(Nresignation from last Saturday)
We will add that, among other things, the psychology of achievement requires an honest approach to every job, which is also implied when it comes to writing, reviewing, publishing, promoting and presenting any book. Is this the case with the book “Motivation for Achievement in Organizations”? It hasn’t been so far. It hasn’t, despite the fact that its rather attractive promotion at the Faculty of Philosophy would imply that it is.
Well, let's get on with our presentation.
1/2. Since, as we have seen, they started with the question “What is MOP...?”, the authors immediately forget this question and in neither the first nor the second chapter (and the second deals with “social and organizational conditions that situate motivation in organizations” which is also the title) do they ever remember it, but instead, they “situate” general phrases about motivations and organizations in which “egalitarian tendencies survive for so long after self-management socialism”, without realizing how “important it is... to problematize the quality of management work for human resources management”. It is not at all difficult to agree with these authors when they use such general phrases and when they lament, for example, that “candidates for top organizational managers are still selected more on the basis of political suitability than on the basis of competence” and that “there is an increasing number of self-proclaimed leaders who, when 'impoverish' (underlined MS to congratulate the authors on the expression) in these positions become universal wisdom and a dominant factor in the movement of social and organizational culture, which often leads to demotivation and dissatisfaction of employed followers”. Or, again, when they talk about “criteria... personal interests, obedience, friendly and godfather lines”. Well, everyone will agree with that, except perhaps a few friends, godfathers or relatives who, in professional terms, have “got it wrong”. And what then, when all this is so and when, after all, almost everyone knows that all this is so? The real question is what then needs to be done and what can we do; the psychology of achievement has the answers, but it must be known.
Since they have not touched upon the psychology of achievement as a well-founded discipline in a single word, with the exception of one word in the first title, in order to "situate MOP in organizations" and then, possibly, formulate a psychological problem, our authors, like some lost travelers-wanderers without a compass, go to different "addresses" and knock on different doors, and thus write the third chapter in a row:
3. "The importance of achievement motivation viewed in light of relevant theories" to engage in some kind of presentation and consideration of three groups of several theories each, which, however, with the exception of two out of ten theories from the third group, although they fill lines and pages, are not at all relevant to achievement motivation which, to emphasize again, as a psychological construct, is not defined at all in the book. But in any case, here they are: a) theories about human nature b) theories about career choice and c) Personality theories - all these theories are therefore treated by the authors as relevant to something they have not said anything about, have not said anything about so far, and will not say so until the end of the book, and of course, not until the end of this chapter.
to a) theories about human nature (and thus these four in the book) theories are of the broadest scope, while achievement theory is not such but rather a narrower scope theory, and as is well known from experience and metatheory, seeking the relevance of one theory to another is not particularly productive and is almost futile, especially since MOP is not explained here in the slightest degree. The only thing that could have been done in this context, but was not, was to point out that, since it is not an innate component of human nature, it is necessary for MOP to be socialized and, if one is already going that way, to also point out such micro-structures as the family and such super-structures as culture and school, and to not phrase but point out specific variables and factors that operate in the function of such socialization and, of course, to support all of this with empirical research and evidence. But, I say, nothing similar to that has been done in the book.
ad b) when speaking about choosing a profession, No theories about this in the context of achievement are of particular importance, the only important thing here is the empirical finding about what kind of occupations are chosen by those who are “high” in MOP and what by those who are “low”, as well as an explanation of why this is so. But, again, that has not been done either.
ad c) personality theories, over ten of them, are "presented" in the shortest possible form and with such superficiality that it is impossible to see that they are of any use, as if it were some kind of abridged course for curious housewives, or even that there is any difference between scientific and lay psychology. After all, these theories (and here, as their authors, Freud, Erikson, Levin, Olport, Maslov, Rogers, Keli, from, Kettle, We are...) whether taken individually or juxtaposed, as here and in a child's drawing, have no relevance to the psychology of achievement and have no place in this book, even if they are better presented. The exceptions are Rogers' theory of self and Lewin's field theory, which have acquired their, admittedly, auxiliary function in one of the branches of achievement psychology (o tome: Atkinson, J. H.; Raynor, J. O.,: “Personality, Motivation, Achievement”). However, there is no such branch or such function in this book, but instead, a simplified and simple presentation of field theory is supported by one, equally simple drawing that aims to illustrate the banal claim that the “personality” is surrounded by the “psychological environment”, and this by the “physical world”. And, well (although it is not exactly directly correct), what about that claim further? This question is futile, since with field theory, from the given claim/drawing, this book does not go any further than to point out that “it would be logical... for organizations to engage experts (primarily work psychologists) who know how to perceive the nature of the influence... of the living or working space on the motivation of employees much more often”. Exactly, although, for my part, I must note, it is difficult to imagine that any expert can be become with the help of such books.
In its own way, it is interesting to what extent our authors, as professional psychologists, are able to trivialize psychology as both a profession and a science. For example, in addition to an amateurish presentation of humanistic theories, the book also says this: “if we consider the messages of these two humanistic theories, Allport’s trait theory and Maslow’s theory of needs (and in this place it was necessary to pay more attention to cases, prim MS), the problem of the list of characteristics and needs that we encounter in today's Montenegrin organizations is raised: First, the question is how wide a circle of employees is sufficiently qualified for the jobs they perform, how often are employees satisfied with things and phenomena in the organization, what percentage identifies with their organizations, in what sense do they feel secure in their profession, with sufficient self-esteem, and the like. The following questions follow: "how many employees today dream of having a decent salary, of solving the housing issue, of providing financial resources for children's education, of working in a team where interpersonal relations are good, of doing jobs that bring them the necessary income regardless of the fact that they do not provide them with professional development, and others". Here, then, is one, so far completely unknown interpretation of humanistic theories of personality which is, obviously, identical in both its form and its meaning to the order, announcement or program of some trade union organization. All other presented theories are interpreted in a similar way.
4. Next comes a new “address” and, fourth in line, a chapter "The role of social attitudes and values", quite nicely written and the best in the book, although very general, textbook chapter, without any presentation of specific positions whose role would be seen in the given context. However, since the context is not at all explicit here, such generality is completely in its place, i.e. it is one of the superfluous chapters in this "theoretical approach", although it is less superfluous than the other chapters. And, of course: about MOP, again nothing!
(Continued next Saturday)
Bonus video:
