Admissions Requirements

Admission requirements for the RSM Executive Program

Candidates applying for the RSM Executive Program should meet the following criteria:

Hold an Master degree in a relevant field of specialization, including Economics, Governance, Management and Social

Sciences

Considering the emphasis on support of junior faculty in the start-up of their academic research, there is no requirement in

terms of work experience

As all MSM courses are taught in English, it is very important that the candidates have an adequate level of spoken and written

English

Applicants whose native language is not English, or whose previous education has been in a language other than English,

have to demonstrate their proficiency in English with either:

- standardized test results (such as TOEFL and IELTS). Minimum scores required are:

  IELTS: 6.5

  TOEFL Paper: 570

  TOEFL Computer: 230

  TOEFL Internet: 88

- results from a local standardized and recognized test in English language proficiency

- a signed recommendation/statement by the sponsoring partner or (previous) employer of sufficient English language proficiency.

General application procedure

Candidates should apply directly to MSM before the application deadline for admission to the Executive Program of their choice.

Candidates should use the official MSM online application form.

Sponsorships

Besides self-financed or company-financed participants, several options for scholarship funding are:

Fellowships available under the Dutch government scholarship program. For more information click here

Sponsorship from international organizations such as the UN, World Bank or Asian Development Bank. For more information

click here

Bookmark this page to:                

Your Profile

(junior) academic staff

(junior) researchers

doctorate program candidates

(junior) policy researchers in government departments, private business firms and international development organizations.

Bookmark this page to:                

Principal Components and Factor Analysis

General Purpose Basic Idea of Factor Analysis as a Data Reduction Method Factor Analysis as a Classification Method Miscellaneous Other Issues and Statistics

General PurposeThe main applications of factor analytic techniques are: (1) to reduce the number of variables and (2) to detect structure in the relationships between variables, that is to classify variables. Therefore, factor analysis is applied as a data reduction or structure detection method (the term factor analysis was first introduced by Thurstone, 1931). The topics listed below will describe the principles of factor analysis, and how it can be applied towards these two purposes. We will assume that you are familiar with the basic logic of statistical reasoning as described in Elementary Concepts. Moreover, we will also assume that you are familiar with the

concepts of variance and correlation; if not, we advise that you read the Basic Statistics topic at this point.

There are many excellent books on factor analysis. For example, a hands-on how-to approach can be found in Stevens (1986); more detailed technical descriptions are provided in Cooley and Lohnes (1971); Harman (1976); Kim and Mueller, (1978a, 1978b); Lawley and Maxwell (1971); Lindeman, Merenda, and Gold (1980); Morrison (1967); or Mulaik (1972). The interpretation of secondary factors in hierarchical factor analysis, as an alternative to traditional oblique rotational strategies, is explained in detail by Wherry (1984).

Confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling (SEPATH) allows you to test specific hypotheses about the factor structure for a set of variables, in one or several samples (e.g., you can compare factor structures across samples).

Correspondence analysis. Correspondence analysis is a descriptive/exploratory technique designed to analyze two-way and multi-way tables containing some measure of correspondence between the rows and columns. The results provide information which is similar in nature to those produced by factor analysis techniques, and they allow you to explore the structure of categorical variables included in the table. For more information regarding these methods, refer to Correspondence Analysis.

Basic Idea of Factor Analysis as a Data Reduction MethodSuppose we conducted a (rather "silly") study in which we measure 100 people's height in inches and centimeters. Thus, we would have two variables that measure height. If in future studies, we want to research, for example, the effect of different nutritional food supplements on height, would we continue to use both measures? Probably not; height is one characteristic of a person, regardless of how it is measured.

Let's now extrapolate from this "silly" study to something that you might actually do as a researcher. Suppose we want to measure people's satisfaction with their lives. We design a satisfaction questionnaire with various items; among other things we ask our subjects how satisfied they are with their hobbies (item 1) and how intensely they are pursuing a hobby (item 2). Most likely, the responses to the two items are highly correlated with each other. (If you are not familiar with the correlation coefficient, we recommend that you read the description in Basic Statistics - Correlations) Given a high correlation between the two items, we can conclude that they are quite redundant.

Combining Two Variables into a Single Factor. You can summarize the correlation between two variables in a scatterplot. A regression line can then be fitted that represents the "best" summary of the linear relationship between the variables. If we could define a variable that would approximate the regression line in such a plot, then that variable would capture most of the "essence" of the two items. Subjects' single scores on that new factor, represented by the regression line, could then be used in future data analyses to represent that essence of the two items. In a sense we have reduced the two variables to one factor. Note that the new factor is actually a linear combination of the two variables.

To index

Principal Components Analysis. The example described above, combining two correlated variables into one factor, illustrates the basic idea of factor analysis, or of principal components analysis to be precise (we will return to this later). If we extend the two-variable example to multiple variables, then the computations become more involved, but the basic principle of expressing two or more variables by a single factor remains the same.

Extracting Principal Components. We do not want to go into the details about the computational aspects of principal components analysis here, which can be found elsewhere (references were provided at the beginning of this section). However, basically, the extraction of principal components amounts to a variance maximizing (varimax) rotation of the original variable space. For example, in a scatterplot we can think of the regression line as the original X axis, rotated so that it approximates the regression line. This type of rotation is called variance maximizing because the criterion for (goal of) the rotation is to maximize the variance (variability) of the "new" variable (factor), while minimizing the variance around the new variable (see Rotational Strategies).

Generalizing to the Case of Multiple Variables. When there are more than two variables, we can think of them as defining a "space," just as two variables defined a plane. Thus, when we have three variables, we could plot a three- dimensional scatterplot, and, again we could fit a plane through the data.

With more than three variables it becomes impossible to illustrate the points in a scatterplot, however, the logic of rotating the axes so as to maximize the variance of the new factor remains the same.

Multiple orthogonal factors. After we have found the line on which the variance is maximal, there remains some variability around this line. In principal components analysis, after the first factor has been extracted, that is, after the first line has been drawn through the data, we continue and define another line that maximizes the remaining variability, and so on. In this manner, consecutive factors are extracted. Because each consecutive factor is defined to maximize the variability that is not captured by the preceding factor, consecutive factors are independent of each other. Put another way, consecutive factors are uncorrelated or orthogonal to each other.

How many Factors to Extract? Remember that, so far, we are considering principal components analysis as a data reduction method, that is, as a method for reducing the number of variables. The question then is, how many factors do we want to extract? Note that as we extract consecutive factors, they account for less and less variability. The decision of when to stop extracting factors basically depends on when there is only very little "random" variability left. The nature of this decision is arbitrary; however, various guidelines have been developed, and they are reviewed in Reviewing the Results of a Principal Components Analysis under Eigenvalues and the Number-of- Factors Problem.

Reviewing the Results of a Principal Components Analysis. Without further ado, let us now look at some of the standard results from a principal components analysis. To reiterate, we are extracting factors that account for less and less variance. To simplify matters, you usually start with the correlation matrix, where the variances of all variables are equal to 1.0. Therefore, the total variance in that matrix is equal to the number of variables. For example, if we have 10 variables each with a variance of 1 then the total variability that can potentially be extracted is equal to 10 times 1. Suppose that in the satisfaction study introduced earlier we included 10 items to measure different aspects of satisfaction at home and at work. The variance accounted for by successive factors would be summarized as follows:

STATISTICAFACTORANALYSIS

Eigenvalues (factor.sta)Extraction: Principal components

 

 Value

 Eigenval

% totalVariance

Cumul.Eigenval

Cumul.%

123456789

10

6.1183691.800682

.472888

.407996

.317222

.293300

.195808

.170431

.137970

.085334

61.1836918.00682

4.728884.079963.172222.933001.958081.704311.37970

.85334

6.118377.919058.391948.799939.117169.410469.606269.776709.91467

10.00000

61.183779.190583.919487.999391.171694.104696.062697.767099.1467

100.0000

EigenvaluesIn the second column (Eigenvalue) above, we find the variance on the new factors that were successively extracted. In the third column, these values are expressed as a percent of the total variance (in this example, 10). As we can see, factor 1 accounts for 61 percent of the variance, factor 2 for 18 percent, and so on. As expected, the sum of the eigenvalues is equal to the number of variables. The third column contains the cumulative variance extracted. The variances extracted by the factors are called the eigenvalues. This name derives from the computational issues involved.

Eigenvalues and the Number-of-Factors ProblemNow that we have a measure of how much variance each successive factor extracts, we can return to the question of how many factors to retain. As mentioned earlier, by its nature this is an arbitrary decision. However, there are some guidelines that are commonly used, and that, in practice, seem to yield the best results.

The Kaiser criterion. First, we can retain only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. In essence this is like saying that, unless a factor extracts at least as much as the equivalent of one original variable, we drop it. This criterion was proposed by Kaiser (1960), and is probably the one most widely used. In our example above, using this criterion, we would retain 2 factors (principal components).

The scree test. A graphical method is the scree test first proposed by Cattell (1966). We can plot the eigenvalues shown above in a simple line plot.

Cattell suggests to find the place where the smooth decrease of eigenvalues appears to level off to the right of the plot. To the right of this point, presumably, you find only "factorial scree" - "scree" is the geological term referring to the debris which collects on the lower part of a rocky slope. According to this criterion, we would probably retain 2 or 3 factors in our example.

Which criterion to use. Both criteria have been studied in detail (Browne, 1968; Cattell & Jaspers, 1967; Hakstian, Rogers, & Cattell, 1982; Linn, 1968; Tucker, Koopman & Linn, 1969). Theoretically, you can evaluate those criteria by generating random data based on a particular number of factors. You can then see whether the number of factors is accurately detected by those criteria. Using this general technique, the first method (Kaiser criterion) sometimes retains too many factors, while the second technique (scree test) sometimes retains too few; however, both do quite well under normal conditions, that is, when there are relatively few factors and many cases. In practice, an additional important aspect is the extent to which a solution is interpretable. Therefore, you usually examines several solutions with more or fewer factors, and chooses the one that makes the best "sense." We will discuss this issue in the context of factor rotations below.

Principal Factors AnalysisBefore we continue to examine the different aspects of the typical output from a principal components analysis, let us now introduce principal factors analysis. Let us return to our satisfaction questionnaire example to conceive of another "mental model" for factor analysis. We can think of subjects' responses as being dependent on two components. First, there are some underlying common factors, such as the "satisfaction-with-hobbies" factor we looked at before. Each item measures some part of this common aspect of satisfaction. Second, each item also captures a unique aspect of satisfaction that is not addressed by any other item.

