Effective Factors in Enhancing Managers’ Job Motivation- Cross-Cultural Context

Anna Wziątek-Staśko The University of Dąbrowa Górnicza, Faculty of Management, Poland

awziatek-stasko@wp.pl Abstract. Motivating people to perform is a continuous and interesting research problem investigated by experts from different fields. A particular attention is focused on the issue of line managers/ superiors motivating their subordinates; still a research niche is identified when analysing factors motivating managers to work. As Napoleon Bonaparte once said “With a good general there are no bad soldiers" which, metaphorically, can be transformed into "There is no such thing as bad employees with poor motivation for work if there is a good, motivated manager", so the key question is- what motivates contemporary managers, which motivators are particularly appreciated by them? This paper focuses on presenting some results from the empirical research designed by the author and carried out among lower and top level managers employed in 28 countries around the world. In total, respondents assessed 47 motivating tools divided into three groups: tangible cash, tangible non-cash and intangible tools. The research was aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the impact each tool had on the managers’ motivation, taking into consideration cross- cultural context. The collected factographic material was subject to statistical analysis based on Kruskal-Wallis' Anova test. The research results are a source of valuable information both for theorists and practitioners of management. Keywords: management, manager, efficiency, motivation, cross-cultural context 1 Introduction

As A. J. Blikle said “…it’s impossible to motivate somebody to do something, the best you can do is to help your employees to develop their intristic motivation; using carrot and stick you will not make your employees happy” (Blikle, 2014, 115). Unfortunately it’s true. According to the Gallup Institute Research: “Overall, among the 142 countries included in the current Gallup study, only 13% of employees are engaged in their jobs, while 63% are not engaged and 24% are actively disengaged, what means that they are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive“ (Report: State of The Global Workplace. Employee Engagement Insights For Business Leaders Worldwide, 2013, 7). Not only subordinates are in the mentioned above groups, but also, what is alarming, different levels managers. We have the global leadership crisis! The question is: how unhappy, disengaged managers manage unhappy, disengaged employees and what is the reason of that? An analysis of the process involving motivating people to work leads to identifying several key issues which are worth discussing in detail as their non-recognition, non-appreciation or unawareness of them in the human resource management process may considerably reduce effectiveness of managing the entire organisation. First, the actual needs of both subordinates and managers cannot be ignored. Second, one should bear in mind that, in the subordinates and their line managers’ opinion, there can be major differences between evaluation of effectiveness of a motivating impact of individual motivators. Third, the importance of skilful management of employee variety cannot be underestimated i.e. the right motivating tool matching preferences of individual employees, considering the generally accepted categories of diversity such as sex, age, education, history of employment, ability/disability, religion, cultural roots and others. Fourth, do not forget that managers' motivation largely determines motivation of their subordinates.

