6-1 Discussion: Google Knows How To Motivate

I need 2 paragraphs written on the following:For this discussion, you will first read the following articles and watch the following video. Article: How Google Motivates Their Employees With Rewards and PerksEmployers such as Google are going to great lengths to provide extrinsic and intrinsic motivators to keep their employees engaged, create a motivating culture, and attract the best talent. Article: How Good Are Your Motivation Skills?Read this article and take the self-assessment on key factors for building a motivated team. The results of your self-assessment can assist you with the discussion question for this module and provide a good overview on your motivation skills. This article supplements the textbook reading for this module. Article: Power Is the Great Motivator (attached) This article, from the Harvard Business Review, describes the different ways managers may be motivated and how these motivations align with an organization’s goals. This article supplements the textbook reading for this module. As you read the article, consider the following: What are the motivational factors for a manager from a personal and organizational level?What motivational techniques can a manager use to manage and lead?Consider which of the three motivational categories you might fall into.Video: The Puzzle of MotivationThis TED Talk by Dan Pink challenges the traditional system of rewards and incentives and offers a different viewpoint that managers should consider related to intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. This video supplements the textbook reading for this module. Next, imagine that you are a manager of a start-up company with limited cash and resources. In your initial post, describe the types of motivators that you might employ as you develop your culture and attract good talent to your company. Explain why you have selected these motivators. Please follow the prompt completely and cite all sources in APA.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
6-1 Discussion: Google Knows How To Motivate
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

A good manager is not one who
needs personal success or
who is people oriented -but
one who has a need for power.
Power Is the
Great Motivator
by David C. McClelland and David H. Burnham
What makes or motivates a good
manager? The question is enormous
in scope. Some people might say that
a good manager is one who is successful – and by now most business
researchers and businesspeople
know what motivates people who
successfully run their own small
businesses. The key to their success
has turned out to he what psychologists call the need for achievement,
the desire to do something better or
more efficiently than it has been
done before. Any number of books
and articles summarize research
studies explaining how the achievement motive is necessary for a person to attain success.
But what has achievement motivation got to do with good management? There is no reason on theoretical grounds why a person who has a
strong need to be more efficient
should make a good manager. While
it sounds as if everyone ought to
have the need to achieve, in fact, as
psychologists define and measure
achievement motivation, the need
to achieve leads people to hehave in
This article was originally published in March-April 1976. It won
the McKinsey Award for excellence
and has consistently been one of
the best-selling HBR reprints. For its
republication as an HBR Classic,
David C. McClelland has written a
retrospective commentary.
ways that do not necessarily engender good management.
For one thing, hecause they focus on personal improvement and
doing things better by themselves,
achievement-motivated people
want to do things themselves. For
another, they want concrete shortterm feedback on their performance
so that they can tell how well they
are doing. Yet managers, particularly
in large, complex organizations, cannot perform hy themselves all the
tasks necessary for success. They
must manage others to perform for
the organization. And they must he
willing to do without immediate
and personal feedback since tasks
are spread among many people.
The manager’s job seems to call
more for someone who can influence people than for someone who
does things better alone. In motivational terms, then, we might expect
the successful manager to have a
greater need for power than a need to
achieve. But there must he other
qualities besides the need for power
that go into the makeup of a good
manager. We will discuss here just
what these qualities are and how
they interrelate.
To measure the motivations of
managers, we studied a numher of
them in different large U,S, corporations who were participating in
management workshops designed to
improve their managerial effectiveness. (See the insert “Workshop
Techniques,”) We concluded that
the top manager of a company must
possess a high need for power, that
is, a concern for influencing people.
However, this need must he disciplined and controlled so that it is directed toward the henefit of the institution as a whole and not toward
the manager’s personal aggrandizement. Moreover, the top manager’s
need for power ought to be greater
than his or her need for being liked.
Measuring Managerial
what does it mean when we say
that a good manager has a greater
need for power than for achievement? Consider the case of Ken
Briggs, a sales manager in a large
U,S, corporation who joined one of
our managerial workshops, Ahout
six years ago. Ken Briggs was promoted to a managerial position at
headquarters, where he was responsible for salespeople who service his
company’s largest accounts.