Communalities. If this model is correct, then we should not expect that the factors will extract all variance from our items; rather, only that proportion that is due to the common factors and shared by several items. In the language of factor analysis, the proportion of variance of a particular item that is due to common factors (shared with other items) is called communality. Therefore, an additional task facing us when applying this model is to estimate the communalities for each variable, that is, the proportion of variance that each item has in common with other items. The proportion of variance that is unique to each item is then the respective item's total variance minus the communality. A common starting point is to use the squared multiple correlation of an item with all other items as an estimate of the communality (refer to Multiple Regression for details about multiple regression). Some authors have suggested various iterative "post-solution improvements" to the initial multiple regression communality estimate; for example, the so-called MINRES method (minimum residual factor method; Harman & Jones, 1966) will try various modifications to the factor loadings with the goal to minimize the residual (unexplained) sums of squares.

Principal factors vs. principal components. The defining characteristic then that distinguishes between the two factor analytic models is that in principal components analysis we assume that all variability in an item should be used in the analysis, while in principal factors analysis we only use the variability in an item that it has in common with the other items. A detailed discussion of the pros and cons of each approach is beyond the scope of this introduction (refer to the general references provided in Principal components and Factor Analysis - Introductory Overview). In most cases, these two methods usually yield very similar results. However, principal components analysis is often preferred as a method for data reduction, while principal factors analysis is often preferred when the goal of the analysis is to detect structure (see Factor Analysis as a Classification Method).

Factor Analysis as a Classification MethodLet us now return to the interpretation of the standard results from a factor analysis. We will henceforth use the term factor analysis generically to encompass both principal components and principal factors analysis. Let us assume that we are at the point in our analysis where we basically know how many factors to extract. We may now want to know the meaning of the factors, that is, whether and how we can interpret them in a meaningful manner. To illustrate how this can be accomplished, let us work "backwards," that is, begin with a meaningful structure and then see how it is reflected in the results of a factor analysis. Let us return to our satisfaction example; shown below is the correlation matrix for items pertaining to satisfaction at work and items pertaining to satisfaction at home.

STATISTICAFACTORANALYSIS

Correlations (factor.sta)Casewise deletion of MD

n=100

To index

Variable WORK_1 WORK_2 WORK_3 HOME_1 HOME_2 HOME_3

WORK_1WORK_2WORK_3HOME_1HOME_2HOME_3

1.00.65.65.14.15.14

.651.00

.73

.14

.18

.24

.65

.731.00

.16

.24

.25

.14

.14

.161.00

.66

.59

.15

.18

.24

.661.00

.73

.14

.24

.25

.59

.731.00

The work satisfaction items are highly correlated amongst themselves, and the home satisfaction items are highly intercorrelated amongst themselves. The correlations across these two types of items (work satisfaction items with home satisfaction items) is comparatively small. It thus seems that there are two relatively independent factors reflected in the correlation matrix, one related to satisfaction at work, the other related to satisfaction at home.

Factor Loadings. Let us now perform a principal components analysis and look at the two-factor solution. Specifically, let us look at the correlations between the variables and the two factors (or "new" variables), as they are extracted by default; these correlations are also called factor loadings.

STATISTICAFACTORANALYSIS

Factor Loadings (Unrotated)Principal components

 

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2

WORK_1WORK_2WORK_3HOME_1HOME_2HOME_3

.654384

.715256

.741688

.634120

.706267

.707446

.564143

.541444

.508212-.563123-.572658-.525602

Expl.VarPrp.Totl

2.891313.481885

1.791000.298500

Apparently, the first factor is generally more highly correlated with the variables than the second factor. This is to be expected because, as previously described, these factors are extracted successively and will account for less and less variance overall.

Rotating the Factor Structure. We could plot the factor loadings shown above in a scatterplot. In that plot, each variable is represented as a point. In this plot we could rotate the axes in any direction without changing the relative locations of the points to each other; however, the actual coordinates of the points, that is, the factor loadings would of course change. In this example, if you produce the plot it will be evident that if we were to rotate the axes by about 45 degrees we might attain a clear pattern of loadings identifying the work satisfaction items and the home satisfaction items.

Rotational strategies. There are various rotational strategies that have been proposed. The goal of all of these strategies is to obtain a clear pattern of loadings, that is, factors that are somehow clearly marked by high loadings for some variables and low loadings for others. This general pattern is also sometimes referred to as simple structure (a more formalized definition can be found in most standard textbooks). Typical rotational strategies are varimax, quartimax, and equamax.

We have described the idea of the varimax rotation before (see Extracting Principal Components), and it can be applied to this problem as well. As before, we want to find a rotation that maximizes the variance on the new axes; put another way, we want to obtain a

pattern of loadings on each factor that is as diverse as possible, lending itself to easier interpretation. Below is the table of rotated factor loadings.

STATISTICAFACTORANALYSIS

Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized)Extraction: Principal components

 

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2

WORK_1WORK_2WORK_3HOME_1HOME_2HOME_3

.862443

.890267

.886055

.062145

.107230

.140876

.051643

.110351

.152603

.845786

.902913

.869995

Expl.VarPrp.Totl

2.356684.392781

2.325629.387605

Interpreting the Factor Structure. Now the pattern is much clearer. As expected, the first factor is marked by high loadings on the work satisfaction items, the second factor is marked by high loadings on the home satisfaction items. We would thus conclude that satisfaction, as measured by our questionnaire, is composed of those two aspects; hence we have arrived at a classification of the variables.

Consider another example, this time with four additional Hobby/Misc variables added to our earlier example.

In the plot of factor loadings above, 10 variables were reduced to three specific factors, a work factor, a home factor and a hobby/misc. factor. Note that factor loadings for each factor are spread out over the values of the other two factors but are high for its own values. For example, the factor loadings for the hobby/misc variables (in green) have both high and low "work" and "home" values, but all four of these variables have high factor loadings on the "hobby/misc" factor.

Oblique Factors. Some authors (e.g., Cattell & Khanna; Harman, 1976; Jennrich & Sampson, 1966; Clarkson & Jennrich, 1988) have discussed in some detail the concept of oblique (non-orthogonal) factors, in order to achieve more interpretable simple structure. Specifically, computational strategies have been developed to rotate factors so as to best represent "clusters" of variables, without the constraint of orthogonality of factors. However, the oblique factors produced by such rotations are often not easily interpreted. To return to the example discussed above, suppose we would have included in the satisfaction questionnaire above four items that measured other, "miscellaneous" types of satisfaction. Let us assume that people's responses to those items were

affected about equally by their satisfaction at home (Factor 1) and at work (Factor 2). An oblique rotation will likely produce two correlated factors with less-than- obvious meaning, that is, with many cross-loadings.

Hierarchical Factor Analysis. Instead of computing loadings for often difficult to interpret oblique factors, you can use a strategy first proposed by Thompson (1951) and Schmid and Leiman (1957), which has been elaborated and popularized in the detailed discussions by Wherry (1959, 1975, 1984). In this strategy, you first identify clusters of items and rotate axes through those clusters; next the correlations between those (oblique) factors is computed, and that correlation matrix of oblique factors is further factor-analyzed to yield a set of orthogonal factors that divide the variability in the items into that due to shared or common variance (secondary factors), and unique variance due to the clusters of similar variables (items) in the analysis (primary factors). To return to the example above, such a hierarchical analysis might yield the following factor loadings:

STATISTICAFACTORANALYSIS

Secondary & Primary Factor Loadings  

Factor Second. 1 Primary 1 Primary 2

WORK_1WORK_2WORK_3HOME_1HOME_2HOME_3MISCEL_1MISCEL_2MISCEL_3MISCEL_4

.483178

.570953

.565624

.535812

.615403

.586405

.780488

.734854

.776013

.714183

.649499

.687056

.656790

.117278

.079910

.065512

.466823

.464779

.439010

.455157

.187074

.140627

.115461.630076 .668880.626730.280141.238512.303672.228351

Careful examination of these loadings would lead to the following conclusions:

1. There is a general (secondary) satisfaction factor that likely affects all types of satisfaction measured by the 10 items; 2. There appear to be two primary unique areas of satisfaction that can best be described as satisfaction with work and

satisfaction with home life.

Wherry (1984) discusses in great detail examples of such hierarchical analyses, and how meaningful and interpretable secondary factors can be derived.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Over the past 15 years, so-called confirmatory methods have become increasingly popular (e.g., see Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1979). In general, you can specify a priori, a pattern of factor loadings for a particular number of orthogonal or oblique factors, and then test whether the observed correlation matrix can be reproduced given these specifications. Confirmatory factor analyses can be performed via Structural Equation Modeling (SEPATH).

Miscellaneous Other Issues and StatisticsFactor Scores. We can estimate the actual values of individual cases (observations) for the factors. These factor scores are particularly useful when you want to perform further analyses involving the factors that you have identified in the factor analysis.

Reproduced and Residual Correlations. An additional check for the appropriateness of the respective number of factors that were extracted is to compute the correlation matrix that would result if those were indeed the only factors. That matrix is called the reproduced correlation matrix. To see how this matrix deviates from the observed correlation matrix, you can compute the difference

To index

between the two; that matrix is called the matrix of residual correlations. The residual matrix may point to "misfits," that is, to particular correlation coefficients that cannot be reproduced appropriately by the current number of factors.

Matrix Ill-conditioning. If, in the correlation matrix there are variables that are 100% redundant, then the inverse of the matrix cannot be computed. For example, if a variable is the sum of two other variables selected for the analysis, then the correlation matrix of those variables cannot be inverted, and the factor analysis can basically not be performed. In practice this happens when you are attempting to factor analyze a set of highly intercorrelated variables, as it, for example, sometimes occurs in correlational research with questionnaires. Then you can artificially lower all correlations in the correlation matrix by adding a small constant to the diagonal of the matrix, and then restandardizing it. This procedure will usually yield a matrix that now can be inverted and thus factor-analyzed; moreover, the factor patterns should not be affected by this procedure. However, note that the resulting estimates are not exact.

 

TEAM CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

organizational assessmentManagement Survey   From High Performance Teamwork and Built on Trust training courses

Printer Friendly Page

This assessment is designed to give a snapshot of key factors impacting organizational performance and quality of your work life. To assess yourself and your organization. To Print click on the Survey and from the file menu choose print frame, feel free to distribute as many as you need.