45

2 Contemporary leadership- some reflections “Enterprises are like cars. They cannot run on empty unless it’s downhill. They need people to run them. And they cannot be run by ANY people but by the RIGHT people. Performance of an organisation depends on the managerial efficiency of its managers. Unfortunately, not all managers are good role models” (Ketz de Vries, 2003, 267). Many managers forget about their actual role and are unaware of the importance of their function. It was P. F. Drucker who claimed that a manager is not a daring lancer or Elvis Presley in a conference room setting. The well-known management guru observed that, in reality, leadership is a down-to-earth activity, which is deprived of romanticism and simply boring. In his opinion, effective leadership is very hard work based on thinking in the categories of the organisation’s mission, setting goals, priorities and standards, caring to have them delivered, responsibility and not about position and privileges, willingness to work with people who are ambitious and, finally, winning and keeping subordinates’ trust. Effective leadership is a consequence and not wit (Drucker, 2001, 397-402). “The manager’s role involves more than planning, organising, coordinating and controlling. These are only the theoretical stages of the process where the manager can expect to face greater challenges: Building a relationship with employees. It is up to the manager to decide how tasks are going to be performer by employees and whether they are appropriately motivated and effective in their action” (Nieckarz, 2011, 133; Zhang, Wang, Shi, 2012, 124). Many authors emphasis that people are demotivated by their bosses and not by motivation systems (Hale, 1998, 39; Tabak, 1997, 119; Nelson, 1997, 10; Darling, Arn, Gatlin, 1997, 1; Detert, Burris, 2007, 869-870). They leave their managers, not their organizations (Lester, Hannah, Harms, Vogelgesang, Avolio, 2011, 409-429). The vast majority of talented young people leaves organisations because the upper level management does not understand job satisfaction psychology (Luu, Hattrup, 2010, 18; Mainemelis, 2010, 558-560). Unfortunately, managers still make a lot of mistakes. According to the latest findings from an Oxford Economics study entitled “Workforce 2020” there are a lot of new challenges towards contemporary management, especially Human Resources Management (also: Kormancová G., Theodoulides L., 2013, 41-60). As emphasised by the authors of the report, 2015 is the time to start thinking about multi-generational company, particularly for large organisations and corporations (Stockdale, Crosby, 2009, 533-547) The need to manage teams made up of representatives of four different generations: baby boomers, X, Y and Z will be a true test verifying actual skills of managers all around the world. Also the authors of this report confirm that at present we are facing a global leadership crisis. One of its key manifestations is as much as 80% of management broads declaring having insufficient knowledge about their employees! This is evidenced, inter alia, by the fact that only nearly 40% of non-salary benefits offered by companies address the needs of their employees. It can lead to a conclusion that the remaining 60% of benefits does not serve its purpose, namely does not motivate employees to work better. Too little knowledge about the subordinates has other consequences, too – an employer is not able to use their potential to the fullest, to develop the company. Unfortunately, another reason for concern is that the majority of employees does not see strong leaders in their employers. For example, in Poland, subordinates consider their managers average and dull. The results of the report show that similar opinions are expressed by other nationalities, which justifies the perception of the problem as a global one. Another quite significant problem concerning the quality of today's leadership is pointed out by Hay Group (the research is based on the analysis of Hay Group's data concerning the styles and atmosphere at work, covering 95 000 leaders in over 2 200 organisations around the world). According the research carried out by the organisation in 2013, world leaders are not flexible enough. Although good leadership is equivalent to the ability to flexibly response to the situation, over one third of leaders (36%) does not have any or uses only one style of leadership. Only one-fourth of leaders (26%) can apply at least four different styles. The situation in Poland is not better – nearly half of the researched

46

leaders uses only one leadership style or none (49%), and only 10% of them can use four different ones. Consequently, this situation adversely impacts the work atmosphere around the world, with over a half of leaders (55%) creating demotivating work environment. On the other hand, only 19% of leaders supports the development of highly motivating work place. The least flexible are leaders in EMEA - only one- fifth (22%) of them is able to use at least four leadership styles, which is recommended in creating motivating work environment. Hence, demotivating environment is created by nearly three-fifths of leaders (57%). In Poland, this indicator is slightly higher and equals 59%. Additionally, in the case of Asian leaders, as much as two-thirds of them (66%) create demotivating atmosphere, which is the worst result in all areas of the world. Only one-fourth (24%) of them has learnt at least four leadership styles. The most positive working environment is created by American leaders – less than a half (49%) of employees there feels that the atmosphere at work is demotivating. Yet, there is still much to be done. The crisis faced by the Euro Zone (and the prevailing economic uncertainty) made European leaders tend to often choose more directive leadership approaches. This style, that used to be relatively rarely applied in the region, has become dominant for over one-third (31%) of leaders. For comparison, in North America, this is true for 23% of leaders while in the Pacific region for 24%. Only 17% of European leaders are able to create working environment for their employees that facilitates enhanced performance. 3 In search for a perfect leadership model With the beginning of the 21st century, the world has entered a completely different reality. Very dynamic development of new advanced technologies, the possibility to collaborate "in the cloud" environments and to reach the farthest part of the world within a fraction of a second, e-banks, financial e-services, e-shops, innovative products satisfying the needs of narrower and narrower groups of clients, gradually shortening product life cycles, expanding globalisation necessitating adjustment of former management methods and tools, cross-border communication via social media - these are just a few examples of characteristic features of the today's world in which modern organisations function. Management in the 21st century has taken a new direction. To a growing extent it is based on the ability to manage continuous changes and not on stability, it is network-based and not hierarchical, it relies on changing co-operators, partners and alliances instead of being self-sufficient, and it is founded on technological advantage. New organisations are tightly woven spider webs, rather virtually than vertically integrated, rather relying on interdependency than independence, focusing rather on mass care for a client than on mass production. We are witnessing qualitative changes having far reaching consequences for the whole social and economic reality. A key feature of these changes is the accumulation of difficulties in management, resulting from synergistic effect of combined influence of increased complexity and growing volatility (Kisperska-Moroń, 2008, 8). Complicated nature of today's world does not make the lives of contemporary managers easier. Multi-dimensional character of reality in which organisation must function provokes reflection over optimum leadership model as the key determinant of the level of engagement of employees in new, complicated conditions. Not all managers demonstrate excellence in these difficult and highly dynamic times. Hence, the research results showing contemporary leaders in a rather unfavourable light, quoted above, are not surprising. Why, then, instead of strengthening their authority they often lose it? Because they create toxic organisations. Let us look at some toxic leadership models and their key characteristics (Kets de Vries, 2003, 267-274; Blikle, 2014, 92-93).