In filling out his questionnaire at
the workshop. Ken showed that he
correctly perceived what his joh required of him, namely, that he
should influence others’ success
more than achieve new goals himself or socialize with his subordinates. However, when asked with
other memhers of the workshop to
write a story depicting a managerial
situation. Ken unwittingly revealed
through his fiction that he did not
share those concerns. Indeed, he discovered that his need for achievement was very high-in fact, over the
ninetieth percentile – and his need
for power was very low, in ahout the
fifteenth percentile. Ken’s high need
to achieve was no surprise-after all,
he had heen a very successful salesman – hut ohviously his motivation
to influence others was much less
than his joh required. Ken was a
little disturhed hut thought that perhaps the measuring instruments
were not accurate and that the gap
hetween the ideal and his score was
not as great as it seemed.
Then came the real shocker. Ken’s
suhordinates confirmed what his
stories revealed: he was a poor manager, having little positive impact on
those who worked for him. They felt
they had little responsihility delegated to them, he never rewarded
but only criticized them, and the office was not well organized hut was
confused and chaotic. On all those
scales, his office rated in the tenth to
fifteenth percentile relative to national norms.
As Ken talked the results of the
survey over privately with a workDavid C. McClelland is a founder
and director of McBer and Company-, the director of research at
Hay McBer, a
management-consulting firm; Distinguished Research Professor of
Psychology at Boston University;
and a professor emeritus of psychology at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is the author of many books, including The
Achieving Society (Van Nostrand,
1961), Power: The Inner Experience
(Irvington Publishers, 1975), and
Human Motivation (Cambridge
University Press, 1988). David H.
Burnham was president and chief
executive officer of McBer and
Company when this article was
originally published and now works
as a consultant in the Boston area.
shop leader, he hecame more and
more upset. He finally agreed, however, that the results confirmed feelings he had heen afraid to admit to
himself or others. For years, he had
heen miserahle in his managerial
role. He now knew the reason: he
simply did not want, and he had not
heen ahle, to influence or manage
others. As he thought hack, he realized he had failed every time he had
tried to influence his
staff, and he felt worse
than ever.
Ken had responded
to failure hy setting
very high standards his office scored in
the ninety-eighth percentile on this scale – and hy trying
to do most things himself, which
was close to impossihle; his own activity and lack of delegation consequently left his staff demoralized.
Ken’s experience is typical of those
who have a strong need to achieve
hut low power motivation. They
may hecome very successful salespeople and, as a consequence, may
he promoted into managerial johs for
which they, ironically, are unsuited.
If achievement motivation does
not make a good manager, what mo-
tive does? It is not enough to suspect
that power motivation may he important; one needs hard evidence
that people who are hetter managers
than Ken Briggs is do in fact possess
stronger power motivation and perhaps score higher in other characteristics as well. But how does one decide who is the hetter manager?
Real-world performance measures
are hard to come hy if one is trying to
The top manager’s need for
povs^er ought to be greater
than thé need to be liked.
rate managerial effectiveness in production, marketing, finance, or research and development. In trying
to determine who the hetter managers were in Ken Briggs’s company,
we did not want to rely only on their
superiors. For a variety of reasons,
superiors’ judgments of their suhordinates’ real-world performance
may he inaccurate. In the ahsence of
some standard measure of performance, we decided that the next hest
index of a manager’s effectiveness
would he the climate he or she creates in the office, reflected in the
morale of suhordinates.
Almost hy definition, a good manager is one who, among other thmgs,
helps suhordinates feel strong and
responsible, rewards them properly
for good performance, and sees that
things are organized so that suhordinates feel they know what they
should he doing. Ahove all, managers should foster among suhordinates a strong sense of team spirit, of
pride in working as part of a team. If
a manager creates and encourages
this spirit, his or her suhordinates
certainly should perform hetter.
In the company Ken Briggs works
for, we have direct evidence of a
connection hetween morale and performance in the one area where performance measures are easy to findnamely, sales. In April 1973, at least
three employees from this company’s 16 sales districts filled out
questionnaires that rated their office
for organizational clarity and team
spirit. Their scores were averaged
and totaled to give an overall morale
score for each office. The percentage
gains or losses in sales for each district in 1973 were compared with
those for 1972. The difference in
sales figures by district ranged from
a gain of nearly 30% to a loss of 8%,
with a median gain of about 14%.
