17

Presentation theory 2

  • View
    284

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Presentation theory 2
Page 2: Presentation theory 2

Motivate, Decide, Activate!Motivational and Decision Making Theories that affect the school leaders

Page 3: Presentation theory 2

Motivational Hygiene Theory Frederick Herzberg Born in MA, attended City College of NY,

then Army, then graduated from CCNY Taught at U of Pitt and Case Western

Motivator Factors Hygiene Factors

•Achievement•Recognition•Work Itself•Responsibility•Promotion•Growth

•Pay and Benefits•Company Policy and Administration•Relationships with co-workers•Supervision

Page 4: Presentation theory 2

Motivational Hygiene Theory Two Factor Theory Hygiene needs are cyclical in nature and

come back to a starting point. This leads to the "What have you done for me lately?" syndrome.

Hygiene needs have an escalating zero point and no final answer

Page 5: Presentation theory 2

Path-Goal Theory Robert House, Ohio State University The theory states that a leader's behavior is

contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of her or his subordinates.

The revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors that complement subordinate's abilities and compensate for deficiencies.

The path–goal model can be classified both as a contingency or as a transactional leadership theory.

Page 6: Presentation theory 2

Theory X and Theory Y Douglas McGregor PhD in psychology from Harvard In the book The Human Side of

Enterprise, identified an approach of creating an environment within which employees are motivated via authoritative, direction and control or integration and self-control, which he called theory X and theory Y

Page 7: Presentation theory 2

Theory X and Theory Y Theory X: In this theory, which has been proven counter effective in

most modern practice, management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can and that they inherently dislike work. Requires a strong hierarchical structure with several checkpoints.

Theory Y: In this theory, management assumes employees may be

ambitious and self-motivated and exercise self-control. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties. According to them work is as natural as play. They can creatively problem solve on their own. Requires a manager willing to let others succeed on their own.

Page 8: Presentation theory 2

Administrative Model Herbert Simon, well respected in several areas

of study; organization sociology, psychology, decision making theory, economist, political science and computer science

Professor at Carnegie Melon University Administrative Behavior, 1947, based on his

doctoral dissertation The centerpiece of this book is the behavioral

and cognitive processes of making rational human choices, that is, decisions.

Page 9: Presentation theory 2

Administrative Model An operational administrative decision

should be correct and efficient, and it must be practical to implement with a set of coordinated means.

Page 10: Presentation theory 2

Descriptive Theory Theory of choice Describes how the decision is made and

what people will actually do in the decision-making process

Similification of the choices is done to be as rational as possible

Three models of this are common: Garbage can model Political model Incremental model

Page 11: Presentation theory 2

Garbage Can Model Michael D Cohen, Michigan James March, Stanford Johan P. Olsen, U. of Bergden Together they published the paper; A Garbage Can

Model of Organizational Choice. The paper, frequently cited, describes a model which

disconnects problems, solutions and decision makers from each other.

novel approach compared to traditional decision theory Model separates the problem, the players and the

solution

Page 12: Presentation theory 2

Incremental Model Wayne K Hoy, The Ohio State U John Tarter, University of Alabama Theory allows the leader to make

decisions as small increments in order to avoid negative consequences

“baby steps”

Page 13: Presentation theory 2

Mixed Scanning Model Amitai Etzioni, The George Washington

Univ. Often called the “third” model Combines flexibility of incremental model

to the rationality of satisficing model Forces leaders to continue to question

how their decisions will continue to move the organization (schoolhouse) towards and not away from the mission

Page 14: Presentation theory 2

Normative Theory: Vroom-Yetton Model Victor Vroom, Yale Phillip Yetton Model distinguishes between individual

decision making and group decision making

Model suggests when to involve others in the decision making process

5 decision making procedures

Page 15: Presentation theory 2

5 decision making procedures 1. Totally autocratic

Leaders make their own decisions 2. Autocratic with Assistance

Leaders receive information from the followers 3. Consultative with individual(s)

Leaders interact with followers and share some information, solicits ideas and listens to opinions of the followers

4. Consultative with Group Leaders interact with the followers as a group, shares some

information, solicits ideas and listens to the opinions 5. Group Decision

Leader interacts with the followers as a group, shares some information about the problem, solicits ideas, and listens to the opinions, and then seeks to reach a consensus on the decision.

Page 16: Presentation theory 2

Normative Theory: Vroom-Jago Model Redesigned with Arthur Jago Model is basically the same but adds two critical

factors in the decision making process:1. If a decision needs to be made quickly, then

selecting a particpation style may be counterproductive

2. If followers have the skills and attributes necessary for participating in the decision making process, then, under certain conditions, they should be invited, particularly if an immediate decision is not necessary. The followers’ participation could enhance decision quality and acceptance.

Page 17: Presentation theory 2

Political Theory Decision making tool when

organizational goals are replaced by personal influence and power is the overriding force

The power and influence of individuals and/or groups become the overriding goals and not those of the organization.

Conflict, bargaining and game-playing are often seen in this environment