1.If our organization were suddenly forced into a painful change of unknown dimension, I'm confident that significant proportions of our workforce would communicate their concerns and seek ways to help.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree O Strongly Disagree

2.I can honestly say that 80% or more of our team communications close immediately in some form.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

3. I am confident that my organization is not encouraging risk averse behavior.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

To index

4. If I were troubled by an impending change, real or rumored, I could safely confide my concerns and seek solutions with my immediate manager or Board.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

5. Conflict is handled openly and resolved in a timely manner.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

6. Managers/teams create projects that contain clear goals, plans with specific accountabilities and intermediate milestones for progress.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

7. Teams within the company consistently create an atmosphere of mutual trust.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

8. Cross functional communication is efficient and results in few delays.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

9. Teams cultivate and harvest a "what we can learn" attitude when things do not go as expected.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

10. I believe that "them and us" dynamics, within our organization and with our customers, cost us less than 2% of our gross revenue.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

11. The majority of our workforce has a clear sense direction and priority.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

12. Our people know that when someone on the team says they are going to do something, they can count on it being done.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

13. I am reasonably sure that no one on my immediate team harbors resentment or serious unspoken disagreement with me.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

14. Our senior management fully shares the risks of painful change with the entire organization.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

15. I consider myself an excellent listener.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

15. Leadership does a good job of "walking the talk" on key organizational values.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

16. We do a good job of recognizing both individual and team contributions.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

17. We do a good job of addressing marginal performance.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

18. Most projects/orders get done to the customer's satisfaction and on time.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

19. Team or work group objectives are clearly aligned to the objectives of the whole organization.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

20. I am aware that this type of assessment represents a 100% positive opportunity for me, for our senior management, for our work force and for our customers.

O Strongly Agree O Agree O Neutral O Disagree

O Strongly Disagree

For free consultation on your critical team/leader/performance issues,or leadership training seminars in California or your own state/countryemail info@learningcenter.net .

Printer Friendly Page | Bookmark This Site

HOME | TRAINING | LIBRARY | BUILT ON TRUSTOUR PARTNERS | ABOUT US | CLIENTS | CONTACT US

To Page Top

©2011 Learning Center. All Rights Reserved.      Learning Center: info@learningcenter.netDesign: Zoltron.com

EXECUTIVE TEAM LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS

Leadership Assessment

Personal Satisfaction Survey   From 1 on 1 Coaching training course

Printer Friendly Page

This assessment is designed to identify important personal strengths as well as areas where improvement is needed. We ask you to evaluate your satisfaction level in the 30 areas below. Please check one answer per question.

As the leader I:

1. Create an atmosphere of mutual trust.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

2. Demonstrate honest, ethical behavior in all transactions.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

3. Lead by example as in "doing what I ask others to do."

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

4. Demonstrate courage in all transactions.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

5. Communicate a clear vision with recognizable goals for the organization and its people.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

6. State expectations clearly and confirm understanding.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

7. Expect people to be accountable and offer support.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

8. Translate organizational goals practically and meaningfully for people from the lowest level to the highest level.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

9. Make and communicate decisions promptly.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

10. Resolve conflict with the goal for all to succeed.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

11. Communicate with charisma and effectiveness to groups.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

12. Take responsibility for decisions without finger pointing.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

13. Involve others in planning actions.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

14. Praise people for work well done.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

15. Delegate in a way that encourages others to have full ownership.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

16. Appropriately provide authority to others to make decisions.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

17. Believe in and provide training that teaches leadership, teamwork and technical skills.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

18. Implement innovation as a method to improve performance.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

19. Demonstrate no tolerance for organizational turfing or "them and us" scenarios.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

20. Create forums to celebrate organizational successes .

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

21. Support and demonstrate efficient management of personal stress levels.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

22. Support and demonstrate balance between leadership responsibilities, family and outside activities.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

23. Support and facilitate efficient cross functional communication that results in few project or production delays.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

24. Manage impending change, real or rumored, efficiently.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

25. Encourage at least 80% of the organization's communications to close immediately in some form.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

26. Use time constructively and efficiently.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

27. Help people by listening without pre-judging.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

28. Have excellent relationships with work associates regardless of position in the organization.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

29. Am accessible to communication.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

30. Encourage people to communicate their differing opinions.

O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied

For free consultation on your critical team/leader/performance issues,or leadership training seminars in California or your own state/countryemail info@learningcenter.net .

Printer Friendly Page | Bookmark This Site

HOME | TRAINING | LIBRARY | BUILT ON TRUSTOUR PARTNERS | ABOUT US | CLIENTS | CONTACT US

To Page Top

©2011 Learning Center. All Rights Reserved.      Learning Center: info@learningcenter.netDesign: Zoltron.com

GROWTH AND MANAGEMENT

how to build a team

Using Vision,Commitment & Trust   From High Performance Teamwork training course

Printer Friendly Page

The moment you start doing anything at all with another person, you've established a team. Begin a conversation, pick up the phone, brainstorm an idea and you're in teamwork.

Start with Your Ability to RelateEvery possibility, from landing the contract to the romantic evening hinges on your ability to relate. But neither profit nor pleasure are the primary motivation for teamwork. Productive teamwork moves you toward challenge, through change, with more confidence. Working well on any team generates energy and enthusiasm for life.

Some are More Skilled than OthersThis ability is learned. You do not need complex interaction formulas. You don't have to be easy-going, well-educated, hard-nosed, or even especially intelligent to build a team. You don't have to be anything other than yourself. You can be effective with people using common sense and a few fundamental principles.

1. VisionVision means being able to excite the team with large, desired outcomes.

Large outcomes mean devising goals that attract missionaries. The first step in vision is to project such a goal. This goal must be bigger than a pay check. It must contain challenge, appeal to personal pride, and provide an opportunity to make a difference and know it. Then the goal can become a powerful vision.

Next, team leaders position the goal by picturing success. Initial questions might be, "What will it look like when we get there?", "What will success be like, feel like?," "How will others know?" When a large, missionary-friendly goal has been pictured and clearly communicated, the vision is complete.

2. CommitmentCommitment can be a dangerous concept because of its attendant assumptions. Some may assume, for example, that commitment means long hours, while to others it may mean productivity. When expectations are defined, success rates soar. When leaders assume that everyone "should" be committed, as a matter of course, we overlook the difficulties many have with certain commitments.

If people cannot initially commit, it doesn't mean they don't care. More often, it means they do care, and they are caught up in a process of doubt. This process precedes every meaningful commitment. Effective leaders catalyze this process, so that the critical mass of people can pass through this stage efficiently on their way to genuine commitment and innovative strategies.

This pre-commitment process is the same for team leaders and members. When we ponder a new commitment, we climb up to a kind of mental diving board. Commitments contain unknowns, and some warn of possible failure. It is common for people to neither jump nor climb back down the "ladder," but rather to stay stuck at the end of the board, immobilized in pros, cons, obstacles, and worries. In this state of mind, the obstacles begin to rule, obscuring the vision, blunting motivation.

When leaders do not understand the commitment process they tend to seek accountability without providing support. Without a means to process doubts and fears, people often feel pressured to commit, but can't. One option, often unconscious, is to pretend to commit, to say "yes" and mean "maybe" at best. The pretended commitment is a form of wholly unnecessary corporate madness.

The solution to this set of problems is two fold: establish an atmosphere of trust, and within that atmosphere encourage inclusion.

3. TrustTrust is the antidote to the fears and risks attendant to meaningful commitment. Trust means confidence in team leadership and vision. When trust prevails, team members are more willing to go through a difficult process, supported through ups, downs, risk and potential loss.

Trust is most efficiently established when leadership commits to vision first, and everyone knows those commitments are genuine. The process for leaders to commit is the same as for everyone else: assess pre-commitment doubts, questions, unknowns and fears. This involves three simple steps:

• List the unknowns.• Assess worst case scenarios and their survivability.• Research the unknowns.

The list of unknowns reveals some answers and further questions. Some of these questions lend themselves to research (others' experience, a small pilot plan), and some have no apparent answers from our pre-commitment position. These latter comprise the bottom line or irreducible risk. We learn the outcome only after commitment. Every major commitment contains some irreducible risk, some lingering unknowns. We therefore make every major commitment in at least partial ignorance.

Leadership now understands the potential loss and gain involved in the new vision. At this point, leadership can commit itself, and prepare to include other team members. That preparation must include a plan for leadership to share visibly both risk and reward with the other team members who will be coming on board.

With leadership's commitment to a clear vision, and a genuine plan to share risks and rewards, the atmosphere for trust is in place. We are now ready to include others in our team effort.

4. InclusionInclusion means getting others to commit to the team effort, helping others through their "diving board doubts" to genuine commitment. Since leaders now understand this

process first hand, we need only communicate with the potential team members to complete inclusion.

The best setting to obtain buy-in and build trust is in small groups that facilitate thorough give and take. The basic tasks are to communicate the vision, make sure it is understood, communicate leadership's commitment (including sharing risk and reward, and how), and elicit and address peoples' doubts.

Leaders will need three communication skills to achieve inclusion. These are the non-assumptive question, good listening, and directed response.

1. Non-assumptive questions ("What do you think?", "Can you tell me what is happening with this report?") invite real answers because they are inclusive, not intrusive. Questions containing assumptions ("Why are you skeptical?", "Why is this report so incomplete?") invite defensiveness. When converting an atmosphere of change and possibly skepticism to trust, added defensiveness is counter-productive.

2. Listening means separating the process of taking in information from the process of judging it. Kept separate, both processes are valuable. Mixed, especially when the receiver is a designated leader, the sender is invited to stop communicating or to change the message midstream.

3. Directed response. Effective team leaders demonstrate responsiveness. Since leaders have already processed their own pre-commitment doubts, many questions can be answered on the spot. Some require research and a time line for response. And some, which relate to the bottom line, irreducible risk, require a truthful "I don't know. I'm in the same soup as you."

5. Help ExchangeThe final step in creating the team is to establish a corroborative, balanced strategy for reaching the committed vision. This plan will consist of all of the tasks and help exchange necessary to realize the overall vision. Your teammates themselves are in the best position to supply this information. Since by this time you have laid the groundwork for trust, and established good buy-in,

your teammates are likely to be enthusiastically cooperative.

At this point, the leadership role is to catalyze consensus, not to issue orders. Consensus means that team members agree to, whether they necessarily agree with, a particular approach. Consensus occurs easily when most feel their ideas were heard and considered, whether or not the team ultimately chooses those ideas. Obtaining consensus again requires use of leadership communication skills: non-assumptive questions, good listening, and directed response.

