Maslow's Needs Theory and Herzberg's Two Factor Model

Leadership Strategies to Improve Business Performance

Ineffective Leadership Practices in the IT Industry

Ineffective leadership can result in problems in the workplace, such as the decline and deterioration of morale, failures in performance, and increases in turnover (Verma & Kesari, 2020). Organizations can improve morale, performance and reduce turnover by implementing leadership strategies that resonate and are viewed positively by workers.

The background on this subject is rooted in the research of industrial organization and leadership studies, which are fields that have been investigated for more than a century. The connection between leadership and performance, turnover, and morale has been assessed by psychologists like Maslow and by scholars like Kotter, who have focused on change management. From education to medicine to business, leadership and morale and motivation have frequently been linked by researchers (Chen, Li & Zhang, 2021; Hebert, 2019).

When it comes to narrowing in on ineffective leadership practices in the IT industry, scholars have found that leaders who have abusive personalities, little to no social and emotional intelligence, a tendency to micromanage, and an inflexible approach to the workplace environment are most likely to be ineffective leaders who harm morale, performance and increase turnover (Radek, 2019). Moreover, workers have shown that they do not like to be labeled by leaders, as labeling is a way of marginalizing and pushing certain people to the side, preventing them from having access to power within an organization (Samo, Qazi & Buriro, 2019). Ineffective leadership practices in IT have thus been found to be thus that dehumanize the individual, make that individual feel small and incapable of working without a boss standing over his shoulder, and that create a general atmosphere of tyranny and lack of caring.

Literature Review on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory, Scrum and Lean Management Theory

Motivation is a critical aspect of the relationship between leadership and employee performance, and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory has been found to help explain that relationship (Stefan, Popa & Albu, 2020). The needs hierarchy focuses on physiological needs, safety, love, esteem and self-actualization. As the lower level needs are met, the individual becomes more self-motivated until he reaches the top of the needs hierarchy at which point the person is self-actualizing, i.e., motivating himself intrinsically from within rather than relying on anything from without (Stefan et al., 2020).

Leaders can help their employees become self-actualizing by making sure those lower level needs are being met—especially the levels of love and esteem, which are so often ignored by leaders. The reality is that people like to feel valued by others and they like to feel appreciated and loved by their superiors. It motivates them to want to do a good job, as Stefan et al. (2020) have shown. That is why Maslow’s hierarchy of needs still applies today and is why leaders can apply it to help motivate their workers and improve performance overall.

Another method of leadership that is more and more used today is Scrum. Scrum is an approach that fosters an environment of shared leadership (Spiegler, Heineck & Wagner, 2021). Spiegler et al. (2021) explain that the dedicated Scrum Master is “a leadership enabler who follows the goal to empower a team to work in an agile way and to share leadership” with others (p. 1). Scrum is associated with identifying short-term goals and then focusing meetings on how well everyone is doing in terms of achieving those goals. It is a goal-driven approach to leadership that relies heavily on constant communication flow, trust, and the notion of shared leadership. The Scrum Master is not there to stand over anyone’s shoulder: he is simply organizing the meeting of minds and then making sure that everyone knows that they are expected to hold themselves accountable. The idea behind it is that everyone must push himself to be self-actualizing and that this push can be reinforced through constant awareness of the needs of the organization. It is essentially an inversion of Maslow’s hierarchy in the sense that rather than focusing on the needs of the individual, the Scrum Master focuses on the needs of the job (Spiegler et al., 2021).

Lean Management Theory is another leadership approach: it focuses on optimizing resources to enhance customer value by eliminating waste in the production process, emphasizing the need for continuous improvement, and demonstrating respect for people so that teamwork and growth are natural outcomes in the workplace (Miao, Qian & Humphrey, 2019). The ideas underpinning lean management are really no different from the ideas underpinning Maslow’s needs hierarchy or Scrum: in fact, lean management is like a combination of the two approaches, inverted from one another as they may be. Lean focuses on teamwork the way Scrum does, with the goal being to serve the customer (i.e., the task); but it also focuses on respect for people, which is what underscores Maslow’s theory. This combination of respect for others and constant improvement so as to satisfy the customer by creating customer value through the eradication of wasteful practices in the production process is what serves as the foundation of the lean management theory approach (Miao et al., 2019). Entrepreneurs turn to this approach because of its hybrid nature that satisfies both workers and customers (Miao et al., 2019).

