motivation where every step is controlled by a third factor or person. Gagne and Deci also claimed that acting in controlled
…show more content…
motivation, produces a sense of pressure.
The Brewster-Seaview Landscaping Co.
Case expressed both of these motivation into two parts; first, having Joe Brewster supervising the work and second, when Joe hired 2 graduates of agricultural management. The motivation level of the work crew was higher when Joe is supervising them. Joe is a well-respected man in the city and laid-back kind of employer. He allows the work crew to decide to themselves to which task they want to do and how long they can do it for, he also allowed them to take a reasonable break anytime they want or be late 10 – 15 minutes without penalizing them. Joe shows his leadership with his workers by being one of them, this way, Joe could understand the hardship that comes with the job and be more sympathetic to their complains. According to the Maslow’s Motivation Theory, certain level of needs has to be achieved before moving to the higher level. Physiological level, the lowest level in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, is achieved when Joe allowed them to take breaks whenever they need to, be 10 – 15 minutes late, and other physiological needs that seem necessary and acceptable. The second level is Safety, the work crew is not afraid of penalties for being late or for having done a poor job. Next level is Belonging, the work crew is able to socialize with the other workers and to their customers without any objections from Joe. Second to the last level, the last level that is achieved in this particular case, is Esteem, where the Joe compliments them with the ideas and methods they use and also, rewards them for extra work that they
do.
In the second year of the case, Joe hired two grad students to supervise the workers. Without prior experience to the job, the supervisors are using their position to separate themselves to the workers. We can see this from the case in different situations. One, the supervising grad students always drive and does not talk to any of the workers, comparatively, Joe let anyone drive the truck so that he can socialize or schedule with the other workers. Two, Joe personally unloads the tools from the truck, while the supervisors in the second year just watch the work crew unload the tools. Lastly, Joe did not care about when they want to eat or how long should be spend in a job, compared to the supervisors the next year where they decide to when and how long should it take them to do a job. We can observe that Joe did not separate himself from the workers which resulted to comradery and an urge to do better, compared to the supervisors the next year, where they clearly separated themselves from the workers which inevitably led to a decrease in quality of their jobs.
Joe’s leadership strategy is more effective in motivating his workers because of two reasons, first, Joe knows what to do and how to do the job, this allows him to train and correct the workers with how they do certain jobs. Second, Joe does not treat himself as a boss or superior than the workers. The supervisors that was hired the next year, does not have any experience and was not able to train or advice the new workers for that summer, which led to the poor quality of the job. Also, they played Legitimate Power, by just supervising the work crew and telling them of what to do and when to do a job. This led to the decrease in the crew’s motivation to work because of they lack the interest to do well on the job.
The effectivity of these two different leadership strategies is shown on their production. The first year, when Joe is supervising, their production rate is 15% greater than other landscaping company which shows the effectivity of the work crew. According to John Honore, employers must be able to engage with their employees in a personal level. Psychological needs such as the need to feel wanted and appreciated is an important part of getting the workers motivated. These workers want to do something meaningful and it’s up to the leader to cultivate their motivation to stay and do exemplary job. Honore also discussed the Expectancy Theory that describes worker’s motivation as a function of the individual’s performance, the balance or salience of the reward and the belief that performance will lead to reward (2009). Joe practiced this theory by rewarding his workers, according to the case, Joe rewards his employees by higher wage when they come back the next summer, and he also rewards them with bonuses when they refer customers to Joe. We can see the effects of Expectancy theory when we compare the first year where there are rewards or bonuses for anyone who comes back from the previous year and refers customers, which was changed the second year, where everyone is paid the same base pay as the new workers. Effectivity of Joe’s workers from the first and second year has drastically decreased caused by different factors such as: leadership strategy, rewards, and achieving needs. This dilemma could be solved by promoting experienced workers to supervise the job. This way, the experienced workers would be able to lead their workers the way they were led by Joe from the previous year. Because they are experienced, they will be able to train the new workers unlike the two supervisors on the second year of the case. Question 2
Power is not limited to the control of resources or social position, it also includes one’s capacity to influence others (Anderson, C., John, O., & Keltner, D. 2012). Personality also plays a part in achieving higher levels of power which means that certain personality can affect how a person can lead. According to the study Anderson, John, and Keltner did, personality such as dominant could affect how effective or how great their ability to influence others. The case examined different kinds of power, referent, expert, and legitimate power. Referent power includes admiration and looking up to the person with such power. On the other hand, the grad students that Joe hired the next summer showed legitimate and expert power. The grad students showed expert power because they have the background knowledge of agriculture which is related to Joe’s landscaping business. They also show legitimate power over the work crew because of the position that was given to them by Joe.