Effective teams often produce lively discussions of divergent viewpoints before reaching consensus. Diverse views can mean unresolved argument, or they can mean increased team intelligence and ultimate consensus. The difference is a well built team. To improve the

effectiveness of your team, Learning Center offers customized teamwork training.

For free consultation on your critical team/leader/performance issues,or leadership training seminars in California or your own state/countryemail info@learningcenter.net .

Printer Friendly Page | Bookmark This Site

HOME | TRAINING | LIBRARY | BUILT ON TRUSTOUR PARTNERS | ABOUT US | CLIENTS | CONTACT US

To Page Top

©2011 Learning Center. All Rights Reserved.      Learning Center: info@learningcenter.netDesign: Zoltron.com

Because the machine bureaucracy depends primarily on the standardization of its operating work processes for

coordination, the technostructure emerges as the key part of the structureMachine bureaucratic work is found, in environments that are simple and stable. Machine bureaucracy is not common in complex and dynamic environments because the work of complex environments can not be rationalized into simple tasks and the processes of dynamic environments can not be predicted, made repetitive, and standardizedThe machine bureaucracies are typically found in the mature organizations, large enough to have the volume of operating work needed for repetition and standardization, and old enough to have been able to settle on the standards they wish to useThe managers at the strategic apex of these organizations are mainly concerned with the fine-tuning of their bureaucratic machines. Machine bureaucracy type structures are "performance organizations" not "problem solving" ones.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_machine_bureaucracy#ixzz1lfoYiZeb

vvvvvvvvvvvvMachine Bureaucracy

The design of a machine bureaucracy tends to be as follows:

highly specialised, routine operating tasks; very formalised procedures in the operating core; a proliferation of rules, regulations, & formalised communication; large-sized units at the operating level; reliance on the functional basis for grouping tasks; relatively centralised power for decision making; an elaborate administrative structure with sharp distinctions between line and staff.

 Improve

The professional bureaucracy relies for coordination on the standardization of skills and its associated design parameter, training and indoctrination. It hires duly trained and indoctrinated specialists ("Professionals") for the operating core, and then gives them considerable control over their work. Control over their own work means that the professionals work relatively independently of their colleagues, but closely with the clients that they serve.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_professional_bureaucracy#ixzz1lfqkGMuT

Mintzbergs Model on Organisational Structures

The Five Parts

This note summarises the key features of Henri Mintzbergs theory on the structuring of organisations, which he presented in his book The Structuring of Organisations and Structure in 5's: Designing Effective Organizations in the early 1980s.

According to Mintzberg organisations are formed of five main parts:

Operating core

Those who perform the basic work related directly to the production of products and services

Strategic apex

Charged with ensuring that the organisation serve its mission in an effective way, and also that it serve the needs of those people who control or otherwise have power over the organisation

Middle-line managers

Form a chain joining the strategic apex to the operating core by the use of delegated formal authority

Technostructure

The analysts who serve the organisation by affecting the work of others. They may design it, plan it, change it, or train the people who do it, but they do not do it themselves

Support staff

Composed of specialised units that exist to provide support to the organisation outside the operating work flow

 

Pressures

Each of these five parts has a tendency to pull the organisation in a particular direction favourable to them

Strategic Apexes – centralisation Support Staff - collaboration Technostructures - standardisation Operating Core – professionalisation Middle Line - balkanisation

Five Generic Structures

There are five generic organisation structures which can be described in terms of the five-part theory:

Simple structure, Machine bureaucracy, Professional bureaucracy, Divisionalised form, Adhocracy.

Simple Structure

The simple structure, typically, has

little or no technostructure, few support staffers, a loose division of labour, minimal differentiation among its units, and a small managerial

hierarchy. The behaviour of simple structure is not formalised and planning, training, and liaison

devices are minimally used in such structures.

Coordination in the simple structure is controlled largely by direct supervision. Especially, power over all important decisions tends to be centralized in the hands of the chief executive officer. Thus, the strategic apex emerges as the key part of the structure. Indeed, the structure often consists of little more than a one-person strategic apex and an organic operating core

Most organizations pass through the simple structure in their formative years. The environments of the simple structures are usually simple and dynamic. A simple environment can be comprehended by a single individual, and so enables decision making to be controlled by that individual. A dynamic environment means organic structure: Because its future state cannot be predicted, the organization cannot effect coordination by standardization

Machine Bureaucracy

The design of a machine bureaucracy tends to be as follows:

highly specialised, routine operating tasks; very formalised procedures in the operating core; a proliferation of rules, regulations, & formalised communication; large-sized units at the operating level; reliance on the functional basis for grouping tasks; relatively centralised power for decision making; an elaborate administrative structure with sharp distinctions between line and staff.

Because the machine bureaucracy depends primarily on the standardization of its operating work processes for coordination, the technostructure emerges as the key part of the structure

Machine bureaucratic work is found, in environments that are simple and stable. Machine bureaucracy is not common in complex and dynamic environments because the work of complex environments can not be rationalized into simple tasks and the

processes of dynamic environments can not be predicted, made repetitive, and standardized

The machine bureaucracies are typically found in the mature organizations, large enough to have the volume of operating work needed for repetition and standardization, and old enough to have been able to settle on the standards they wish to use

The managers at the strategic apex of these organizations are mainly concerned with the fine-tuning of their bureaucratic machines. Machine bureaucracy type structures are "performance organizations" not "problem solving" ones.

Professional Bureaucracy

The professional bureaucracy relies for coordination on:

the standardization of skills and its associated parameters such as design, training and indoctrination.

In professional bureaucracy type structures duly trained and indoctrinated specialists -professionals- are hired for the operating core, and then considerable control over their work is given to them.

Most of the necessary coordination between the operating professionals is handled by the standardization of skills and knowledge – especially by what they have learned to expect from their colleagues.

Whereas the machine bureaucracy generates its own standards the standards of the professional bureaucracy originate largely outside its own structure (especially in the self-governing association its operators join with their colleagues from other professional bureaucracies). The professional bureaucracy emphasizes authority of a professional nature or in other words "the power of expertise".

The strategies of the professional bureaucracy are mainly developed by the individual professionals within the organization as well as of the professional associations on the outside.

Divisionalised Form

 

Divisionalised form type organizations are composed of semi-autonomous units - the divisions. The divisionalised form is probably a structural derivative of a Machine Bureaucracy - an operational solution to co-ordinate and controls a large conglomerate delivering:

1. Horizontally diversified products or services 2. In a straight-forward, stable environment 3. Where large economies of scale need not apply.

If large economies of scale were possible the costs and benefits of divisionalisation would need careful examination. The modern, large holding company or conglomerate typically has this form

Like the Professional Bureaucracy, the Divisional Form is not so much an integrated organization as a set of quasi-autonomous entities coupled together by a central administrative structure. But whereas those "loosely coupled" entities  in the Professional Bureaucracy are individuals—professionals in the operating core—in the Divisionalised Form they are units in the middle line. These units are generally called divisions, and the central administration, the headquarters

The Divisionalised Form differs from the other four structural configurations in one important respect. It is not a complete structure from the strategic apex to the operating core, but rather a structure superimposed on others. That is, each division has its own structure.

Most important, the Divisionalised Form relies on the market basis for grouping units at the top of the middle line. Divisions are created according to markets served and they are then given control over the operating functions required to serve these markets.

Adhocracy

Adhocracy includes a highly organic structure, with:

little formalization of behaviour; job specialization based on formal training; a tendency to group the specialists in functional units for housekeeping purposes but to

deploy them in small, market-based project teams to do their work; a reliance on liaison devices to encourage mutual adjustment, the key coordinating

mechanism, within and between these teams

The innovative organization cannot rely on any form of standardization for coordination. Consequently, the adhocracy might be considered as the most suitable structure for innovative organizations which hire and give power to experts - professionals whose knowledge and skills have been highly developed in training programs.

Managers (such as functional managers, integrating managers, project managers etc.) abound in the adhocracy type structures. Project managers are particularly numerous, since the project teams must be small to encourage mutual adjustment among their members, and each team needs a designated leader, a "manager." Managers are also functioning members of project teams, with special responsibility to effect coordination between them. To the extent that direct supervision and formal authority diminish in importance, the distinction between line and staff disappears.

 

 

 

How to Define Matrix Structure

Print this article

Matrix structure is defined as a type of management system in which workers report to more than one person, effectively having two or more supervisors at the same time. This can be illustrated by the example of a project environment, where professionals with different types of expertise are brought together to work on a projects. They report to a number of managers of different projects, as well as to a functional supervisor. The idea is to share knowledge and personnel to maximize effectiveness.

Related Searches:

Matrix Forum 2010 Matrix

Difficulty:

Easy

Instructions

1.

o 1

Understand the hierarchy of Matrix structure. Professionals on a project report to the project manager, who, in turn, reports to a general manager or a vice president. Because professionals can work on several projects under several managers at the same time, it is important to have strong central oversight from the senior managers to ensure there is no redundant work or conflicting interests.

o 2

Take into account the cost benefits of matrix structure. Fewer people need to be hired because workers are shared among different projects. Time can be saved as those workers share information as they work on different projects. Theoretically, this results in a better product at a lower cost. However, costs also can increase as more managers are hired to oversee a variety of projects.

o 3

Note that the strength of the matrix structure lies with the sharing of information. Because professionals work on more than one project at a time, they can keep one another informed about progress in other areas of the company. Supporters of the matrix structure believe that it makes a company stronger because different departments are not working against one another. They also believe employees benefit from participating in a broader range of work experiences.

o 4

Realize that there are critics of matrix structure. Because professionals work for multiple managers, there can be varying loyalties. If a matrix structure gets too big, it can be difficult to manage effectively. Infighting can occur as managers compete for the time and attention of workers they share.

o 5

Remember that a matrix structure is a constantly changing form of management. As projects are created and dissolved, workers are redistributed. Managers are continually hired, reassigned and dismissed as projects require. A matrix structure can be temporary, lasting only as long as a project, or it can be an ongoing approach to management.

Sponsored Links

Princess Bride

(Review by Mike Shor)

Our hero Westley, in the guise of the Dread Pirate Roberts, confronts his foe-for-the-moment, the Sicilian, Vizzini. Westley challenges him to a Battle of Wits. Two glasses are placed on the table, each containing wine and one purportedly containing poison. The challenge, simply, is to select the glass that does not lead to immediate death.