47

a/ Leader avoiding conflicts - although we usually think of our bosses as dominating and fearless, many of them show clear tendency to avoid conflicts. A large percentage of managers/directors are people feeling desperate need for approval. In fear of being rejected they cannot (or do not want to) make any difficult decision or use their authority. Rarely does such attitude win them success or liking. What it does is it creates the picture of a superior as a person who does not have their own views and is inconsistent in their actions. Sometimes it is better to make an unpopular decision and define impassable limits than to try to please everybody.

b/ Leader with the tendency to tyrannize subordinates - in modern history there are many

distinctive examples of this brutal and destructive attitude. Robert Maxwell, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher remembered for her controversial views, such as: "I don't mind how much my ministers talk, as long as they do what I say”, or: "I am very patient, provided I get my own way in the end" or Albert Dunlap, head of Scott Paper and later on of Sunbeam, called "the Chainsaw Al". Out of eight companies he once managed, six no longer exists. His motto was: "You are not in business to be liked.... If you want a friend, get a dog. I’m not taking any chances; I’ve got two dogs." At the end of the day it turned out that his leadership style did not win him supporters even among members of the Supervisory Board which eventually fired him. As Anna Freud notes, tyrannizing subordinates by their bosses sometimes triggers off a reaction called "identification with the aggressor syndrome". A subordinate assimilates the features represented by a brutal boss and from a victim turns into an aggressor towards those who occupy subordinate positions. Unfortunately, this attitude poses a risk of brutalisation of relations throughout the organisation and is likely to lead to other pathologies, such as: mobbing, discrimination, or sexual harassment. A leader who chooses management by violence, must take care of everything themselves. You cannot relay on people who are ordered to do things. They will do exactly, as ordered (and not always) and nothing more. Thus, a "Leader of Violence" is always the first at work and leaves the last; he/she is tired all the time, works on weekends, neglects the family, and when he goes on holiday, everyday calls his/her deputy to check if no disaster has just happened. After all, the company cannot operate properly if he/she is not there.

c/ Meticulous leadership - represented by bosses who pay so much attention to detail that they lose

the whole picture from their sight. They do not believe that anyone can do the job better then themselves; they are unable to delegate tasks to others. They are fanatics of controls. They personally open every letter that comes to the company; they demand that all emails be sent directly to them. If they manage a micro company they may as well succeed, but as the company grows, so does the risk of total paralysis and devastation of the staff's morale. A leadership motto of a "meticulous boss" is: "I finally managed to do it! I fired all three hundred twenty free people. From now on I am operating the whole factory alone!"

d/ Maniac boss - it's a person with inexhaustible energy. His/her mission is to bring

himself/herself and to others on the verge of exhaustion. They act with such fury that they not always realise what they are doing, even if they are wrong. They do not see the huge different between acting and acting purposefully. Their management style can be illustrated by means of a cartoon joke showing two managers talking about a third - absent - one: "The guy goes like a bomb…. I wonder when he will realise that he goes in the wrong direction?” An example of maniac and distracted management is Xerox which in 1976 controlled 88% of the market and six years later the share dropped to as little as 15%. Having paid no attention to clients, development and innovativeness, it failed to notice a competitor - a Japanese company Canon - which instantly spotted weaknesses of the careless businessman and captured the market. Conclusion - managers should not only look into a mirror - they should also look through the windows to see their clients.

e/ Unapproachable boss - some bosses are so important that they have no time for the rest of the world. They never come up with an idea to have a walk around their company. Supercilious and unapproachable, they always hide behind their secretaries, assistants, and a barricade of closed door.