Effective/Ineffective Leadership and Job Satisfaction

Effective leadership is also linked with job satisfaction, while ineffective leaders tend to be associated with employees’ job dissatisfaction (Baek, Han & Ryu, 2019). When leaders are authentic and genuine, open and transparent, they are seen as effective leaders who engage with workers, build trust, and help to create relationships in which everyone feels happy (Baek et al., 2019). However, if a leader does not demonstrate this kind of openness and credibility, workers feel detached from the leader and their satisfaction with their job is diminished (Baek et al., 2019).

Ineffective leadership has the inverse effect on job satisfaction that effective leadership has: it causes workers to feel unhappy with their role and performance in the workplace (Baek et al., 2019). The leader comes across to them as someone who does not care about them, who does not value them, who does not care about the work as a result, and thus fosters an environment in which there is no real incentive to perform (Stefan et al., 2020). And since there is no incentive to perform, workers feel unsatisfied with their jobs and look for opportunities elsewhere. In the end, it is all in accordance with the idea that workers want to feel that their work and effort matters and is being appreciated by a leader (Stefan et al., 2020). If the leader is engaged and demonstrating his appreciation of the worker’s efforts, showing them what he himself wants and needs and how he himself tries to be a good leader, the worker is more likely to feel engaged as well, appreciating the openness and discovering that the workplace is one where effort and performance matter, which creates a feeling of satisfaction with one’s job (Baek et al., 2019).

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Motivational Theory, Hygiene Factors and Motivational Factors

According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Motivational Theory, hygiene factors cause workers to work less if they are not present, while motivational factors cause workers to work harder if they are present (Thant & Chang, 2021). Hygiene factors are the factors that must be in place to ensure that workers are working to meet expectations. They are like the necessary conditions or the basic foundational elements that every workplace needs to keep workers engaged and happy. Motivational factors are different in that they are the next step up: they take workers to the next level by encouraging them to apply themselves even more and to work harder to achieve objectives (Thant & Chang, 2021). Not every workplace is able to supply its workers with both hygiene factors and motivational factor, which is why performance lags in some workplaces and why it exceeds expectations in others.

Thant and Chang (2021) examined the factors that led to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a government office in Myanmar, and they found that hygiene factors and motivational factors are both vital to the maintenance of workers’ job satisfaction. This finding corresponds with the findings of Baek et al. (2019), who also not that when an organization is focused on meeting the needs of workers, the workers are more likely to be interested in meeting the needs of the organization. It is essentially the perception of a give-and-take relationship that is symbiotic that compels the worker to engage and work hard. Herzberg explains this phenomenon by way of the two-factor theory, highlighting the categories of hygiene and motivation factors as the best way to frame and understand the issues that go into shaping why workers work hard and why they do not.

Transformational Leadership vs. Democratic Leadership and Autocratic Leadership

Adha et al. (2020) conducted a study based in the Indonesian public health center, in which they compared and contrasted the effects of different leadership styles to see what worked best. Transformational leadership is unique in the sense that it focuses on managing change by highlighting a new vision, communicating it to stakeholders, justifying it with logic and reason and then getting everyone to buy-in to the transformation through the fostering of supportive relationships and positive returns for making the change (Adha et al., 2020). Democratic leadership is different in that it focuses on sharing leadership with stakeholders so that decision-making is not concentrated in the hands of one person but is rather spread around. Everyone is permitted to have a voice or vote in the decision-making process, and when there is a majority agreement a decision will be made based on that vote. Autocratic leadership is the exact opposite of democratic leadership in that power, authority and decision-making is concentrate in the hands of one leader, who makes decisions for the others and expects all commands to be followed through and obeyed. There is no delegation of authority in autocratic leadership (Adha et al., 2020). What the researchers show is that each leadership style appeals to different people in different settings, and each is effective in its own ways, depending on the context. Sometimes a strong leader is needed to make decisions in a hierarchical culture; sometimes, when change is needed, a transformational leader is required so as to reduce resistance to change. Sometimes democratic leaders promote values that help foster teamwork (Adha et al., 2020).