Roberts: All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead. Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Roberts: You've made your decision then7 Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Roberts: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

The scene, beyond providing some comic relief on the theme of common knowledge, also has an important lesson on strategic moves; if the rules of the game may be changed, then the game can be rigged to one player's advantage:

Vizzini: let's drink -- me from my glass, and you from yours. [allowing Roberts to drink first, he swallows his wine] Roberts: You guessed wrong. Vizzini (roaring with laughter): You only think I guessed wrong -- that's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned. You fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line." [He laughs and roars and cackles and whoops until he falls over dead.] [Roberts begins to rescue Buttercup, the girl over whom this battle was staged in the firstplace] ... Buttercup: To think -- all that time it was your cup that was poisoned. Roberts: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

The movie contains several other scenes with game-theoretic themes, including many on bluffing.

 

Q U I C K L I N K S: Home

About

Privacy

Copyright

FAQ

Updates

Contact

Game Theory .net© Mike Shor 2001-2006

 game theory .net home lectures books dictionary tests culture news interactive

DESCRIPTION

CEOs tend to believe that company structure is closely tied to performance, so it makes sense that nearly

half of all CEOs reorganize their companies during their first two years on the job. But Marcia W. Blenko,

Michael C. Mankins, and Paul Rogers of Bain & Company report that of 57 reorganizations they studied

between 2000 and 2006, less than one-third saw significant performance improvement. This failure, they

believe, is rooted in a misunderstanding about the link between structure and outcome. In truth, a

company's structure only results in improved performance if it allows the firm to make key decisions better

and faster than the competition. Making sure this is the case requires a shift in the way we manage

organizational change. We must start with an audit of assets, capabilities, risks, and weaknesses and

move toward a decision audit, in which the goal is to understand which set of decisions are key to the

success of the company's strategy and at what organizational level they should be made. If there is

alignment between structure and decisions, then the organization will work better and performance will

improve. To reorganize around decisions, leaders should follow six steps: Identify their firm's key

decisions, figure out where in the company those decisions should happen, organize the macrostructure

based on sources of value, determine how much authority decision makers need, align the rest of the

organizational system with that related to decision making, and help managers acquire the skills they

need to make decisions quickly and well.

The new normal means constant change. Companies must reinvent themselves if they want to survive.

This HBR Spotlight section looks at organizational change through two very different lenses-the first

examining the connection between restructuring and improved performance, the second making the case

for reorganization as a means of keeping a company's structure in tune with the human dynamics that

drive creativity and innovation. A third article suggests new ways to keep overworked employees engaged

and productive in an economy struggling to recover from global recession.

subjects covered:

Decision making; Improving performance; Organizational structure; Reorganization

Politics is the process and method of decision-making for groups of human beings. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, and religious. Political science is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power, i.e. the ability to impose one's will on another.

One theorist, Harold Lasswell, has defined politics as "who gets what, when, and how."

Political power

Power is the ability to impose one's will on another. It implies a capacity for force, i.e violence.

Authority is the power to enforce laws, to exact obedience, to command, to determine, or to judge.

Legitimacy is an attribute of government gained through the application of power in accordance with

recognized or accepted standards or principles.

A government is the body that has the authority to make and enforce rules or laws.

Authority and legitimacy

Max Weber identified three sources of legitimacy for authority known as (tripartite classification of authority). He proposed three reasons why people followed the orders of those who gave them

CONGLOMERATE DIVERSIFICATION

Conglomerate diversification occurs when a firm diversifies into areas that

are unrelated to its current line of business. Synergy may result through the

application of management expertise or financial resources, but the primary

purpose of conglomerate diversification is improved profitability of the

acquiring firm. Little, if any, concern is given to achieving marketing or

production synergy with conglomerate diversification.

One of the most common reasons for pursuing a conglomerate growth

strategy is that opportunities in a firm's current line of business are limited.

Finding an attractive investment opportunity requires the firm to consider

alternatives in other types of business. Philip Morris's acquisition of Miller

Brewing was a conglomerate move. Products, markets, and production

technologies of the brewery were quite different from those required to

produce cigarettes.

Firms may also pursue a conglomerate diversification strategy as a means

of increasing the firm's growth rate. As discussed earlier, growth in sales

may make the company more attractive to investors. Growth may also

increase the power and prestige of the firm's executives. Conglomerate

growth may be effective if the new area has growth opportunities greater

than those available in the existing line of business.

Probably the biggest disadvantage of a conglomerate diversification

strategy is the increase in administrative problems associated with

operating unrelated businesses. Managers from different divisions may have

different backgrounds and may be unable to work together effectively.

Competition between strategic business units for resources may entail

shifting resources away from one division to another. Such a move may

create rivalry and administrative problems between the units.

Caution must also be exercised in entering businesses with seemingly

promising opportunities, especially if the management team lacks

experience or skill in the new line of business. Without some knowledge of

the new industry, a firm may be unable to accurately evaluate the industry's

potential. Even if the new business is initially successful, problems will

eventually occur. Executives from the conglomerate will have to become

involved in the operations of the new enterprise at some point. Without

adequate experience or skills (Management Synergy) the new business may

become a poor performer.

Without some form of strategic fit, the combined performance of the

individual units will probably not exceed the performance of the units

operating independently. In fact, combined performance may deteriorate

because of controls placed on the individual units by the parent

conglomerate. Decision-making may become slower due to longer review

periods and complicated reporting systems.

DIVERSIFICATION: GROW OR BUY?

Diversification efforts may be either internal or external. Internal

diversification occurs when a firm enters a different, but usually related,

line of business by developing the

Read more: Diversification Strategy - organization, levels, advantages, manager, type, company, business

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/De-Ele/Diversification-Strategy.html#ixzz1pFro1BUY

Team

One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is team. In small businesses, the team structure can define the entire organization.[14] Teams can be both horizontal and vertical.[16] While an organization is constituted as a set of people who synergize individual competencies to achieve newer dimensions, the quality of organizational structure revolves around the competencies of teams in totality.[17] For example, every one of the Whole Foods Market stores, the largest natural-foods grocer in the US developing a focused strategy, is an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-managed teams, while team leaders in each store and each region are also a team. Larger bureaucratic organizations can benefit from the flexibility of teams as well. Xerox, Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that actively use teams to perform tasks

Creativity can be defined as problem identification and idea generation whilst innovation can be defined as idea selection, development and commercialisation.

There are other useful definitions in this field, for example, creativity can be defined as consisting of a number of ideas, a number of diverse ideas and a number of novel ideas.

There are distinct processes that enhance problem identification and idea generation and, similarly, distinct processes that enhance idea selection, development and commercialisation. Whilst there is no sure fire route to commercial success, these processes improve the probability that good ideas will be generated and selected and that investment in developing and commercialising those ideas will not be wasted.

Effective Team Structures

The fact that the sum of ideas produced by individuals working alone is greater than the number of ideas produced by those individuals working in a group, is an indicator that team and groups structures are important considerations:

a) Large teams benefit from intellectual cross-pollination, but factors such as groupthink, core and peripheral information channels, status interactions, social loafing and individual shut downs reduce overall performance.

b) Pairs reduce intellectual cross pollination but some of the above inhibitors are also reduced. However, pairs are very successful - many comedy partnerships and creative teams in advertising working pairs.

c) Individuals are prone to path dependency, parochialism and competency traps. But many well known creations have been developed by individuals alone.

So what is the most effective team structure?

These and other topics are covered in depth in the MBA dissertation on Managing Creativity & Innovation, which can be purchased (along with a Creativity and Innovation DIY Audit, Good Idea Generator Software and Power Point Presentation) from http://www.managing-creativity.com/

You can also receive a regular, free newsletter by entering your email address at this site.

Kal Bishop, MBA

**********************************

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/35658

Why, What, How?

The way a project team is structured can play a major role in how it functions. Different styles of

team will have different characteristics. For example, do we wish to encourage discussion with the business representatives or to keep them at arm's length so the developers can make good

progress? Careful consideration of team composition and reporting relationships can make a big difference to the results.

The various roles in the team will depend on the nature of the project. As well as the main team roles, consider the other participants and how they fit into the picture.

Project roles and resources will have been identified as part of the planning, estimating and resourcing process. Note that the

resources and optimum way of working will normally change during the project. Often an initial high-powered team will define the business solution, followed by a much broader team to deliver it, and then a line management and operational team to operate it. The will be a core team who remain fully involved throughout the project, but others will need to be brought in as required.

Team structure will probably be adjusted at each stage to meet the evolving nature of the project. The right structure for a small, high-powered, business-design team is unlikely to work for a large applications development team.

 

Styles of team

There are two main structural dimensions to the project team:

what type of resource? what are they delivering?

For example, a website designer might be working with business managers and network specialists to create a storefront whilst another website designer is working with different business managers but maybe the same network specialist on an Intranet application for presenting internal management information on sales - both as part of the same project. So, does it make sense to have a team of developers, a team of managers and a team of network specialists, or should we have a team for the storefront and a team for the management information system?

Rather than seeing this as an "either or" choice, we could think of the project team as a matrix. Members of the various resource type teams will need to work together to share knowledge and ensure a consistent solution. People working together on the various processes or functional aspects of the solution will equally need to work together.

Each of these sub-teams, whether horizontal or vertical, will need a recognised leader. Team members will need to understand their individual roles.

The question then becomes how to structure this in terms of

reporting and control.

Here are some basic rules that may help you decide how to structure the teams:

People working together in a team usually see their teammates as "being on their side". They will normally work together and help each other to achieve their collective goals.

Placing people in the same team generates collaboration, knowledge sharing and skills transfer - for example, between the specialists in a software package and the key future users of that package.

Building a good, effective team is vital - team structure will influence the way the team behaves. Aim to create a collaborative team, where individuals share knowledge, co-operate, support each other and are motivated to achieve the team's goals.

Interaction between team members is the best way to get a balanced view of all perspectives, eg business needs, practicality, technical feasibility, efficiency, performance.

The understanding, knowledge, and capabilities of people working in other teams are rarely exploited to the full.

People working in other teams are often viewed as a nuisance - they interfere with our team's progress.

According to the complexity theory, putting a large number of people into a single team creates more interplay than progress.

We will take a look at some example team structures below. First, let's consider the roles within those teams.

 

Roles

There are many different roles in addressing a full business solution. Some of these will probably form the core full-time project team. Others may be part-time specialists, and others might be representatives of various groups interested in the project. As well as identifying the type of person, it is often necessary to give thought to the level of capability or power. If we need someone who can take a business decision we must identify the right person. If we need someone to do routine work, we should not waste the time of a more expensive resource.

Core team roles will normally depend on what you are doing. For example, you might need sales managers, website designers and Java programmers, or you might need accountants, systems analysts and COBOL programmers. Other roles may depend less on the specific solution; for example, you almost always need a Project Manager.

Here are some common project roles along with a brief explanation:

Role Explanation

Project Sponsor The person who saw a need for change and had the authority to make something happen. There may be several sponsors who collectively have this role. It may be that even higher authority and support is required such that others should also be drawn into this role.

Supporting Sponsors

To succeed in all aspects of the project in all parts of the organisation it may be necessary to establish many supporting

Example team structures

There are many ways to organise the team. Take a look at these examples. Think about why these teams might have been structured in these ways. Then take a look at the commentary about them.

 

Process or functionally structured team

In this structure the major functional areas have been addressed by teams focused on that area. The team would have a mix of people so that all the necessary skills, knowledge and understanding are collectively within that team, subject to any further specialised support that is needed.

The technical elements of the overall solution have been recognised as requiring a team of specialists, so, in fact, we have part of the team structure fully process-structured and another part in a resource pool form.

Other features in this example:

Project Manager is supported by a Project Office. Project Director is on the same level as the Steering Committee (and would

probably be seen as a full member of the committee). Project Manager reports to the Steering Committee. There is an ultimate decision making body at an executive level above the

Steering Committee.

Process structured team - with detail

 

This is a very similar structure to the previous one. The main teams have been defined to support the major business processes within the scope of the project. Specialised shared service teams have been set up - one for all the technical support areas and one for non-technical general and specialised support, eg change management and training.

Other features in this example:

Project Office provides significant range of shared services - not just administration.

Process Owner Directors within the organisation are matched with process teams for efficient communication on a "one-to-one" basis instead of through various committees and layers of management

Technically oriented members of the process teams have a secondary reporting relationship to the technical team leader.

Although the analysts operate within the process team, the programmers are in a shared service resource pool.

Resource Pool structure

This structure is based on the traditional resource pool concept. Teams are constructed from similar types of resource. People often feel more comfortable in teams like this, but they do not necessarily combine together so effectively to produce solutions. For any given issue, a combination from different teams will need to communicate and collaborate. For example, design by prototyping would be conducted by members of the user team and the applications team.

In some IT environments, the staff believe separation from the business and users is an advantage. They find the "interference" from users slows their progress. This may well be true - but close collaboration with the business will normally improve the quality of the solution and prevent the risk of delivering a solution that is not valued by the user community.

Usually teams are constructed to promote collaboration, knowledge sharing and skills transfer. One particular, and unusual, use for this structure is where you wish to minimise skills transfer. This has been considered valuable in a few cases where there is a significant shortage of a particular skill in the marketplace. Why? Because if you transfer skills to the line staff they all

resign to double their salary as consultants - see the case study below.

Other features in this example:

BPR and Change Facilitators are, in effect, also a resource pool; however, they occupy a special position in the structure - facilitating change through the user team and the process owners.

 

Case StudyA large multi-divisional body were implementing multiple SAP systems at a time when there was a great shortage of SAP R/3 experience available in the marketplace. By the end of the programme, every member of staff assigned to the project had resigned to take up a better-paid job.

 

Hybrid Structure Advantages & Disadvantages

X

By Michel Charles, eHow Contributor | updated June 15, 2011

Organizational structure defines the way in which the people and resources are organized and coordinated by the authority to achieve the organizational goals. Hybrid structure, otherwise known as matrix structure, is a type of organizational structure within a company/organization that is a combination of functional and divisional structures. It features the efficient use of resources and expertise development found in functional structures (where the employee's positions are organized by specialized areas, or functions) and the flexibility among

command found in divisional structures (where employees are organized by the similarity of their markets and products).

Other People Are Reading

Read more: Hybrid Structure Advantages & Disadvantages | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8596099_hybrid-structure-

advantages-disadvantages.html#ixzz1pN6iYzqE

Increased Efficiency

The major advantage of hybrid structure is the increased efficiency. This structure makes sure that the right quantity of work is assigned at the right time to the right professionals, thus making the optimum use of resources and prevention of waste. This structure works very well even when the resources are scarce. As the specialized staffs are readily available, projects are launched quickly, thus increasing the efficiency of the organization.

Development of Cross-Functional Skills

In hybrid structures groups are formed considering the specializations as well as services. Thus employees with different skills are mingled together which gives an opportunity to learn and develop a variety of skills from many other participants. This is the main advantage of hybrid structure in terms of the personal growth of employees, which can be later utilized by the organization. This also results in minimization of projects costs, as resources can be shared.

Sponsored Links

Read more: Hybrid Structure Advantages & Disadvantages | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8596099_hybrid-structure-

advantages-disadvantages.html#ixzz1pN6sJB2f

1. Flexible

o One rule of thumb is to match the structure of an organization with its strategy (or how it does business). If an organization has competing strategies in its business model, it might develop a hybrid structure to respond to those needs. One example is a nonprofit organization that develops a for-profit subsidiary because it wants to conduct activities not allowed by a tax-exempt entity. A for-profit subsidiary can make money using the resources of the nonprofit while keeping the accounting systems separate and paying taxes on all activities.

Cultural

o Just like organizations might adopt hybrid structures to be able to adapt to economic conditions, they might also use these structures for cultural benefits. For example, a multi-national corporation might use one type of structure in the

United States and a different structure in a foreign country. If the foreign country's culture, for example, thrives on a vertical hierarchy, a U.S. multinational might choose to stick with that structure in the foreign country while using a business process management model at home.

o

Diversification

o Hybrid structures might develop from adding new diversified product lines in the organization. For example, a major division of the business might be structured as order-based (in which a product is made only after a consumer places an order) and another division based on a traditional manufacturing firm. If a business makes luxury cars and frozen goods in different divisions, the luxury cars might be made to order while the frozen goods are manufactured in bulk and shipped to stores.

Diversification dictates choosing the right organizational structure for a product division based on the market conditions for its products. Looking at this organization as a whole, it is a hybrid, organized according to the needs of its product divisions.

Sponsored Links

Best practices datawww.change-management.com

Change management lessons learned from 575 organizations

Aussie Expat Tax Planningwww.smats.net

The one book for any Aussie Expat Everything you need to know

Quick & Easy Org Chartswww.chartgenie.net

Easily create attractive charts. Start creating charts in seconds.

Requisite Organizationwww.requisite.org

Free research and information

Read more: Advantages of Hybrid Organizational Structures | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6807181_advantages-

hybrid-organizational-structures.html#ixzz1pN7AyHBe

Change is a common thread that runs through all businesses regardless of size, industry and age. Our world is changing fast and, as such, organizations must change quickly too. Organizations that handle change well thrive, whilst those that do not may struggle to survive.

The concept of “change management” is a familiar one in most businesses today. But, how businesses manage change (and how successful they are at it) varies enormously depending on the nature of the business, the change and the people involved. And a key part of this depends on how far people within it understand the change process.

One of the cornerstone models for understanding organizational change was developed by Kurt Lewin back in the 1950s, and still holds true today. His model is known as Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze, refers to the three-stage process of change he describes. Lewin, a physicist as well as social scientist, explained organizational change using the analogy of changing the shape of a block of ice.

Understanding Lewin’s Model

If you have a large cube of ice, but realize that what you want is a cone of ice, what do you do? First you must melt the ice to make it amenable to change (unfreeze). Then you must mold the iced water into the shape you want (change). Finally, you must solidify the new shape (refreeze).

 

By looking at change as process with distinct stages, you can prepare yourself for what is coming and make a plan to manage the transition – looking before you leap, so to speak. All too often, people go into change blindly, causing much unnecessary turmoil and chaos.

To begin any successful change process, you must first start by understanding why the change must take place. As Lewin put it, “Motivation for change must be generated before change can occur. One must be helped to re-examine many cherished assumptions about oneself and one’s relations to others.” This is the unfreezing stage from which change begins.

Unfreeze

This first stage of change involves preparing the organization to accept that change is necessary, which involves break down the existing status quo before you can build up a new way of operating.

Key to this is developing a compelling message showing why the existing way of doing things cannot continue. This is easiest to frame when you can point to declining sales figures, poor financial results, worrying customer satisfaction surveys, or suchlike: These show that things have to change in a way that everyone can understand.

To prepare the organization successfully, you need to start at its core – you need to

challenge the beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors that currently define it. Using the analogy of a building, you must examine and be prepared to change the existing foundations as they might not support add-on storeys; unless this is done, the whole building may risk collapse.

This first part of the change process is usually the most difficult and stressful. When you start cutting down the “way things are done”, you put everyone and everything off balance. You may evoke strong reactions in people, and that’s exactly what needs to done.

By forcing the organization to re-examine its core, you effectively create a (controlled) crisis, which in turn can build a strong motivation to seek out a new equilibrium. Without this motivation, you won’t get the buy-in and participation necessary to effect any meaningful change.

Change

After the uncertainty created in the unfreeze stage, the change stage is where people begin to resolve their uncertainty and look for new ways to do things. People start to believe and act in ways that support the new direction.

The transition from unfreeze to change does not happen overnight: People take time to embrace the new direction and participate proactively in the change. A related change model, the Change Curve, focuses on the specific issue of personal transitions in a changing environment and is useful for understanding this specific aspect in more detail.

In order to accept the change and contribute to making the change successful, people need to understand how the changes will benefit them. Not everyone will fall in line just because the change is necessary and will benefit the company. This is a common assumption and pitfall that should be avoided.

Tip:Unfortunately, some people will genuinely be harmed by change, particularly those who benefit strongly from the status quo. Others may take a long time to recognize the benefits that change brings. You need to foresee and manage these situations.

Time and communication are the two keys to success for the changes to occur. People need time to understand the changes and they also need to feel highly connected to the organization throughout the transition period. When you are managing change, this can require a great deal of time and effort and hands-on management is usually the best approach.

Refreeze

When the changes are taking shape and people have embraced the new ways of working, the organization is ready to refreeze. The outward signs of the refreeze are a stable organization chart, consistent job descriptions, and so on. The refreeze stage also needs to help people and the organization internalize or institutionalize the changes. This means making sure that the changes are used all the time; and that they are incorporated into everyday business. With a new sense of stability, employees feel confident and comfortable with the new ways of working.