48

Sometimes people say "Our President is like Yeti. He/she is believed to have been seen now and then up there". The point is that "unapproachable bosses" always look for a company of "big shots" who make them feel even more important. Perhaps they are afraid that if someone gets close enough, he/she could see something they don't want to be seen?

f/ Boss - manipulator - every organisation has its "players" who love engaging in behind-the-scene

manipulations. "Players" are driven by their golden rule: "it's easy to sparkle against a dark background", so they make sure that their subordinates are not too sparkling. They have a tendency to use their subordinates to do their job. They feel the best standing in the spotlight. Yet, they should take a tip from Ann Lander: "Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful".

g/ Irreplaceable boss - for many older bosses, the possibility that they could hand over the power

to someone younger robs them of their sleep. Excessive attachment to one's position and a fear of losing it may result in undesirable behaviours and hostility towards the young. The quality of leadership in such cases is tested after the boss retires - whether it can manage without its former leader or not. A reflection upon an experiment aimed at answering the question whether some of us are really irreplaceable seems worthwhile here. Let us consider three consecutive steps: first - put your finger into a glass of water, the second - take out the finger, third - see the hole that was left. The conclusion, as sad as it might appear, shows the naked truth - no one is, unfortunately, irreplaceable….

The leadership models described above have two main causes - distrust and fear. There are a lot of pathologies in human resources management in contemporary organizations which are motivation killers, for instance bullying (McTernan, Dollard, LaMontagne, 2013, 321-338; Trepanier, Fernet, Austin, 2013, 123-140; Nielsen, Einarsen, 2012, 309-332), organisational cynicism (Srivastava, Adams, 2011, 27-42), discrimination (Neall, Tuckey, 2014, 225-257) and many others. Effective management of an organisation requires mutual trust between managers and employees. Where there is no trust, there is fear (Ji, Zhou, Li, Yan, 2015, 1043-1054; Malhotra, Lumineau, 2011, 981-9980; Engelbrecht, Heine, Mahembe, 2014, 1-9; Reychav, Sharkie, 2010, 227-247). Although various companies may suffer from various types of this disease, there are several symptoms they all share: disappearance of creative thinking replaced by shifting the responsibility upon others, the practice of "killing the messenger who brings bad news", internal conflicts and behind-the-scene manipulations, development of "survival" strategies among employees, excessive red tape, etc., many bosses engage into too many activities only to have no time left for reflection. The faster they run, the less they think what is the purpose and aim of this running. This is how the omnipresent "rat race" works; and those, who fall behind, think of themselves as losers, develop addictions, neuroses, depressions and others. (Boddy, 2014, 107-121; Balducci, Feaccaroli, Schaufeli, 2011, 499-513). The literature also mentions other types of leadership which can affect the motivation of employees (Nieckarz, 2011, 134-139; Cooper, 2015; Nazir, Akram, Arshad, 2014; Cowan 2014; Zhou, 2014). The authors mention directive leadership, supportive leadership, participation-centred leadership, performance-centred leadership, reminding Blanchard's situational leadership, transactional leadership and transformational or authentic leadership. In the era Web 2.0+ also e-leadership, intergroup-leadership, remote-leadership, shared-leadership, or distributed- leadership are more and more popular (Leduchowska, Wujec, 2011, 28; Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, Bergman, 2012, 17-42; Hoch, 2013, 159-174; Bolden, 2011, 251-269; Small, Rentsch, 2010, 203-211). Some researchers specialising in the subject even claim that leadership is highly mythologised and overestimated (Platow, Haslam, Reicher, Steffens 2015). Regardless of the multitude of views on the leadership, it should be remembered that bosses are the architects of their careers and authors of their scenarios. If we want to cast others in the roles written by us, we transform life into theatre. Unless we