The graph “The Link Between
Morale and Sales” shows how, in
Ken Briggs’s company, at least, high
morale at the beginning of the year
hecame a good index of how well the
sales division would actually perform throughout the year. Moreover,
it seems likely that the manager
who can create high morale among
salespeople can also do the same for
employees in other areas (production, design, and so on|, which leads
to hetter overall performance. What
characteristics, then, does a manager
need to create that kind of morale?
Power Factor
In examining the motive scores of
more than 50 managers of both highand low-morale units in all sections
of the same large company, we found
that most of the managers – more
than 70% -were high in power motivation compared with the average person. This finding confirms
that power motivation is important
for management. (Remember that, as we
use the term, power
motivation refers not
to dictatorial behavior
hut to a desire to have
impact, to be strong
and influential.) The
better managers, as
judged by the morale
of those working for them, tended to
score even higher in power motivation. But the most important determining factor of high morale turned
out to be not how their power motivation compared with their need to
achieve but whether it was higher
than their need to be liked. This relationship existed for 80% of the better sales managers as compared with
only 10% of the poorer managers.
And the same held true for other
managers in nearly every part of the
The Link Bet^veen Morale and Sales
4=2 districts
3=4 districts
2=4 districts
1 =0 districts
Morale score (perceived orgonizational clarity plus team spirit)
The six districts with the lowest morale early in the year showed an average sales gain of only
about 7% by year’s end. The two districts with the highest moróle showed an average sales
gain higher than the fiftieth percentile of national norms.
In the research, product development, and operations divisions, 73%
of the better managers had a stronger
need for power than a need to be
liked, as compared witb only 22% of
the poorer managers, who tended to
be what we term affiliative managers – whose strongest drive is to be
liked. Why should this be so? Sociologists have long argued that for a bureaucracy to function effectively,
those who manage it must apply
rules universally; that is, if they
make exceptions for the particular
needs of individuals, the whole system will break down.
The manager with a high need to
be liked is precisely the one who
wants to stay on good terms with
everybody and, therefore, is the one
most likely to make exceptions for
particular needs. If an employee asks
for time off to stay home and look
after a sick spouse and the kids, the
affiliative manager agrees almost
without thinking, out of compassion for tbe employee’s situation.
When former President Gerald
Ford remarked in pardoning Richard
Nixon tbat Nixon had “suffered
enough,” he was responding as an
affiliative manager would because
he was empathizing primarily with
Nixon’s needs and feelings. Sociological theory and our findings both
argue, however, that the person
whose need for affiliation is bigh
does not make a good manager. This
kind of person creates low morale
because he or she does not understand that other people in tbe office
will tend to regard exceptions to the
rules as unfair to themselves, just as
many U.S. citizens felt that it was
unfair to let Nixon off and punish
others who were less involved than
he was in the Watergate scandal.
So far, our findings are a little
alarming. Do they suggest that the
good manager is one who cares for
power and is not at all concerned
about the needs of other people? Not
quite, for the good manager has
other characteristics that must still
he taken into account.
Ahove all, the good manager’s
power motivation is not oriented toward personal aggrandizement hut
toward the institution that he or she
serves. In another major research
study, we found that the signs of
controlled action or inhibition that
appear when a person exercises
imagination in writing stories tell a
great deal ahout the kind of power
that person needs.’ We discovered
that if a high power-motive score is
balanced hy high inhibition, stories
ahout power tend to be altruistic.
That is, the heroes in the story exercise power on hehalf of someone
else. This is the socialized face of
power as distinguished from the
concern for personal power, which is
characteristic of individuals whose
stories are loaded with power imagery but show no sign of inhibition
or self-control. In our earlier study,
we found ample evidence that the
latter individuals exercise their
power impulsively. They are more
often rude to other people, they
drink too much, they try to exploit
others sexually, and they collect
symhols of personal prestige such as
fancy cars or hig offices.
Individuals high in power and in
control, on the other hand, are more
institution minded; they tend to get
elected to more offices, to control
their drinking, and to have a desire
to serve others. Not surprisingly, we
found in the workshops that the hetter managers in the corporation also
tend to score high on both power and
Three Kinds of Managers
Let us recapitulate what we have
discussed so far and have illustrated
with data from one company. The
hetter managers we studied – what
we call institutional
high in power motivation, low in affiliation motivation, and high in inhihition. They care about institutional power and use it to stimulate
1. David C. McClelland, William N. Davis,
Rudolf Kalin, and Eric Warner, The Drinking
Man (New York: The Free Press, 19721.