The rationale for creating a new sense of stability in our every changing world is often

questioned. Even though change is a constant in many organizations, this refreezing stage is still important. Without it, employees get caught in a transition trap where they aren’t sure how things should be done, so nothing ever gets done to full capacity. In the absence of a new frozen state, it is very difficult to tackle the next change initiative effectively. How do you go about convincing people that something needs changing if you haven’t allowed the most recent changes to sink in? Change will be perceived as change for change’s sake, and the motivation required to implement new changes simply won’t be there.

As part of the Refreezing process, make sure that you celebrate the success of the change – this helps people to find closure, thanks them for enduring a painful time, and helps them believe that future change will be successful.

Practical Steps for Using the Framework:

Unfreeze

1. Determine what needs to change

Survey the organization to understand the current state 

Understand why change has to take place. 

2. Ensure there is strong support from upper management

Use Stakeholder Analysis and Stakeholder Management to identify and win the support of key people within the organization 

Frame the issue as one of organization-wide importance. 

3. Create the need for change

Create a compelling message as to why change has to occur 

Use your vision and strategy as supporting evidence 

Communicate the vision in terms of the change required 

Emphasize the “why”.

4. Manage and understand the doubts and concerns

Remain open to employee concerns and address in terms of the need to change.

Change

1. Communicate often

Do so throughout the planning and implementation of the changes 

Describe the benefits 

Explain exactly the how the changes will effect everyone 

Prepare everyone for what is coming.

2. Dispel rumoUrs

Answer questions openly and honestly 

Deal with problems immediately 

Relate the need for change back to operational necessities.

3. Empower action

Provide plenty of options for employee involvement 

Have line managers provide day–to–day direction.

4. Involve people in the process

Generate short-term successes to reinforce the change 

Negotiate with external stakeholders as necessary (such as employee organizations).

Refreeze

1. Anchor the changes into the culture

Identity what supports the change 

Identify barriers to sustaining change.

2. Develop ways to sustain the change

Ensure leadership support 

Create a reward system 

Establish feedback systems 

Adapt the organizational structure as necessary.

3. Provide support and training

Keep everyone informed and supported.

4. Celebrate success!

Key Points

Lewin’s change model is a simple and easy-to-understand framework for managing change.

By recognizing these three distinct stages of change, you can plan to implement the change required. You start by creating the motivation to change (unfreeze). You move through the change process by promoting effective communications and empowering people to embrace new ways of working (change). And the process ends when you return the organization to a sense of stability (refreeze), which is so necessary for creating the confidence from which to embark on the next, inevitable change. 

From the Mindtools Newsletter

(C) Mind Tools Ltd, 2006.  http://www.mindtools.com

To subscribe to the newsletter, visit http://www.mindtools.com/subscribe.htm

 

Bronwyn Ritchie's Pivotal Points

Contact:  bronwyn@consultpivotal.com

Emerging Retirement Model Study: A Survey of Plan Sponsors

MetLife’s study entitled the MetLife Emerging Retirement Model Study: A Survey of Plan Sponsors examines employer attitudes and behaviors toward the aging workforce in the midst of a deep economic crisis and in the wake of legislation/regulation designed to address the changing needs of employers and their aging workforce.

Employers are facing significant challenges when it comes to managing their most experienced workers. MetLife designed this research to assess whether — and if so, how plan sponsors are recalibrating issues surrounding the aging workforce and to identify emerging models which may be used to manage very experienced workers going forward.

Findings include:

Employers show Deep Anxiety and Conflict about Aging Workforce — Most Employers are Concerned about Knowledge Drain Now and in the Future, and Less Concerned about Delayed Retirement.

Disconnect Among Employers Between Worry and Action — Few Employers Have Taken Steps to Curtail, or even Assess, Cost of Knowledge Transfer on Their Organizations.

Phased Retirement Programs may offer a way to manage knowledge drain, more

legislation/regulatory guidance welcome

MetLife commissioned Asset International (which owns PlanSponsor magazine) to conduct online surveys with 240 employers from companies with at least 1,000 employees. Each respondent is from an organization that offers either a DB or DC plan or both, as well as other employer supported benefits.

Download the Study

To discuss this report in more detail, please call 888-217-1858.

PlanSponsor Magazine RoundtableAn expert panel discusses MetLife's Emerging Retirement Model Study.

Learn more

Webcast with PlanSponsorA discussion of MetLife's Emerging Retirement Model Study.

Listen Now

Download Presentation

Calculators & Tools  |  Investor Relations  |  Press Room  |  Site Map  |  Legal Notices  |  Privacy Policy  | Feedback

Copyright 2003-12 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Quick Links: Quiz: Are You Giving Your Teen Too Much Freedom?

Social learning theory, which provides the foundation for behavior modeling, asserts that most behaviors are learned by observation and modeling. The poem ‘Children Learn What They Live’ is based on behavior modeling in the home. As the Guide for the Parenting of Teens site at About.com , I agree with the work of A. Bandura on behavior modeling training and feel it is worthwhile for parents to use it in the home. Parents can feel more empowered when they use these steps of the theory in practice:

1. Having the teen must pay attention to the parent as the behavior is performed. 2. Allow the teen to process and remember the behavior the parent performed. 3. The behavior must then be performed by the teen him/her self.

4. The teen should be praised by the parent for performing the behavior, to reinforce it so that it continues to happen.

To firmly grasp the concept of behavior modeling, think about it this way: how many times have you caught yourself sounding just like your parents? That is you modeling their behavior.

An Example of Behavior Modeling

I’ll use teaching your teen a new chore as an example of behavior modeling. Say you want your teen to do a chore that you normally do and you want him/her to complete the task up to par. First you’ll need to show your teen how to do the task, once but twice may be better. Make a list of how it is done in order to remind your teen what is expect. Allow your teen to perform the task without your constant supervision. Praise your teen for completing the chore. Behavior modeling really is that simple - and that complicated. It is mostly done when parents aren’t even paying attention.

In 1959, Frederick Herzberg, a behavioural scientist proposed a two-factor theory or the motivator-hygiene theory. According to Herzberg, there are some job factors that result in satisfaction while there are other job factors that prevent dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg, the opposite of “Satisfaction” is “No satisfaction” and the opposite of “Dissatisfaction” is “No Dissatisfaction”.

FIGURE: Herzberg’s view of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Herzberg classified these job factors into two categories-

a. Hygiene factors- Hygiene factors are those job factors which are essential for existence of motivation at workplace. These do not lead to positive satisfaction for long-term. But if these factors are absent / if these factors are non-existant at workplace, then they lead to dissatisfaction. In other words, hygiene factors are those factors which when adequate / reasonable in a job, pacify the employees and do not make them dissatisfied. These factors are extrinsic to work. Hygiene factors are also called as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors as they are required to avoid dissatisfaction. These factors describe the job environment / scenario. The hygiene factors symbolized the physiological needs which the individuals wanted and expected to be fulfilled. Hygiene factors include:

Pay- The pay or salary structure should be appropriate and reasonable. It must be equal and competitive to those in the same industry in the same domain.

Company Policies and administrative policies- The company policies should not be too rigid. They should be fair and clear. It should include flexible working hours, dress code, breaks, vacation, etc.

Fringe benefits- The employees should be offered health care plans (mediclaim), benefits for the family members, employee help programmes, etc.

Physical Working conditions- The working conditions should be safe, clean and hygienic. The work equipments should be updated and well-maintained.

Status- The employees’ status within the organization should be familiar and retained.

Interpersonal relations-The relationship of the employees with his peers, superiors and subordinates should be appropriate and acceptable. There should be no conflict or humiliation element present.

Job Security- The organization must provide job security to the employees. b. Motivational factors- According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors cannot be regarded as

motivators. The motivational factors yield positive satisfaction. These factors are inherent to work. These factors motivate the employees for a superior performance. These factors are called satisfiers. These are factors involved in performing the job. Employees find these factors intrinsically rewarding. The motivators symbolized the psychological needs that were perceived as an additional benefit. Motivational factors include:

Recognition- The employees should be praised and recognized for their accomplishments by the managers.

Sense of achievement- The employees must have a sense of achievement. This depends on the job. There must be a fruit of some sort in the job.

Growth and promotional opportunities- There must be growth and advancement opportunities in an organization to motivate the employees to perform well.

Responsibility- The employees must hold themselves responsible for the work. The managers should give them ownership of the work. They should minimize control but retain accountability.

Meaningfulness of the work- The work itself should be meaningful, interesting and challenging for the employee to perform and to get motivated.

Limitations of Two-Factor TheoryThe two factor theory is not free from limitations:

1. The two-factor theory overlooks situational variables. 2. Herzberg assumed a correlation between satisfaction and productivity. But the research

conducted by Herzberg stressed upon satisfaction and ignored productivity. 3. The theory’s reliability is uncertain. Analysis has to be made by the raters. The raters may spoil

the findings by analyzing same response in different manner. 4. No comprehensive measure of satisfaction was used. An employee may find his job acceptable

despite the fact that he may hate/object part of his job. 5. The two factor theory is not free from bias as it is based on the natural reaction of employees

when they are enquired the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction at work. They will blame dissatisfaction on the external factors such as salary structure, company policies and peer relationship. Also, the employees will give credit to themselves for the satisfaction factor at work.

6. The theory ignores blue-collar workers. Despite these limitations, Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory is acceptable broadly.

Implications of Two-Factor Theory

The Two-Factor theory implies that the managers must stress upon guaranteeing the adequacy of the hygiene factors to avoid employee dissatisfaction. Also, the managers must make sure that the work is stimulating and rewarding so that the employees are motivated to work and perform harder and better. This theory emphasize upon job-enrichment so as to motivate the employees. The job must utilize the employee’s skills and competencies to the maximum. Focusing on the motivational factors can improve work-quality.

Two-factor theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For Schachter's two factor theory of emotion, see Two factor theory of emotion.

The Two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory and Dual-Factor Theory) states that there are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of factors cause dissatisfaction. It was developed by Frederick Herzberg, a psychologist, who theorized that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction act independently of each other.[1]

Two-factor theory fundamentals: Attitudes and their connection with industrial mental health are related to Maslow's theory of motivation. His findings have had a considerable theoretical, as well as a practical, influence on attitudes toward administration.[2] According to Herzberg, individuals are not content with the satisfaction of lower-order needs at work, for example, those associated with minimum salary levels or safe and pleasant working conditions. Rather, individuals look for the gratio with achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and the nature of the work itself. So far, this appears to parallel Maslow's theory of a need hierarchy. However, Herzberg added a new dimension to this theory by proposing a two-factor model of motivation, based on the notion that the presence of one set of job characteristics or incentives lead to worker satisfaction at work, while another and separate set of job characteristics lead to dissatisfaction at work. Thus, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not on a continuum with one increasing as the other diminishes, but are independent phenomena. This theory suggests that to improve job attitudes and productivity, administrators must recognize and attend to both sets of characteristics and not assume that an increase in satisfaction leads to decrease in unpleasurable dissatisfaction.

