>Motivation is one of the metanarratives that I want to put in its place,
>if not completely destroy its usefulness for learning organisation purpose
>and for organisational and management theory purposes. (There are other
>ways to consider pay systems that are not dependent on motivational or
>other manipulative factors.) I suggest that we won't get to satisfactory
>theories for organisation or management until we have handled the whole
>set of reductionist psychological theories that are imbedded in our society.
>
Mike, your good comments are fascinating me. Underlying the
reductionist, imbedded theories are power theories that "we" managers must
intervene to "motivate" employees "them." Sub-text: they ain't naturally
motivated, and thus learning, development, etc. are unnatural acts. (Of
course, if we described some of what we ask people to do as "unnatural" -
spend time in noisey, uncomfortable, dangerous, smelly, confining
circumstances that induce stress, for instance - perhaps we'd have to
really change a few things. In some instances at least, however, high tech
firms being my favorite examples, people choose to push themselves to
learn, to accomplish, etc., and they push themselves and their workmates a
lot harder than "bosses" would.
That kind of dynamic means people take real responsibility for
processes, and feel ownership for them: they are THEIR jobs, not
management's.
Sam
MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU
Mariann Jelinek
Richard C. Kraemer Professor of Business
Graduate School of Business,
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23185
Tel. (804) 221-2882 FAX: (804) 229-6135