49

realise that, we will be architects of our failures (Kets de Vries, 2003, 274). Leadership is a kind of art. Managers must be aware of the role they play, a very important one. They must keep in mind that their employees expect from their superiors certain qualities which make them eligible to hold a managerial position. And the superiors must finally realise that the level of satisfaction of people at work, their commitment and motivation is directly affected by their own level of satisfaction, commitment and motivation, which is evidenced in the following quote: "Why so few managers are able to motivate their employees? Because they themselves do not fully identify themselves with the company and, therefore, lack the decisive element - power of persuasion. How can you effectively persuade someone to do something that you yourself don't really believe in? Imagine that you are a dealer in a Mercedes showroom, but deep in your heart you believe that BMW are better cars. How can you sell a Mercedes without having implanted in your conscious that it is the best product? You will surly not perform well and no one will positively evaluate your work…. If you are not deeply convinced that your goals are reasonable and your work makes sense, you will not be able to arouse enthusiasm in your employees; consequently, you will not be able to motivate or mobilise them to be more effective”(Enkelmann, 2000, 30). 4 The level of manager’s motivation determining subordinate’s motivation It is impossible to motivate others when you are not motivated yourself (Denny, 1999, 20). It becomes impossible when the circumstances do not support motivating others. It is tragic that the majority of managers fails to perform self-evaluation – they fear the truth and they fear to admit that they are the reason for the lack of motivation. (Denny, 1999, 70). People’s motivation to work may be affected by many features of a manager, including: Manager’s character, personality, temper, management style, communication method, conflict management and others (Bucur, 2012; Garbers, Konradt, 2014). However, managers often tend to forget about their motivation to work. Managers expect their people’s high commitment, loyalty to the organisation, honesty and integrity, responsibility and the ability to look for solutions of various problems. Unfortunately, they are not always a good example for their staff. “Compare two high mountain climbers fighting to get to the top of a high mountain. The first one is an enthusiast, spending every free minute of his life in the mountains. The other one took up climbing as a whim and now he must continue only to keep up the pace. The fan of mountain climbing is happy to train and prepare for taking the challenge and then concentrates on the goal and attacks the mountain top. The other one though is counting the time, gets tired with very step, consumes too much energy and it slows him down. In fact, he is not motivated and, because it is so hard for him to make the effort, he’s exhausted long before reaching the top. Motivation turns impossible into possible.” (Enkelman, 2000, 31), so what motivate contemporary managers? Relevant empirical research were inspired by the attempt to answer this question. 5 Effective factors in enhancing managers’ job motivation- research methodology The empirical research was conducted among 150 lower, medium and top level managers working in 28 countries around the world. Respondents represented Poland, the USA and Canada (marked jointly as the USA on the graphs), Europe (except for Poland), Singapore, New Zealand, Bangladesh (marked as “Miscallenous”), different age, level of education, position, form of the property of the enterprise, number of employees working in the enterprise, sector. The research was aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the impact each tool had on the managers’ motivation. The author’s research questionnaire, in electronic version, was the analytical tool applied in the research process. Respondents were asked to score 47 incentive tools (motivators) divided into 3 groups tangible financial tools (A1-16), tangible non-financial tools (B1-B16) and intangible tools (C1-C25). The impact of each incentive tool was assessed with the Likert scale (scoring 1 to 5). The research sample

50

considerably differentiated in terms of the assumed diversity categories, which seems of particular importance in the light of the theme of the research. The fact-based material collected in the research was analysed on the basis of ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis test to determine any statistical variance of dependencies between environment-related factors and the weight of each incentive in groups made for the purpose of the research. The significance level of α=0.05 was assumed for the purpose of the research. It is assumed that:

• when p < 0.05, a statistically significant dependence occurs (marked with *); • when p < 0.01, a highly significant dependence occurs (**); • when p < 0.001, a very highly significant dependence occurs (**);

Below main results are presented. 6 Presentation of the research results

The research process delivered some important information on the types of motivators preferred by managers and the degree of their motivating impact. See their detailed presentation on figures 1-3. The list of the most motivated instruments according to the respondents’ opinions present tables 1-3 summarizing the key research conclusions in more clearly version.

Figure 1: Effectiveness of the motivators according to the lowest management

Source: Own study.

000

001

001

002

002

003

003

004

004

005

005A1

A2 A3A4

A5A6

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13B14

B15B16

C1C2C3C4C5

C6C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

C13

C14

C15

C16

C17

C18

C19

C20

C21C22

C23C24 C25

Poland

USA

Europe

51

Figure 2: Effectiveness of the motivators according to the medium level management

Source: Own study

000

001

001

002

002

003

003

004

004

005

005A1

A2 A3A4

A5A6

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14B15

B16C1C2C3C4

C5C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

C13

C14

C15

C16

C17

C18

C19

C20

C21C22

C23C24 C25

Poland

USA

Europe

Others

52

Figure 3: Effectiveness of the motivators according to the top management

Source: Own study

000

001

001

002

002

003

003

004

004

005

005A1

A2 A3A4

A5

A6

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14B15

B16C1C2C3C4

C5C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

C13

C14

C15

C16

C17

C18

C19

C20

C21

C22C23

C24 C25

Poland

USA

Europe

Others

53

Table 1: The most efficient motivators according to the low level managers’ opinions

MOTIVATOR NUMBER

MOTIVATOR

THE MOTIVATOR EFFICIENCY ESTIMATION

Low level managers- POLAND

C1 Job security 4,54

C23 Good relations with the line manager 4,38 A1 Basic salary 4,38

Low level managers - USA

C15 Flexi time 4,62

C19

Independent decision-making, independence in performance of work

tasks

4,31

C14 Work content (types of tasks/ responsibilities)

4,31

Low level managers - EUROPE

C15 Flexi time 4,83 C12 Opportunities to demonstrate one’s

initiative, creativity 4,83

C6 Good relations with co-workers 4,83 Source: own elaboration

54

Table 2: The most efficient motivators according to the medium level managers’ opinion