The two-factor, or motivation-hygiene theory, developed from data collected by Herzberg from interviews with a large number of engineers and accountants in the Pittsburgh area. From analyzing these interviews, he found that job characteristics related to what an individual does — that is, to the nature of the work he performs — apparently have the capacity to gratify such needs as achievement, competency, status, personal worth, and self-realization, thus making him happy and satisfied. However, the absence of such gratifying job characteristics does not appear to lead to unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Instead, dissatisfaction results from unfavorable

assessments of such job-related factors as company policies, supervision, technical problems, salary, interpersonal relations on the job, and working conditions. Thus, if management wishes to increase satisfaction on the job, it should be concerned with the nature of the work itself — the opportunities it presents for gaining status, assuming responsibility, and for achieving self-realization. If, on the other hand, management wishes to reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus on the job environment — policies, procedures, supervision, and working conditions.[1] If management is equally concerned with (as is usually the case), then managers must give attention to both sets of job factors.

The theory was based around interviews with 203 American accountants and engineers in Pittsburgh, chosen because of their professions' growing importance in the business world. The subjects were asked to relate times when they felt exceptionally good or bad about their present job or any previous job, and to provide reasons, and a description of the sequence of events giving rise to that positive or negative feeling.

Here is the description of this interview analysis:

Briefly, we asked our respondents to describe periods in their lives when they were exceedingly happy and unhappy with their jobs. Each respondent gave as many "sequences of events" as he could that met certain criteria—including a marked change in feeling, a beginning and an end, and contained some substantive description other than feelings and interpretations…

The proposed hypothesis appears verified. The factors on the right that led to satisfaction (achievement, intrinsic interest in the work, responsibility, and advancement) are mostly unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dis-satisfiers (company policy and administrative practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, and salary) contribute very little to job satisfaction.[3]

Two-factor theory distinguishes between:

Motivators (e.g., challenging work, recognition, responsibility) that give positive satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as recognition, achievement, or personal growth,[4] and

Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary, fringe benefits, work conditions) that do not give positive satisfaction, though dissatisfaction results from their absence. These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as company policies, supervisory practices, or wages/salary.[4][5]

Essentially, hygiene factors are needed to ensure an employee is not dissatisfied. Motivation factors are needed to motivate an employee to higher performance. Herzberg also further classified our actions and how and why we do them, for example, if you perform a work related action because you have to then that is classed as movement, but if you perform a work related action because you want to then that is classed as motivation.

Unlike Maslow, who offered little data to support his ideas, Herzberg and others have presented considerable empirical evidence to confirm the motivation-hygiene theory, although their work has been criticized on methodological grounds.

Contents [hide]

1 Validity and criticisms 2 Implications for management 3 References 4 Further reading 5 External links

[edit] Validity and criticisms

In 1968 Herzberg stated that his two-factor theory study had already been replicated 16 times in a wide variety of populations including some in Communist countries, and corroborated with studies using different procedures that agreed with his original findings regarding intrinsic employee motivation making it one of the most widely replicated studies on job attitudes.

While the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are generally[who?] no longer considered to exist on separate scales. The separation of satisfaction and dissatisfaction has been shown to be an artifact of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) used by Herzberg to record events.[6] Furthermore, it has been noted the theory does not allow for individual differences, such as particular personality traits, which would affect individuals' unique responses to motivating or hygiene factors.[4]

A number of behavioral scientists[who?] have pointed to inadequacies in the need hierarchy and motivation-hygiene theories. The most basic is the criticism that both of these theories contain the relatively explicit assumption that happy and satisfied workers produce more.[citation needed] Another problem is that these and other statistical theories are concerned with explaining "average" behavior and, on the other hand, if playing a better game of golf is the means chosen to satisfy one's need for recognition, then one will find ways to play and think about golf more often, perhaps resulting in an accompanying lower output on the job.[citation needed] Finally, in his pursuit of status a person might take a balanced view and strive to pursue several behavioral paths in an effort to achieve a combination of personal status objectives.[citation needed]mano intrinsic???

In other words, an individual's expectation or estimated probability that a given behavior will bring a valued outcome determines his choice of means and the effort he will devote to these means. In effect, this diagram of expectancy depicts an employee asking himself the question posed by one investigator, "How much payoff is there for me toward attaining a personal goal while expending so much effort toward the achievement of an assigned organizational objective?"[7] The Expectancy theory by Victor Vroom also provides a framework for motivation based on expectations.

This approach to the study and understanding of motivation would appear to have certain conceptual advantages over other theories: First, unlike Maslow's and Herzberg's theories, it is capable of handling individual differences.[citation needed] Second, its focus is toward the present and the future, in contrast to drive theory, which emphasizes past learning.[citation needed] Third, it specifically correlates behavior to a goal and thus eliminates the problem of assumed relationships, such as between motivation and performance.[citation needed] Fourth, it relates motivation to ability: Performance = Motivation*Ability.[citation needed]

That said, a study by the Gallup Organization, as detailed in the book First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman, appears to provide strong support for Herzberg's division of satisfaction and dissatisfaction onto two separate scales. In this book, the authors discuss how the study identified twelve questions that provide a framework for determining high-performing individuals and organizations. These twelve questions align squarely with Herzberg's motivation factors, while hygiene factors were determined to have little effect on motivating high performance.

To better understand employee attitudes and motivation, Frederick Herzberg performed studies to determine which factors in an employee's work environment caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction. He published his findings in the 1959 book The Motivation to Work.

The studies included interviews in which employees where asked what pleased and displeased them about their work. Herzberg found that the factors causing job satisfaction (and presumably motivation) were different from those causing job dissatisfaction. He developed the motivation-hygiene theory to explain these results. He called the satisfiers motivators and the dissatisfiers hygiene factors, using the term "hygiene" in the sense that they are considered maintenance factors that are necessary to avoid dissatisfaction but that by themselves do not provide satisfaction.

The following table presents the top seven factors causing dissatisfaction and the top six factors causing satisfaction, listed in the order of higher to lower importance.

Leading to satisfaction

Achievement Recognition Work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth

Leading to dissatisfaction

Company policy Supervision Relationship with boss Work conditions Salary Relationship with peers Security

Herzberg reasoned that because the factors causing satisfaction are different from those causing dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of one another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction.

While at first glance this distinction between the two opposites may sound like a play on words, Herzberg argued that there are two distinct human needs portrayed. First, there are physiological needs that can be fulfilled by money, for example, to purchase food and shelter. Second, there is the psychological need to achieve and grow, and this need is fulfilled by activities that cause one to grow.

From the above table of results, one observes that the factors that determine whether there is dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction are not part of the work itself, but rather, are external factors. Herzberg often referred to these hygiene factors as "KITA" factors, where KITA is an acronym for Kick In The Ass, the process of providing incentives or a threat of punishment to cause someone to do something. Herzberg argues that these provide only short-run success because the motivator factors that determine whether there is satisfaction or no satisfaction are intrinsic to the job itself, and do not result from carrot and stick incentives.

In a survey of 80 teaching staff at Egyptian private universities, Mohamed Hossam El-Din Khalifa and Quang Truong (2009) found that perception of equity was directly related to job satisfaction when the outcome in the equity comparison was one of Herzberg's motivators. On the contrary, perception of equity and job satisfaction were not related when the outcome in the equity comparison was one of Herzberg's hygiene factors. The findings of this study provide a kind of an indirect support to Herzberg's findings that improving hygiene factors would not lead to improvement in an employee's job satisfaction.

[edit] Implications for management

If the motivation-hygiene theory holds, management not only must provide hygiene factors to avoid employee dissatisfaction, but also must provide factors intrinsic to the work itself for employees to be satisfied with their jobs.

Herzberg argued that job enrichment is required for intrinsic motivation, and that it is a continuous management process. According to Herzberg:

"The job should have sufficient challenge to utilize the full ability of the employee." "Employees who demonstrate increasing levels of ability should be given increasing levels of

responsibility." "If a job cannot be designed to use an employee's full abilities, then the firm should consider

automating the task or replacing the employee with one who has a lower level of skill. If a person cannot be fully utilized, then there will be a motivation problem."

Critics[who?] of Herzberg's theory argue that the two-factor result is observed because it is natural for people to take credit for satisfaction and to blame dissatisfaction on external factors. Furthermore, job satisfaction does not necessarily imply a high level of motivation or productivity.[citation needed]

Herzberg's theory has been broadly read and despite its weaknesses its enduring value is that it recognizes that true motivation comes from within a person and not from KITA factors.(French, 2008)

[edit] References

1. ^ a b Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B.B. 1959, The Motivation to Work. John Wiley. New York.

2. ^ Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland: World Publishing, 1966); F. Herzberg et al., The Motivation to Work, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959).

3. ^ Herzberg, "The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and Problems of Manpower", Personnel Administration (January–February 1964), pp. 3–7.

4. ^ a b c Hackman J. R., & Oldham, G. R., 1976, "Motivation through design of work", Organizational behaviour and human performance, vol. 16, pp. 250–79.

5. ^ Herzberg, F. (1968). "One more time: how do you motivate employees?". Harvard Business Review 46 (1): 53–62.

6. ^ King, N. 1970, "Clarification and Evaluation of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction", Psychological Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 18-31.

7. ^ Basil S. Georgopolous, Gerald M. Mahoney, and Nyle W. Jones, Jr., "A Path-Goal Approach to Productivity", Journal of Applied Psychology 41 (December 1957), p. 346.

[edit] Further reading

Herzberg, F. 1968, "One more time: how do you motivate employees?", Harvard Business Review, vol. 46, iss. 1, pp. 53–62.

Mohamed Hossam El-Din Khalifa and Quang Truong, "The Relationship between Employee Perceptions of Equity and Job Satisfaction in the Egyptian Private Universities”, in Management Challenges in an Environment of Increasing Regional and Global Concerns, E. Kaynak and T.D. Harcar (eds.), Eighteenth World Business Congress, Vol. XVIII, 2009, pp. 405–413.

[edit] External links

Herzberg's Two Factor Theory