This Document Contains Chapters 5 to 6 Chapter 5 Foundations of Employee Motivation SOLUTIONS TO CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. Four-drive theory is conceptually different from Maslow’s needs hierarchy in several ways. Describe these differences. At the same time, needs are based on drives, so the four drives should parallel the seven needs that Maslow identified (five in the hierarchy and two additional needs). Map Maslow’s needs onto the four drives in four-drive theory. Answer: While the four-drive theory reinforces the view of Maslow in that needs are part of human nature, it differs significantly in some respects. First, it avoids the assumption that everyone has the same needs hierarchy. Second, it considers how situation, personal experience, and cultural values affect one’s intensity, persistence and direction of effort. Third, four-drive theory clarifies the role of emotional intelligence with respect to motivation and behavior. For example, employees with high EI are more sensitive to their own drives and are better able to avoid impulsive behavior. We can map Maslow’s needs onto the four-drive theory in the following ways: Drive to acquire. This is the drive to seek, take control, and retain objects and personal experiences. This relates to physiological needs (Maslow), and forms the foundation for competition and our need for esteem (Maslow). Drive to bond. This is the drive to form social relationships and develop mutual caring commitments with others. This relates to belongingness (Maslow). Drive to learn. This is the drive to satisfy one’s curiosity, to know and understand ourselves and the environment around us. This relates to the higher order needs of self-actualization (Maslow). Drive to defend. This is the drive to protect ourselves physically and socially. This is the only drive that is reactive because it is triggered by a threat. Because the drive to defend also extends beyond protecting our physical self to defending our relationships and our belief systems it relates to safety, belongingness and esteem needs (Maslow). 2. Learned needs theory states that needs can be strengthened or weakened. How might a company strengthen the achievement needs of its management team? Answer: McClelland’s learned needs theory identi2ies three needs. However, this question requires students to focus only on the need for achievement (nAch) and describe how it could be strengthened or weakened. This theory holds that needs can be strengthened via reinforcement, learning and social conditions. Therefore, answers should address these strategies in a workplace setting. A typical answer might refer to the following: Behavioral modelling. The company could develop programs where trainees observe and interact with high achievers and try to replicate their actions and thoughts. For instance, they might be asked to write achievement oriented stories, or practice achievement-oriented behaviors in various types of simulations. They could also learn how to develop and write achievement plans. Provide Reinforcement. Employees could be encouraged to engage in more achievement– oriented behaviors, if the company provided a combination of effective feedback and recognition. The recognition could take the form of awards, praise, time off, or monetary incentives. Social conditions. The company could strive to establish an environment where achievement is celebrated by supervisors, and peers. Some group incentives for reaching certain objectives could be put in place to socialize success among groups of employees. 3. Two friends who have just completed an organizational behavior course at another university inform you that employees must fulfill their need for self-esteem and social esteem before they can reach their full potential through self-actualization. What theory are these friends referring to? How does their statement differ from what you learned about that theory in this chapter? Answer: These two people are referring to Maslow’s needs hierarchy, and their statement suggests that they were taught that the theory was accurate. Yet Maslow’s needs hierarchy was rejected more than a quarter century ago. More recently, experts are forming the view that humanity does not have a single universal hierarchy of needs. Instead, a person’s hierarchy varies with their self-concept, particularly personal values and social identity. Thus, when a person fulfills his/her need for esteem, they might move on to another need than self-actualization. 4. You just closed a deal with an organizational client, and this helps you achieve the target that was set for you by the unit. Use expectancy theory to discuss how the events that will follow may increase your motivation and engagement. Answer: Expectancy theory states that work effort is directed towards behaviors that people believe will lead to desired outcomes. It has three components. First, the belief that effort will lead to a level of performance, which you did believe and were able to achieve in this case. Second, the belief that performance will lead to outcomes and third, that outcomes will lead to anticipated satisfaction. Now, if there were some rewards/ outcomes that you expected as a result of this performance and they were actually realized, it will increase your motivation. However, beyond the realization of outcomes, it is also important how much the outcomes matter to you, all of these things together will increase your engagement and motivation. 