Motivation and Team Building at Apple

Introduction

As a newly appointed assistant manager in operations in Apple Inc., I have noticed that the organisation is struggling to change its organisational culture to improve productivity. I have been asked by my line manager to produce a report for this fast-evolving company discussing its culture, motivation and team building practises within this organisation. This report will include analysis and discussion of the various organisational cultures and motivational theories. I will also identify which ones of the theories are found in this organisation. The discussion will evaluate how the mentioned theories influence behaviours in the organisation and how this affects its performance. I will also provide recommendation/(s) on how to improve staff performance to meet Apple Inc.’s goals.

1. The influence of culture, politics, and power to employee performance

1.1 Culture

Kacmar and Ferris (1991) found that employees who love their job do not frequently call in sick and they perform better and are likely to collaborate with their superiors and team members. Furthermore, when they feel that their managers and bosses care more about workers’ personal happiness, not just the firms’ net revenue, they develop loyalty. In such a culture, the employees not only own the company’s vision but also develop higher goals which have a positive effect on the company.

1.2 Politics

According to Kacmar and Carlson (1994), views on company politics represents the level to which staff perceives their place of work as being political in nature, promotes other people’s self-interest, is unfair and unjust from the person’s point of view. Some selfish company members basically promote their self-interest at the expense of their firm’s objectives. Vigoda-Gadot and Kapun, (2005) says that trust in managers or supervisors and the willingness of employees to help a colleague observes little politics. Sheard, Kakabadse, and Kakabadse (2011) say that a manager’s political nature and leadership style are the core tenets which influence employee performance. Therefore, it means that the leadership style used in a company affects employee performance tremendously.

1.3 Power

Mintzberg (1984) says that power is being able to influence other people’s behaviour in an organisation and behaviour is like a power game where there are numerous players known as influencers that want to control decisions and action in the organisation. According to Mintzberg (1984), two influencer groups exist including internal influencers made of support staff, techno-structure and the organisation’s ideology. The second group consists of external influencers made up of the public, owners, employee association and associates. According to Baldridge (1971), there are numerous conflicting interests and goals in a company, and when the power balance changes between various coalitions, other goals which become a priority are set.

1.4 The Influence of culture, politics, and Power on Team Performance

Research by Kotter and Heskett (1992) demonstrate the effect of power and politics on a firm’s team regarding attaining its goals. They say that although an organisation’s culture can vary due to contrasts of social characterisation from one association to the other, some social features could be of having a competitive edge. They further say that the traits and values around the globe differ and cause changes in an employee’s level of expectation and satisfaction. According to Daskin and Tezer (2012), resource scarcity, organisational support, and favouritism are variables which affect the firm and its operations. Daskin and Tezer (2012) say that culture is affected strongly by politics and power in an organisation and that a company’s leadership can use a supportive culture as a mechanism of motivating its employees to work efficiently and improve productivity. The culture of an organisation can bring harmony in a company where it can attain the highest level of productivity and adequacy. Daskin and Tezer (2012) say that this shows how an organisations culture affects both job performance and the productivity of a team. They conclude by saying that culture is essential for an organisations success.

1.5 Effect of Culture, Power and Politics in Apple Inc

Apple Company previously experienced severe limitations from the internal politics and instructional powers. The above discussions have shown that the performance of employees and the organisation is affected by both politics and power. A strong chief executive officer’s power such as the case of Steve Jobs can be perceived negatively by employees. The organisation may then feel or experience severe turnover regarding its employees because of the unequal distribution of power. For instance, Apple Inc. has been under the autocracy culture with one person in authority. Previously, the chief executive officer, Steve Jobs, followed a strict autocratic culture. According to Malone, By-Carlson and Leah (1998), autocracy is able to destroy countries and companies. According to this researcher, the term power can corrupt, and absolute power absolutely corrupts. This individuals warned of the intoxicating nature of power which can be very devastating if abused (Malone, By-Carlson and Leah, 1998).