Which Manager Was Most Effective?
Percentile ranking of average scores (national norms)
Sense of responsibility^
0rgonÍ2olional clarify
Team spirit
Scores for ot least three subordinates of:
Gl Affiliative managers (affiliation greater than power, high inhibitioni
D Personal power managers (power greater than affiliation, low inhibitioni
O Institutional managers (power greater than affiliarion, high inhibition)
Average scores on selected dimensions by subordinates of monagers with different motive pro
their employees to be more productive. Now let us compare them with
affiliative managers (those in whom
the need for affiliation is higher than
the need for power) and with the
personal power managers (those in
whom the need for power is higher
than for affiliation hut whose inhihition score is low).
In the sales division of the company we chose to use as an illustration, there were managers who
matched the three
types fairly closely.
The chart “Which Manager Was Most Effective?” shows how their
subordinates rated the
offices they worked in
on responsibility, organizational clarity, and team spirit.
Managers who are concerned about
being liked tend to have suhordinates who feel that they have little
personal responsihility, that organizational procedures are not clear,
and that they have little pride in
their work group.
January-February 1995
In short, as we expected, affiliative
managers make so many ad hominem and ad hoc decisions that they
almost totally abandon orderly procedures. Their disregard for procedure leaves employees feeling weak,
irresponsible, and without a sense of
what might happen next, of where
they stand in relation to their manager, or even of what they ought to
he doing. In this company, the group
of affiliative managers portrayed in
A manager motivated by
personal power is not a
good institution builder.
the chart were below the thirtieth
percentile in morale scores.
The managers who are motivated
hy a need for personal power are
somewhat more effective. They are
able to create a greater sense of responsibility in their divisions and,
above all, a greater team spirit. They
with most husinesses in the United
States. Let us say frankly that we
think the hogeyman of authoritarianism has heen wrongly used to
downplay the importance of power
in management. After all, management is an influence game. Some
proponents of democratic management seem to have forgotten this
fact, urging managers to he more
concerned with people’s
personal needs than with
The bogeyman of helping them to get
authoritarianism has been things
But much of the apparent conflict hetween our
vsrrongly used to dow^nplay findings
and those of oththe importance of povy^er er hehavioral scientists in
area stems from the
in management. this
fact that we are talking
ahout motives, and hehaviorists are often talking ahout achigh-inhihition managers – institutions. What we are saying is that
tional managers.
managers must he interested in playManagers motivated hy personal
ing the influence game in a conpower are not disciplined enough
trolled way. That does not necesto he good institution huilders, and
sarily mean that they are or should
often their suhordinates are loyal to
he authoritarian in action. On the
them as individuals rather than
contrary, it appears that power-motito the institution they serve. When
vated managers make their suhordia personal power manager leaves,
nates feel strong rather than weak.
disorganization often follows. The
The true authoritarian in action
strong group spirit that the manager
would have the reverse effect, makhas personally inspired deflates. The
ing people feel weak and powerless.
suhordinates do not know what to
Thus another important ingredido for themselves.
ent in the profile of a manager is
Of the managerial types, the inmanagerial style. In the illustrative
stitutional manager is the most
company, 63% of the hetter managsuccessful in creating an effective
ers (those whose suhordinates had
work climate. Suhordinates feel that
higher morale) scored higher on the
they have more responsihility. Also,
democratic or coaching styles of
those kinds of managers create high
management as compared with only
morale hecause they produce the
22% of the poorer managers, a statisgreatest sense of organizational clartically significant difference. By conity and team spirit. If such a manager
trast, the latter scored higher on auleaves, he or she can he more readily
thoritarian or coercive management
replaced hy another hecause the emstyles. Since the hetter managers
ployees have heen encouraged to he
were also higher in power motiloyal to the institution rather than
vation, it seems that in action they
to a particular person.
express their power motivation in
Since it seems undeniahle that a
a democratic way, which is more
manager with a power orientation
likely to he effective.
creates hetter morale in suhordiTo see how motivation and style
nates than one with a people orientainteract, consider the case of George
tion, we must consider that a conPrentice, a manager in the sales divicern for power is essenti …
Purchase answer to see full

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15