Examining Joe’s leadership, shows that he is admired by his work crew because he connects with them in the personal level, Joe let any of his crew to drive the car while he talks to the crew to schedule the tasks for the day, he personally unloads the tools from his truck, he eats with the crew, and he understands the job and thus giving his workers as much freedom to be creative in doing their work. In return Joe’s work crew is more invested in the job they are doing because they are motivated to please Joe which results to a higher productivity output. In the second summer of the case, Joe hired two newly graduate students with a degree to supervise for that summer, though they show an expert power over the work crew, they do not have the necessary experience in doing landscaping which may be the reason why their leadership strategy is not as effective as Joe’s. They also demonstrated legitimate power over the work crew, evidence of this can be seen by the lack of connection between the workers and the supervisors. We saw that the supervisors are strict and uptight, they took the responsibility to drive the truck, watch as the workers unload the tools from the truck, and followed a tight schedule that Joe provided. The way the new supervisors run the tasks was ineffective and the work crew is not capable of being creative in doing the tasks. The new supervisors also discouraged and penalized them when they socialize with the other workers and their customers. According to the study done by Pierro A., et. al. (2013), the supervisors are showing harsh power bases, which means they limit the workers freedom to follow their demands. The study also differentiated different kinds of legitimate power to be more specific, and these are: position, reciprocity, equity and dependence. According to the study, the supervisors on the second year showed legitimate power position which is based on a social norm to oblige people in a superior position. Legitimate power could be effective if it is used properly, after all, people in power uses their power to strengthen their position, meaning, they use their superiority to get higher productivity. Legitimate power should not separate the supervisors from the work crew, they should have used the control that they have to properly assess and make an action plan of how to do a job. Instead, the supervisors used their power to passively by just following what Joe have said. Since there is no alignment of interest between Joe, who wants higher productivity, and the supervisors, who only wants to do the job as it is. We can see that the supervisors are lacking the motivation that the old work crew have. We know that the work crew enjoyed their job the first year, they took extra work referring new customers, overtime, and adding their own ideas to their tasks, producing 15% above average output. The supervisors lack creativity and will to seek new possible action to make the most possible outcome.
Joe is responsible for the decline in output as well. Even though he is not supervising anymore, he became really busy and disconnected to his workers. They complained about how the new supervisors are running the jobs but Joe just brushed them off saying the he will mention it to them.
Not having any change, the worker’s motivation to work declined and thus, the job suffered from poor quality of their jobs.
motivation, produces a sense of pressure.
The Brewster-Seaview Landscaping Co.
Case expressed both of these motivation into two parts; first, having Joe Brewster supervising the work and second, when Joe hired 2 graduates of agricultural management. The motivation level of the work crew was higher when Joe is supervising them. Joe is a well-respected man in the city and laid-back kind of employer. He allows the work crew to decide to themselves to which task they want to do and how long they can do it for, he also allowed them to take a reasonable break anytime they want or be late 10 – 15 minutes without penalizing them. Joe shows his leadership with his workers by being one of them, this way, Joe could understand the hardship that comes with the job and be more sympathetic to their complains. According to the Maslow’s Motivation Theory, certain level of needs has to be achieved before moving to the higher level. Physiological level, the lowest level in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, is achieved when Joe allowed them to take breaks whenever they need to, be 10 – 15 minutes late, and other physiological needs that seem necessary and acceptable. The second level is Safety, the work crew is not afraid of penalties for being late or for having done a poor job. Next level is Belonging, the work crew is able to socialize with the other workers and to their customers without any objections from Joe. Second to the last level, the last level that is achieved in this particular case, is Esteem, where the Joe compliments them with the ideas and methods they use and also, rewards them for extra work that they
do.
In the second year of the case, Joe hired two grad students to supervise the workers. Without prior experience to the job, the supervisors are using their position to separate themselves to the workers. We can see this from the case in different situations. One, the supervising grad students always drive and does not talk to any of the workers, comparatively, Joe let anyone drive the truck so that he can socialize or schedule with the other workers. Two, Joe personally unloads the tools from the truck, while the supervisors in the second year just watch the work crew unload the tools. Lastly, Joe did not care about when they want to eat or how long should be spend in a job, compared to the supervisors the next year where they decide to when and how long should it take them to do a job. We can observe that Joe did not separate himself from the workers which resulted to comradery and an urge to do better, compared to the supervisors the next year, where they clearly separated themselves from the workers which inevitably led to a decrease in quality of their jobs.
Joe’s leadership strategy is more effective in motivating his workers because of two reasons, first, Joe knows what to do and how to do the job, this allows him to train and correct the workers with how they do certain jobs. Second, Joe does not treat himself as a boss or superior than the workers. The supervisors that was hired the next year, does not have any experience and was not able to train or advice the new workers for that summer, which led to the poor quality of the job. Also, they played Legitimate Power, by just supervising the work crew and telling them of what to do and when to do a job. This led to the decrease in the crew’s motivation to work because of they lack the interest to do well on the job.