2. Motivational Theories and Techniques

2.1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

This theory was developed by Abraham Maslow, and it puts human needs in five distinct categories beginning from basic survival such as shelter and food to self-actualisation needs. Maslow believed that once one need gets satisfied, a person goes ahead to satisfy the other needs above that which is achieved. When applied to other contexts such as that of work, the theory implies that an employer should understand each employee’s current level of needs to understand what motivates them. For instance, a new recruit who has had no job for a while will be driven basically by basic survival. On the other hand, an employee who is more concerned with career advancement may be in need of self-actualisation and can be motivated by high-level tasks (Cao et al., 2013).

2.2 The Carrot and Stick Approach

This is a traditional theory of motivation attributed to Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher dating back to the 1800s or the industrial revolution. The theory breaks motivation down to two necessary components: fear and incentives. Some employees get motivated by the need to get extra compensation or the desire to gain power, status or praise. However, some employees are moved by fear. They fear to lose their jobs, not being able to complete an assignment adequately or being reprimanded by their supervisors (Stone, Deci and Ryan, 2009).

2.3 The Motivation-Hygiene Theory

This theory is also referred to as the Two Factory theory developed in 1959 by Frederick Herzberg. The theory postulates that various factors within the environment of work lead to either dissatisfaction or satisfaction (Sesay et al., 2017). The theorist referred to these factors as hygiene factors. The factors which lead to an employee’s satisfaction are such as advancement, recognition, and achievement while those which result in dissatisfaction are such as peer relationships, salary and work conditions. Generally, this theory demonstrates that managers or supervisors need to manage these factors effectively to motivate employees successfully. Therefore, a company’s leadership must seek ways to offer its employees job enrichment (Sesay et al., 2017).

2.4 The Case of Apple Inc

Apple Company not only uses Maslow’s theory to satisfy the priority needs of its employees but also focuses on their higher-order needs (Wang, Tang and Liang, 2017). For instance, Apple demonstrated it could assure its employee’s esteem needs when it rewarded the firm’s executives through recognition bonus salaries increased from 3% to 5%. The method showed Apple’s approval of its workers who effectively completed their tasks. Another instance of self-esteem assurance is when the company gave its employees free iPhones that were not only a benefit to the employees but also acted as an effective motivator because it enhanced the worker’s responsibilities when they saw the outcome of their hard work (Wang, Tang and Liang, 2017). At the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the company motivated its employees successfully by developing more opportunities to engage in development and education programs. Importantly, the company gave its employees the opportunity to be creative, to grow and never give up whenever they made mistakes at work to allow them to make a product that customers would love. These became the employees’ mission and were so motivated to achieve (Wang, Tang and Liang, 2017).

2.5 Recommendations

Motivation is essential for Apple Inc. because to come up with the best products they rely mostly on employee creativity and innovativeness. Therefore, they need a type of leadership which embraces a strategy that can get the workers to be more creative and hardworking such as by continuously satisfying their needs, or they should do something which will get the employees to have the desire to continue working for the company.

3. Effective Team

A capable team is made up of members or individual contributors who can not only harmonise their work but also their efforts towards attaining a common objective or goal (Kurtz et al., 2017).