MOTIVATOR NUMBER

MOTIVATOR

THE MOTIVATOR EFFICIENCY ESTIMATION

Medium level managers - POLAND

A6 Promotion with a salary raise 4,56 C1 Job security 4,52 C9 Promotion opportunities 4,42

Medium level managers - USA

C19 Independent decision-making,

independence in performance of work tasks

4,29

C15 Flexi time 4,29

C16 Recognised importance of the life-work

balance (employee’s time off work respected)

4,14

Medium level managers - EUROPE

C9 Promotion opportunities 4,57 C6 Good relations with co-workers 4,57

C23 Good relations with the line manager 4,43

Medium level managers - “OTHERS”

C19

Independent decision-making, independence in performance of work

tasks

3,0

C18 Well-organized work 3,0

C17 Work safety and comfort (modern

equipment, ergonomic work stations, comfort)

3,0

Source: own elaboration

55

Table 3: The most efficient motivators according to the top level managers’ opinions

MOTIVATOR NUMBER

MOTIVATOR

THE MOTIVATOR EFFICIENCY ESTIMATION

Top management- POLAND

C18 Well-organized work 4,55 C9 Promotion opportunities 4,45 C1 Job security 4,45

Top management- USA

C19 Independent decision-making,

independence in performance of work tasks

4,83

C14 Work content (types of tasks/ responsibilities)

4,83

C20

Participation in the process of managing an organization, personal influence on

matters of key importance for the organization

4,67

Top management- EUROPE

C20 Participation in the process of managing an organization, personal influence on

matters of key importance for the organization

5,0

C19

Independent decision-making, independence in performance of work

tasks

5,0

C12 Opportunities to demonstrate one’s initiative, creativity

5,0

Top management- “OTHERS”

C6 Good relations with co-workers 5,0

B10 Private medical services for employees and their families

5,0

C23 Good relations with the line manager 4,67 Source: own elaboration The data illustrated on figures 1-3 shows that the lowest level managers considered intangible tools the most effective when it comes to motivating them, including: C1 „Job security” (4.54) - Poland, C15 “Flexi time” (4.62) - the USA and C15 “Flexi time” (4.83) - Europe. The medium level managers specified other most effective motivators: A6 “Promotion with a salary raise” (4.56) - Poland, C19 “Independent decision-making, independence in performance of work tasks” (4.29) – the USA, C9 “Promotion opportunities” (4.57) - Europe and C19 “Independent decision-making, independence in performance of work tasks” (3.0) - “Miscellaneous”. The top level managers appreciated the most, the

56

tools such as: C18 “Well-organised work” (4.55) - Poland, C19 “Independent decision-making, independence in performance of work tasks” (4.83) - USA, C20 “Participation in the process of managing an organisation, personal influence on matters of key importance for the organization” (5.0) - Europe and C6 “Good relations with co-workers” (5.0)- “Miscellaneous”. 7 Final conclusions Individualised human needs (their variety) necessitates fine-tuning of management tools, including motivation. It is an important task which determines the effectiveness of the process to manage an organisation as a whole. Appreciation, understanding and application of solutions which recognise employment diversity in organisations is a task which requires particular competences and deep understanding. The empiric research involving respondents from 28 countries of the world delivered many interesting conclusions picturing needs of contemporary managers. The extremely interesting conclusion is that, irrespective of the respondent’s place of living, all managers ranked intangible tools as the tools having the most effective influence of their work motivation. Such conclusion should bring some optimism, in particular to those with limited financial means. It should also inspire reflection on the place of intangible tools of motivation in our organisation and prompt us to give them more attention at times. Salary did not come to the top of the ranking contrary to the popular belief that we are best motivated by pay. In addition, note that non-financial tangible tools were equally unappreciated by respondents which could be important news to employers. The research results lead also to the next conclusion, that motivators important for the low level managers are very similar to that important for the top level. It’s really very interesting. Maybe not the work position is a key factor influencing the level of employee motivation, but something else. The analysis leaves many questions unanswered, which, undoubtedly, inspires researches to continuing deliberations over the issues covered by the paper. References Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., and Schaufeli, W. B. 2011. ‘Workplace bullying and its relation with

work characteristics, personality, and post-traumatic stress symptoms: an integrated model.’ Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 24 (5): 499–513.

Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., and Bergman, S. M, 2012. ‘The Shared Leadership Process in Decision-Making Teams.’, The Journal of Social Psychology 152 (1).