5. Describe a situation in which you used organizational behavior modification to influence someone’s behavior. What specifically did you do? What was the result? Answer: Ask students to reflect on their experiences with influencing the behavior of another person. It may be helpful to encourage students to first describe the behavior they wanted to see demonstrated before considering what they did to influence the demonstration of the behavior. The following steps are intended to serve as an outline: Ask students to specifically describe what behavior they wanted the person to demonstrate. Identify events or cues they used to increase the likelihood the desired behavior would be demonstrated. Identify what they did after the desired behavior was demonstrated to influence its future occurrence. Discussion may also be generated regarding how they felt about the use of behavior modification as a means to influence behavior. Also, ask student to discuss how they felt about the use of behavior modification as a means to influence behavior. Some students may suggest we all practice behavior modification on a day-to-day basis e. g. when we thank someone for something they did, however, encourage students to raise issues about ethical concerns – e. g. is behavior modification a form of manipulation? I used organizational behavior modification to improve teamwork within my project group by implementing a reward system for collaboration and timely completion of tasks. I established clear goals, provided regular feedback, and offered incentives such as recognition and small rewards. As a result, team members became more engaged, communication improved, and we achieved our project objectives more efficiently. 6. Using your knowledge of the characteristics of effective goals, establish two meaningful goals related to your performance in this class. Answer: Six conditions to maximize task effort and performance are identified. Effective goals should reflect each of the following elements. Specific. A specific goal communicate precise outcome expectations Relevant. Relates to the individual’s role and is within his/her control Challenging. Goal that is challenging enough to stretch the employee’s abilities and motivation toward peak performance Goal commitment. Commitment exists to accomplishing the goal Goal participation. Individual (sometimes) participates in setting the goal Goal feedback. Information that people receive about the consequences of their behavior Students should be encouraged to write draft goal statements and then working in small groups or with a partner, refine their draft goal statements to ensure each of the above criteria are applied. Each goal statement needs to reflect the individual’s current level of performance, knowledge etc. For example, what is challenging to one student may be unattainable, therefore, de-motivating to another student. 1. Improve my understanding of key concepts in organizational behavior by actively participating in class discussions and seeking clarification on challenging topics. 2. Enhance my critical thinking and analytical skills by consistently completing assigned readings, summarizing key points, and applying them to real-world scenarios discussed in class. 7. Most people think they are “worth more” than they are paid. Furthermore, most employees seem to feel that they exhibit better leadership skills and interpersonal skills than others. Please comment on this human tendency. Answer: When people believe that the “average is above average”, this is not rational! When people in general are asked if they are “better than average” or below average, most tend to respond better than average. That isn’t statistically likely! We also know from studies of the military, that 90% of all US Officers in the US Navy think they’re in the top l0% of US Officers in the US Navy. Again…statistically improbable! The same holds true for leadership skills and interpersonal skills. Try finding anyone who thinks they’re below average in interpersonal skills. This nonrational nature of human nature is what makes many motivational programs demoralizing, and dehumanizing. If I think I’m better than average and you’re trying to “correct” my self-concept of myself, the likely outcome will be one of frustration and most likely disbelief. When we extrapolate to the realm of pay, equity theory is spot on in explaining why we think we’re underpaid vis-à-vis our coworkers. 8. A large organization has hired you as a consultant to identify day-to-day activities for middle managers to minimize distributive and procedural injustice. The company explains that employees have complained about distributive injustice because they have different opinions about what is fair (equity, equality, need) and what outcomes and inputs have the greatest value. They also experience procedural injustice due to misperceptions and differing expectations. Given these ambiguities, what would you recommend to middle managers? Answer: The answer to this question can be partitioned into distributive and procedural justice practices for middle managers: Distributive justice: The incident states that employees have different opinions about preferences for equity, equality, and need, as well as weightings of inputs and outcomes. these are common problems, and can be difficult to resolve. The first step for managers is to gain a clearer understanding of what employees expect and value. To the extent that they have any control over distribution of resources (pay, job assignments, work schedules, etc), managers can look for preferred distributive criteria. For instance, if most employees recognize that vacation schedules should be based on equality (rather than equity or need), then managers can set up these schedules around equality (such as random selection when several people want the same time off). It is also