The effectivity of these two different leadership strategies is shown on their production. The first year, when Joe is supervising, their production rate is 15% greater than other landscaping company which shows the effectivity of the work crew. According to John Honore, employers must be able to engage with their employees in a personal level. Psychological needs such as the need to feel wanted and appreciated is an important part of getting the workers motivated. These workers want to do something meaningful and it’s up to the leader to cultivate their motivation to stay and do exemplary job. Honore also discussed the Expectancy Theory that describes worker’s motivation as a function of the individual’s performance, the balance or salience of the reward and the belief that performance will lead to reward (2009). Joe practiced this theory by rewarding his workers, according to the case, Joe rewards his employees by higher wage when they come back the next summer, and he also rewards them with bonuses when they refer customers to Joe. We can see the effects of Expectancy theory when we compare the first year where there are rewards or bonuses for anyone who comes back from the previous year and refers customers, which was changed the second year, where everyone is paid the same base pay as the new workers. Effectivity of Joe’s workers from the first and second year has drastically decreased caused by different factors such as: leadership strategy, rewards, and achieving needs. This dilemma could be solved by promoting experienced workers to supervise the job. This way, the experienced workers would be able to lead their workers the way they were led by Joe from the previous year. Because they are experienced, they will be able to train the new workers unlike the two supervisors on the second year of the case. Question 2
Power is not limited to the control of resources or social position, it also includes one’s capacity to influence others (Anderson, C., John, O., & Keltner, D. 2012). Personality also plays a part in achieving higher levels of power which means that certain personality can affect how a person can lead. According to the study Anderson, John, and Keltner did, personality such as dominant could affect how effective or how great their ability to influence others. The case examined different kinds of power, referent, expert, and legitimate power. Referent power includes admiration and looking up to the person with such power. On the other hand, the grad students that Joe hired the next summer showed legitimate and expert power. The grad students showed expert power because they have the background knowledge of agriculture which is related to Joe’s landscaping business. They also show legitimate power over the work crew because of the position that was given to them by Joe.
Examining Joe’s leadership, shows that he is admired by his work crew because he connects with them in the personal level, Joe let any of his crew to drive the car while he talks to the crew to schedule the tasks for the day, he personally unloads the tools from his truck, he eats with the crew, and he understands the job and thus giving his workers as much freedom to be creative in doing their work. In return Joe’s work crew is more invested in the job they are doing because they are motivated to please Joe which results to a higher productivity output. In the second summer of the case, Joe hired two newly graduate students with a degree to supervise for that summer, though they show an expert power over the work crew, they do not have the necessary experience in doing landscaping which may be the reason why their leadership strategy is not as effective as Joe’s. They also demonstrated legitimate power over the work crew, evidence of this can be seen by the lack of connection between the workers and the supervisors. We saw that the supervisors are strict and uptight, they took the responsibility to drive the truck, watch as the workers unload the tools from the truck, and followed a tight schedule that Joe provided. The way the new supervisors run the tasks was ineffective and the work crew is not capable of being creative in doing the tasks. The new supervisors also discouraged and penalized them when they socialize with the other workers and their customers. According to the study done by Pierro A., et. al. (2013), the supervisors are showing harsh power bases, which means they limit the workers freedom to follow their demands. The study also differentiated different kinds of legitimate power to be more specific, and these are: position, reciprocity, equity and dependence. According to the study, the supervisors on the second year showed legitimate power position which is based on a social norm to oblige people in a superior position. Legitimate power could be effective if it is used properly, after all, people in power uses their power to strengthen their position, meaning, they use their superiority to get higher productivity. Legitimate power should not separate the supervisors from the work crew, they should have used the control that they have to properly assess and make an action plan of how to do a job. Instead, the supervisors used their power to passively by just following what Joe have said. Since there is no alignment of interest between Joe, who wants higher productivity, and the supervisors, who only wants to do the job as it is. We can see that the supervisors are lacking the motivation that the old work crew have. We know that the work crew enjoyed their job the first year, they took extra work referring new customers, overtime, and adding their own ideas to their tasks, producing 15% above average output. The supervisors lack creativity and will to seek new possible action to make the most possible outcome.
Joe is responsible for the decline in output as well. Even though he is not supervising anymore, he became really busy and disconnected to his workers. They complained about how the new supervisors are running the jobs but Joe just brushed them off saying the he will mention it to them.
Not having any change, the worker’s motivation to work declined and thus, the job suffered from poor quality of their jobs.