Blikle, A. J. 2014. Doktryna jakości. Rzecz o skutecznym zarządzaniu. Helion: Gliwice. Boddy, C. R. 2014. ‘Corporate Psychopaths, Conflict, Employee Affective Well-Being and

Counterproductive Work Behaviour.’ J Bus Ethics 121. Bolden, R. 2011. ‘Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research.’

International Journal of Management Reviews 13 (3). Bucur, I. 2012. ‘The role of managerial motivation in predicting management performance.’

Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 4. Cooper, D. 2015. ‘Effective Safety Leadership. Understanding Types&Styles That Improve Safety

Performance.’ ProfessionalSafety, February 2015. Cowan, L. D. 2014. ‘E-leadership: Leading in a virtual environment- guiding principles for nurse

leaders.’ Nursing Economics 32 (6). Darling, K., Arm, J., and Gatlin, R. 1997. ‘How to effectively reward employees?’ Industrial

Management 7–8. Denny, R. 1999. Motywowanie do zwycięstwa. Kraków: IFC Press.

57

Deter, J. R., and Burris, E.R. 2007. ‘Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open?’ Academy of Management Journal 50 (4).

Drucker, P. F. 2001. Myśli przewodnie Druckera. MT Biznes: Warszawa. Engelbrecht, S., Heine G., and Mahembe, B. 2014. ‘The influence of ethical leadership on trust and

work engagement: An exploratory study.’ South African Journal of Industrial Psychology 40 (1). Enkelmann, N. B. 2000. Charyzma. Jak osiągnąć sukces doskonaląc własną osobowość. Studio Emka:

Warszawa. Gallup Institute. 2013. State of The Global Workplace. Employee Engagement Insights For Business

Leaders Worldwide. Gallup Institute. Garbers, Y,. and Konradt, U. 2014. ‘The effect of financial incentives on perfomanc. A quantitative

review of individual and team-based financial incentives.’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 87.

Hale, J. 1998. ‘Strategic rewards: keeping your best talent from walking out the door.’ Compensation and Benefits Management, Summer 1998.

Hoch, J. E. 2013. ‘Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee Integrity.’ Journal of Business & Psychology 28 (2).

Ketz de Vries, M. F. R. 2003. ‘Błędy dowodzenia.’In: Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi dla studiów MBA, edited by J. Pickford, K. E.Liber S.C., Warszawa.

Kisperska-Moroń, D. 2008. ‘Współczesne kierunki nauk o zarządzaniu.’ In: Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Zarządzania Ochroną Pracy, Katowice, nr 1(4).

Kormancová, G,. and Theodoulides, L. 2013. ‘The intercultural dimensions of the cultures in transition process in Central and Eastern Europe.’ In: Zborník vedeckých statí: Contemporary Challenges towards Management III., Uniwersytet Slaski v Katoviciach, Poľsko, Katovice 2013.

Leduchowska, Ż., and Wujec, B. 2011. ‘Zespół w cyberprzestrzeni’, Personel i zarządzanie.’ 7 (256). Lester, P. B., Hannah, S. T., Harms, P. D., Vogelgesang, G. R., and Avolio B. J. 2011. ‘Mentoring

Impact on Leader Efficacy Development: A Field Experiment.’ Academy of Management 10 (3). Luu, L., and Hattrup, K. 2010. ‘An investigation of country differences in the relationship between job

satisfaction and turnover intentions.’ Applied H.R.M. Research 12 (1). Mainemelis, Ch. 2010. ‘Stealing fire: creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas.’ Academy of

Management Review 35 (4). Malhotra, D., and Lumineau, F. 2011. ‘Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: the effects

of contract structure.’ Academy of Management Journal 54 (5). McTernan, W. P., Dollard, M. F., and LaMontagne, A. D. 2013. ‘Depression in the workplace: An

economic cost analysis of depression- related productivity loss attributable to job strain and bullying.’ Work and Stress 27 (4).

Nazir, A., Akram, M. S., and Arshad, M. 2014.‘Exploring the mediating role of CSR practices among leadership styles and job satisfaction.’ Pakistan Journal of Science 66 (4).

Neall, A. N., and Tuckey M. R. 2014. ‘A methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment.’ Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 87 (2).

Nelson, B. 1997. ‘Low-cost ways to energize employees.’ HR Magazine 12. Nieckarz, Z. 2011. Psychologia motywacji w organizacji. DIFIN: Warszawa. Nielsen, M. B., and Einarsen, S. 2012. ‘Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic

review.’ Work and Stress 26 (4). Platow, M .J., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., and Steffens, N. K. 2015. There is no leadership if no-

one follows: Why leadership is necessarily a group process.’ International Coaching Psychology Review 10 (1).