important that managers point out the criteria used for these resource allocations so they are clearly understood. Regarding the different weighting of inputs and outcomes, managers face a difficult situation due to the many possible inputs and outcomes combined with the many employees. One action is to make it clear what criteria are used for resources -- e. g. the better desks/offices are assigned to employee based on their seniority. These criteria should have some support among employees and need to be justified to the others. Managers also need to understand individual employee outcome preferences so if there discretion in resource allocation, managers can give employees more outcomes that they desire. This potentially maintains equity with other employees, yet the recipient employee might even feel overrewarded because the outcome is more valuable to that person. Procedural Justice: Procedural justice is somewhat less complicated to apply because research has identified several distinct factors that seem to universally improve perceptions of procedural justice. Voice: A top priority is to give the employee who feels under rewarded an opportunity to speak up about his or her complaint and offer reasons for that complaint. Perceived as unbiased: Managers must not create incidents that others may misinterpret as favoritism (e. g. , spending more time with one or two employees; seeing some employees socially after work); Rely on complete and accurate information: Managers need to demonstrate that they are familiar with all aspects of the decision, including counterarguments to their decision; Apply existing policies consistently: Managers need avoid exceptions to the rules of resource and reward allocation; Listen to all sides of the dispute: Managers need to demonstrate attentiveness to everyone who presents their complaint, comments, or ideas regarding the issue; Explain the decision: Managers need to have sound explanations for their decision, and actively communicate those explanations to employees affected by the decision; Right to appeal the decision to a higher authority: Employees who feel under rewarded by the decision should have the right to provide their arguments to a higher authority (e. g. the boss’s boss) if the above actions do not resolve the matter. CASE STUDY: PREDICTING HARRY’S WORK EFFORT Case Synopsis This case presents an interview with Harry, an employee who works in an undisclosed job. The interviewer asks Harry various questions about his job, all of which are directed toward elements of the expectancy theory of motivation model. The information provided enables students to figure out whether Harry is motivated to engage in a high or lower level of effort in his job. Suggested Answers to Discussion Question 1. Use the expectancy theory model to predict Harry’s motivation to achieve high or acceptable performance in his job. Identify and discuss the factors that influence this motivation. Answer: Students should work systematically through the three elements of expectancy theory to reach their conclusion. The effort level scores are calculated by multiplying each valence by the appropriate P-to-O expectancy, summing these results, then multiplying the sum by the E-to-P expectancy. The results are presented in the exhibit below. The result is that Harry is more motivated to exert lower effort (. 816) than high effort (. 621). (Note: These values become . 896 and . 711 if the valence of a secure job is 1. 0 rather than 0. 9.) Effort-to-performance expectancy: All expectancies are probabilities ranging from 0 (no chance) to 1. 0 (definitely will occur). The E-to-P expectancies are explicitly stated in the interview. Performance-to-outcome expectancy: Students need to first identify the outcomes that are salient to Harry. these seem to be job security, raise, promotion, and ridicule from coworkers. The P-to-O expectancies for raise and promotion are explicitly stated in the interview. The expectancy for ridicule in the high performance level is also explicitly stated. The expectancy of ridicule at the acceptable performance level is zero based on Harry’s statement that “the guys will not make fun of me” in that situation. A secure job has a 1. 0 expectancy at both performance levels because Harry “is certain” to keep his job if he works at either a high or acceptable performance level. Valences: Valence scores can have any equally-balanced range. the exhibit below uses the range from -1. 0 to +1. 0. Secure job is “the most important” outcome, so it is assigned at least the same value as ridicule (either . 9 or 1. 0). CASE STUDY: CINCINNATI SUPER SUBS Note: Cincinnati Super Subs is revision of the famous “Perfect Pizzeria” case, which was written by J. E. Dittrich and R. A. Zawacki Case Synopsis Cincinnati Super subs is one of 300 restaurant franchises throughout Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Each operation has one manager, an assistant manager, a few team leaders, and many employees (mostly college and high school students who work part-time). Most employees earn minimum wage. The manager and assistant manager get a bonus for keeping costs (wastage) low. However, employees raise costs by helping themselves to food, and by adding free ingredients when their friends order a sub. Errors are supposed to be charged back to the responsible employee, but the night manager rarely writes this up because of peer pressure. The manager tried to reduce costs by reducing the free food allowance only to staff who work six or more hours (most work less than that minimum), but employees still nibbled whenever the manager or assistant manager were away. Morale fell and about 20 percent of the experienced employees quit. The high turnover and resulting staff shortages required the manager and assistant manager to train staff and spend more time in food preparation (even managers are discouraged from working directly in food preparation.) Accidental wastage increased due to new staff but deliberate wastage feel while the managers were in the restaurant. However, wastage increased again almost immediately after the managers stepped back from daily operations. In response, the manager withdrew all free food allowance and threatened to fire employee caught consuming food. 1. What symptom(s) in this case suggest that something has gone wrong? Answer: An important symptom in this case is the high level of food wastage. another symptom is morale problems -- employees were dissatisfied with their benefits (no more free food allowed) and management. Similarly, Cincinnati Super subs suffered from poor employee-management relations. Valued employees quit. The restaurant experienced lower productivity due to inexperienced staff hired and staff shortages. Employee loyalty is very low. Employees remain with the company only due to continuance commitment. 2. What are the main causes of these symptoms? Answer: (a) Lack of Motivation to Minimize Food Costs. The level of food wastage at Cincinnati Super Subs was high because employees had little motivation to reduce food costs. This can be explained in terms of the P-to-O expectancy in expectancy theory. Employees received several positive outcomes from the high food wastage. They enjoyed eating the free food (+). They enjoyed the support of their peers for taking food (+). Employees also fulfilled their social needs (drive to bond) and possibly need for status (drive to acquire) by giving free ingredients to their friends (+). Lastly, employees seem to feel inequity in their level of pay relative to other people in the labor market and compared with their previous rewards (better free food allowance). They redressed their feelings of inequity by taking food (+). There were few negative consequences of keeping food costs high. The manager’s threat of dismissals wasn’t very effective because some employees didn’t value the job anyway (i. e. , some quit) and others probably didn’t believe (low P-to-O expectancy) that the manager could fire them. Specifically, most employees were taking food, and the manager couldn’t fire everyone. Employees perceived almost no positive outcomes of keeping food costs low. They received no rewards contingent on food costs. They apparently weren’t praised by the manager for keeping food costs low (and, in any event, relations were so poor that any praise wouldn’t have much valence.) Employees perceived negative outcomes of keeping food costs low. They would receive peer pressure from other employees. Their friends might be critical, thereby leaving relatedness needs unfulfilled. (b) Team Leaders Lacked Motivation (and Power) The team leaders were given legitimate power by the company, but employees continued to eat and give away food because they had more power over the team leader (ostracizing at school) than the team leader had over them. (NOTE: This part of the case analysis refers to concepts beyond this chapter -- see Chapter 10.) Team leaders had legitimate power, but they did not exercise that authority due to risk of ostracism and, in any, event, employees would reject the team leader’s legitimate power over them. Team leaders also had reward and coercive power in the sense that they could write up reports of food wastage. However, these team leaders were not motivated to complete these reports. Expectancy theory provides an explanation for this lack of motivation. The night manager apparently didn’t receive any positive outcomes for writing up the reports. No bonus went to the night manager. The night manager received less than minimum wage, so it is likely that he/she felt inequitably rewarded (and possibly took some food). There were also negative outcomes of writing up these reports. The night manager valued friendships with some of the employees, so relatedness needs would be threatened if reports were written. (c) Ineffective Use of Punishment. This case clearly illustrates the problems with using punishment to change behavior, as well as the negative consequences of punishment. The manager’s use of punishment strained relations with employees. Another problem with punishment that is apparent in this case is that it is usually effective only when the source of punishment is nearby. As soon as the manager stopped working in the restaurant, employees returned to their previous behaviors of eating and giving away free food. This case also illustrates the problem that punishment creates disruptions in work activities. When employees quit due to the punishment imposed (reduced food allowance), the managers had to help with food preparation and train several new people. These disruptions undoubtedly disrupted the work flow and increased production costs. 3. What actions should Cincinnati Super Subs’ managers take to correct these problems? Answer: One of the most important solutions to this case is to link food costs (wastage) to employee rewards. This would motivate employees to reduce wastage and may reduce their feelings of inequity. One strategy would be to offer employees a bonus on their salary based on achieving specific food wastage targets for the month. Depending on the ability to collect more precise food wastage data, the manager might link food wastage on each work shift to bonuses for employees working on that shift. This would further strengthen the P-to-O expectancy. Bonuses would probably work best because employees feel they are underpaid relative to others in the labor market. However, the manager might first consider using token awards, such as t-shirts, free subs coupons, or challenges with rewards donated to the school or some other cause. It will be difficult to completely restore employee-manager relations in the short term. However, some actions may help. The manager would certainly improve relations somewhat by removing threats and other sources of punishment, except for the most serious infractions. The manager might also let employees create special social events on or off the job. This will be difficult at first, but employees might support them over time. (Example: the restaurant might have a special “top hat” sub promotion in which employees wear top hats and customers get a discount for one premium sub with the works.) This would improve social bonding among employees and improve loyalty to the company. It might improve employee management relations if the manager gets involved and is seen as the source of these positive events. Cincinnati Super Subs needs to rethink the team leader’s role. It is evident that peer pressure and lack of legitimate power (in the eyes of employees) makes the team leader’s duties of reporting food wastage unreasonable. Fortunately, the performance-based reward system for employees should minimize the need for supervision. If the team leader needs a power base for his/her role, then the company should consider hiring people who are not as closely associated with the employees, are paid more, receive a bonus for minimizing food wastage, and have reward and coercive power over employees. CLASS EXERCISE: NEEDS PRIORITY EXERCISE Purpose This class exercise is designed to help students understand employee needs in the workplace. Instructions (Small Class) Step 1: The table below lists in alphabetical order 16 characteristics of the job or work environment. Working alone, use the far-left column to rank-order the importance of these characteristics to you personally. Write in “1” beside the most important characteristic, “2” for the second most important, and so on through to “16” for the least important characteristic on this list. Step 2: Identify any three (3) of these work attributes that you believe have the largest score differences between Generation Y (Millennial) male and female postsecondary students (i. e. , those born in 1980 or after). Indicate which gender you think identifies that attribute as more important. Step 3: Students are assigned to teams, where they compare each other’s rank-order results as well as perceived gender differences in needs. Note reasons for the largest variations in rankings and be prepared to discuss these reasons with the entire class. Students should pay close attention to different needs, self-concepts, and various forms of diversity (culture, profession, age, etc.) within your class to identify possible explanations for any variation of results across students. Step 4: The instructor will provide results of a recent large-scale survey of Generation-Y/Millennial postsecondary students (i. e. born in 1980 or after). When these results are presented, identify the reasons for any noticeable differences in the class. Relate the differences to your understanding of the emerging view of employee needs and drives in work settings. For gender differences, discuss reasons why men and women might differ on these work-related attributes. Instructions (Large Class) Step 1 and Step 2: Same as above. Step 3: The instructor will ask students, by a show of hands (or use of classroom technology), to identify their top ranked attributes as well as the attributes believed to have the greatest gender differences among Gen-Yers. Step 4: Same as above. Comments to Instructors The items in this activity were surveyed to 23,413 millennial undergraduate university students. The results of that large-scale study are shown in the table on the next page. The table shows the mean scores (on a five-point scale) for each of the 16 job attributes as well as the ranking of those attributes. These results provide some insight regarding how Millennials think about employee needs. However, we hasten to point out that the study also found significant differences by gender, visible minority status, grade point average, work experience, and year of study. The differences by visible minority status were mainly that those in the visible minority group gave much higher importance to strong commitment to employment diversity. As for gender differences, women gave much higher ratings compared to men for strong commitment to employment diversity, opportunities to have a social impact, commitment to social responsibility, good health and benefits plan, and opportunities to have a personal impact. This exercise is a popular activity because students have varied opinions regarding which needs are most important. Also, students are often surprised to see how different their priorities are to each other. Part of this activity involves linking the specific items in the exhibit to employee needs. This should be done with both Maslow’s needs hierarchy and with the four drives in four-drive theory. For example, students should notice that “good people to work with” relates to the drive to bond (four drive theory) and need for affiliation (Maslow’s hierarchy). Needs Priority Survey Results Attributes of Work (Listed Alphabetically) Mean Survey Score (where 5=essential; 1=not at all important) Ranking based on survey results (1=most important) Challenging work 4. 07 10 Commitment to social responsibility 3. 84 12 Good health and benefits plan 4. 