3.1 The Impact of an effective and Ineffective Team

An effective team understands very well the group’s objectives which are accepted by all members. On the other hand, it is difficult to comprehend clearly the task or the objectives of an ineffective team (Palmer, 2017). An effective team usually has all of its members participate in many discussions where everyone is pertinent to the group’s tasks while in an ineffective team, their discussions are dominated by some people whose contributions are also not on point. Moreover, the members of an effective team usually listen to one another where each idea is listened to unlike in an ineffective team where people do not listen and ignore each other’s ideas which are even over-ridden. Effective teams often have disagreements which do not bother the team which shows no signal of ever avoiding conflict. In weak teams, they generally do not solve their disagreements, but the leaders suppress these leading to open warfare (Palmer, 2017). The disagreements are sometimes solved by a vote where the minority and the majority are almost equal. In effective teams, many of their decisions are arrived at through a consensus where everybody agrees with what is being discussed (Willems, 2016). However, an ineffective team involves premature actions before the actual issues are resolved or examined. In effective teams, the group's chairperson neither dominates nor is referred unduly by the group (Willems, 2016). On the contrary, an ineffective team has a leadership dominated by the chairperson where regardless of whether they are strong or weak; they still sit at the helm of the table. Another difference is that effective teams are made of conscious members of their operations and frequently stops to evaluate their progress or the things which interfere with their functions. However, weak teams are made of members who avoid discussions of their maintenance. Lastly, effective teams have clearly assigned assignments which are accepted, unlike weak teams with unclear discussions where no member really understands what to do (Willems, 2016).

4. Various Concepts and Philosophies of Organisational Behaviour

Organisational behaviour is the evaluation of human behaviour at their places of work within an organisation. Relevantly, the organisational behaviour scope includes studying groups, organisational structure, and individuals (Chumg et al., 2016).

The above figure demonstrates the overlapping relationship between the basic organisational behaviour concepts including the organisation’s nature, people’s nature (working in the company) and the end result (which is in the form of a holistic organisational behaviour) (Elsmore, 2017). When these fundamental organisational behaviour concepts concerning the people and the organisation are put together, they provide a concept that is holistic concerning the subject. Holist behaviour of the organisation interprets relations concerning an entire people, people-organisation, a whole group, a whole social system, and a whole person. To clearly understand the numerous factors which influence the behaviour of people at their workplaces, the issues being evaluated must be in terms of the whole situations that affect them instead of isolated problems or events (Elsmore, 2017).

4.2 People

People add to an organisation’s social system. They are made up of groups and individuals. Groups can either be small or large, informal or formal, unofficial or official. Therefore, organisations are there to serve people and not that people are there to serve an organisation. An organisation is made of an association of people or individuals who differ in numerous ways. These differences come from their personalities, attitudes, perceptions, motivation, learning, job satisfaction and values (Whelan, 2016).

4.3 Structure

This describes the people’s relationship in the organisation. Different people within an organisation get assigned different responsibilities, and they have specific relationships with other people. This results in the division of tasks in order for them to complete their duties and accomplish the goals of the organisation (Whelan, 2016).

4.4 Technology

Technology imparts economic and physical conditions where people work. The technology’s nature depends on the organisation’s nature and its influence on the working conditions or work. Therefore, technology can cause effectiveness or restrict employees in many ways (Samuel et al., 2017).

4.5 Social Systems

These social systems lead to an external environment where an organisation functions. There can be no single organisation. Moreover, it is not possible for one organisation to give everything as there are many organisations. These organisations all influence one another as well as people’s attitudes, their conditions or work and also provide competition for power and resources (Samuel et al., 2017).