Report Hay Group. 2015. available at http://www.outsourcingportal.pl/pl/outsourcing/badania-i-raporty/nieelastyczni-liderzy-obnizaja-motywacje-swoich-pracownikow.html#sthash.bsivsgdL.dpuf (April 30, 2015).

58

Report: ‘WorkForce 2020’, available at: http://www.news-sap.com/top-10-strategic-trends-workforce-2020-oxford-economics/#sthash.JxBwOo1P.dpuf (April 30, 2015).

Reychav, I., and Sharkie, R. 2010. ‘Trust: an antecedent to employee extra-role behaviour.’ Journal of Intellectual Capital 11 (4).

Small, E .E., and Rentsch, J. R. 2010. ‘Shared Leadership in Teams: A Matter of Distribution.’ Journal of Personnel Psychology 9 (4).

Srivastava, A., and Adams, J. W. 2011. ‘Relationship Between Cinicism and Job Satisfaction: Exploration of Mechanisms.’ Psychological Reports 108 (1).

Stockdale, M. S., and Crosby, F. J. 2009. ‘The psychology of management of workplace diversity, leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture.’ Journal of Business Ethics 90.

Tabak, F. 1997. ‘Employee creative performance: what makes it happen?’ Academy of Management Executive 1.

Trepanier, S.G., Fernet, C., and Stéphanie A. 2013. ‘Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: The mediating role of satisfaction of nee.ds for autonomy, competence and relatedness.’ Work and Stress 27 (2).

Yi, Y., Zhou, E., Li, C., and Yan, Y. 2015. ‘Power Distance Orientation and Employee Help Seeking: Trust in Supervisor as a Mediato.r’ Social Behavior and Personality 43 (6).

Zhang, Z., Wand, M., and Shi, J. 2012. ‘Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: the mediating role of leader-member exchange.’,The Academy of Management Journal 55 (1).

Zhou, J. 2014. ‘Mediating role of employee emotions in the relationship between authentic leadership and employee innovation.’ Social Behaviour &Personality 42 (8).

59

Annex List of motivators

Type MOTIVATOR A1 Basic salary A2 Monthly bonus A3 Yearly bonus A4 Cash reward A5 Stock, stock options A6 Promotion with a salary raise B1 Subsidised summer vacations B2 Cinema, theatre tickets, gym & fitness

B3

Special assistance loans/benefits

B4

Low-interest loans

B5

Subsidised summer vacation camps for employees’ children

B6

Company car, also available for private use

B7

Company laptop and cell phone, also for private use

B8

Subsidised meals/snack/beverages (cafeteria)

B9

Additional insurance available to employees and their family members

B10

Private medical services for employees and their families

B11

Financing creche or preschool

B12 Fully or partly financed training events and courses

B13

Financing or co-financing vocational learning, undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate studies, MBA, foreign language courses

B14 Scholarships and grants

B15

Financing membership fees in a local and international professional and business

associations

B16

Financing business trips (flights in business class and accommodation in 3-star or higher standard

accommodation, entertainment allowance) C1 Job security C2 Company reputation and prestige

C3

The fact that the company I work for is socially responsible (cares for employees’ and its

environment)

C4

The fact that company manages variety and all employees are treated equally regardless of

gender, age, education, sexual orientation and

60

disability status, etc. C5 Friendly atmosphere at work C6 Good relations with co-workers C7 Work with interesting people C8 Clearly defined career path (clearly defined

promotion criteria) C9 Promotion opportunities

C10

Professional development opportunities (easy access to training courses, participation in

congresses, trade fairs, etc.) C11 Self-fulfilment opportunities (achieving one’s

dreams, aspirations; job satisfaction) C12 Opportunities to demonstrate one’s initiative,

creativity C13 Prestige coming from the position occupied in

the organisation C14 Work content (types of tasks/ responsibilities) C15 Flexi time

C16

Recognised importance of the life-work balance (employee’s time off work respected)

C17

Work safety and comfort (modern equipment, ergnonomic work stations, comfort)

C18 Well-organised work

C19 Independent decision-making, independence in

performance of work tasks

C20 Participation in the process of managing an

organisation, personal influence on matters of key importance for the organisation

C21 Praise and recognition on the part of line manager/s

C22 Excellent performance recognised in public C23 Good relations with the line manager

C24

Swift and clear feedback from the line manager (clear instructions/orders and freedback on

performance) C25 Showing interest in personal problems of

employees, making the effort to solve them

61