4.6 Various concepts and philosophies in Apple Inc

Apple Inc. has demonstrated negotiations through numerous discussions the company has conducted to arrive at agreements. For the company, negotiation has been an essential part of their day to day business (Narayan And Ramu, 2018). An organisation needs to have the capacity to negotiate within the firm itself as well as with its competitors. When conflicts emerge in an organisation, it is essential to be ready with excellent negotiation skills to resolve the problems. The former chief executive officer of Apple Inc., Steve Jobs had excellent skills of negotiation which not only aided him internallyt in his company but also with the organisation’s competitors (Narayan And Ramu, 2018). Apple Inc. also had a strong leadership which enabled it to direct and guide behaviour. Even though leadership seems a typical and straightforward aspect to achieve in an organisation, it is difficult to get quality skills in leadership that can make a company successful (Dzomonda and Fatoki, 2019). Apple Inc. is known widely for its exceptional leadership particularly with its former chief executive officer, Steve Jobs, whose skills helped the company shoot from a tech company to a global technology leader. This individual set a stage for the company’s future in technology through strong skills in leadership. When Tim Cook took the place of Steve Jobs as the new chief executive officer after the former passed away, it made people worried that the new leader’s skills were not sufficiently strong to keep the company a powerhouse of technology. With time, the company continued growing thanks to the new leader’s robust leadership skills (Dzomonda and Fatoki, 2019). Apple Inc. also engages the concept of empowerment where power is shared in a manner that allows individuals to learn to believe in their skills and ability to complete their jobs. Empowerment is regarded as a positive type of power (Magaudda, 2015). When there is no belief that a person can complete a task, that individual is not likely to complete the job. Apple Inc. managers have always wanted their workers to have a sense of empowerment with their responsibilities as well as by other parts of the organisation. Lastly, Apple Inc. has often embraced teamwork as a concept of organisational behaviour. When a person thinks about an essential aspect of a firm, the first thing which hits the mind is a team. Without a team effort, no organisation can be successful. Teamwork has enabled Apple Inc. to get new, different ideas on how to create new products and complete numerous tasks (Magaudda, 2015).

References

Cao, H., Jiang, J., Oh, L.B., Li, H., Liao, X. and Chen, Z., 2013. A Maslow's hierarchy of needs analysis of social networking services continuance. Journal of Service Management, 24(2), pp.170-190.

Chumg, H.F., Seaton, J., Cooke, L. and Ding, W.Y., 2016. Factors affecting employees' knowledge-sharing behaviour in the virtual organisation from the perspectives of well-being and organisational behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, pp.432-448.

Dzomonda, O. and Fatoki, O., 2019. Evaluating the Impact of Organisational Culture on the Entrepreneurial Orientation of Small and Medium Enterprises in South Africa. Bangladesh Sociological Society, 16(1), p.82.

Kacmar, K.M. and Ferris, G.R., 1991. Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological measurement, 51(1), pp.193-205.

Kurtz, A., Sonnenmeier, R., Humphreys, B.P. and Russell, S., 2017. Improving Effective Interdisciplinary Team Work Using Team-Based Learning within the NH-ME LEND Curriculum: Comparing Years 1–3.

Magaudda, P., 2015. Apple's Iconicity: Digital Society, Consumer Culture and the Iconic Power of Technology. Sociologica, 9(1), pp.0-0.

Malone, M.S., By-Carlson, D. and Leah, S., 1998. Infinite Loop: How Apple, the World's Most Insanely Great Computer Company, Went Insane. Random House Inc..

NARAYAN, S.V. and RAMU, M., 2018. A STUDY ON ORGANISATION CULTURE OF APPLE COMPANY. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 120(5), pp.3797-3808.

Sheard, G., Kakabadse, A.P. and Kakabadse, N.K., 2011. Organisational politics: reconciling leadership's rational-emotional paradox. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(1), pp.78-97.

Sesay, A.K., Seisay, I.G., Kamara, C.M. and Bangura, A., 2017. USING MOTIVATION AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT. International Journal For Research In Social Science And Humanities| ISSN: 2208-2697, 3(12), pp.42-64.

Samuel, A.B., Rahman, M.M., Khairuddin, I., Uddin, M.J. and Rahaman, S., 2017. A synthesised literature review on organisational culture and corporate performance. Journal of Advanced Research in Social and Behavioural Sciences Journal Homepage, 7(1), pp.83-95.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Kapun, D., 2005. Perceptions of politics and perceived performance in public and private organisations: a test of one model across two sectors. Policy & Politics, 33(2), pp.251-276.

Wang, N., Tang, Y. and Liang, F., 2017, January. Research about the Influence of Incentive Method towards Executive on Corporation Performance Based on Multiple Regression Model. In 2017 International Conference on Economics, Finance and Statistics (ICEFS 2017). Atlantis Press.

Willems, J., 2016. Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), pp.568-592.