32 6 Good initial salary level 4. 17 9 Good people to report to 4. 43 3 Good people to work with 4. 46 2 Good training opportunities/developing new skills 4. 41 4 Good variety of work 4. 23 7 Job security 4. 18 8 Opportunities for advancement in position 4. 49 1 Opportunities to have a personal impact 3. 98 11 Opportunities to have a social impact 3. 82 13 Opportunity to travel 3. 46 16 Organization is a leader in its field 3. 65 14 Strong commitment to employee diversity 3. 58 15 Work-Life balance 4. 33 5 Based on information in: Ng, E. , Schweitzer, L. , & Lyons, S. (2010). New Generation, Great Expectations: A Field Study of the Millennial Generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 281-292. CLASS EXERCISE: THE LEARNING EXERCISE Purpose This exercise is designed to help students understand how motivation is influenced by the contingencies of reinforcement in organizational behavior modification. Materials Any objects normally available in a classroom will be acceptable for this activity. Instructions This exercise has minimal instructions in the textbook to avoid signaling participants about the activity. Here is the complete set of instructions: Step 1: Select and brief volunteers. Ask for three volunteers, who are then taken outside the classroom (preferably to a nearby area where they cannot hear or see what is happening inside the classroom). During the briefing, you should advise these three people that they will be given a task when they enter the room, that the task is non-threatening, and that each participant will engage in the task alone. One participant then volunteers to go first, and you should warn the two remaining participants that they will probably be waiting several minutes for their turn while the first participant engages in the task in the classroom. Step 2: Brief the class. With all three volunteers outside the classroom, return to the class to give the rest of the class the following instructions. First, find an object, such as a whiteboard marker or piece of crumpled paper, and place it somewhere in plain sight in the room. Next, tell the class that they are going to teach each volunteer to pick up the object and move it to another spot in the room that you designate (such as give it to a specific student in the class or drop it in the wastebasket). Third, explain that the class can only teach the volunteers to do this using the following reinforcement strategies: 1st volunteer: The class will only use punishment, preferably a common consequence such as calling out “booo” or “no!” as soon as (and whenever) the person moves away from the object or otherwise doesn’t do what is required for the task. Warn students that they absolutely CANNOT show any positive reinforcement when the first volunteer does something correctly. When the volunteer acts appropriately, the class must remain completely silent. NO WORDS may be spoken at any time. The volunteer may remain in the class after completing the task. 2nd volunteer: The class will only use positive reinforcement, preferably a common consequence such as clapping as soon as (and whenever) the person moves toward the object or otherwise does what is required for the task. Warn students that they absolutely CANNOT use any punishment when this second volunteer does something wrong. When the volunteer acts inappropriately, the class remains completely silent. NO WORDS may be spoken at any time. The volunteer may remain in the class after completing the task. 3rd volunteer: The class will use a combination of positive reinforcement and punishment for this volunteer. The class will use the positive reinforcement consequence (e. g. . clapping) when the 3rd volunteer moves toward the object or otherwise does what the task requires. The class will use the punishment consequence (e. g. . , call out “no!”) when the volunteer moves away from the object or otherwise does something wrong. Step 3: Bring each volunteer into the class. After briefing the class, bring the first volunteer into the class. As the volunteer walks with you to the front of the class, simply say that they have a task to perform which they can begin at anytime. Then take a seat away from the center of attention or otherwise move away from the volunteer, who is standing at the front of the class. Repeat this introduction for the next two volunteers when the previous volunteer has completed the task or you have called a halt to his/her attempt to complete the task. Step 4: Debrief the class. After all three volunteers have completed their tasks, you should ask each volunteer to recount his or her experiences. Comments for Instructors This is a very simple -- yet incredibly powerful -- exercise that works for almost any OB class -- from community colleges to older MBA students. Typically, the first volunteer describes a frustrating experience -- sometimes the person quits or thinks about giving up. The second volunteer has less frustration and actually relishes the applause while performing the relatively trivial task. (Notice the smile on the volunteer’s face when he/she is being applauded for walking in the right direction or picking up the object.) The third volunteer typically has the least amount of frustration. Similarly, keep track of the time for each volunteer to perform the task. The first is usually the longest and the last is usually the shortest time. The class should discuss the implications of this exercise for motivation learning in organizations. Students can recount incidents at work where their supervisor would punish but rarely congratulate them. There are also plenty of incidences where employees receive minimal directions or role modeling in advance (as in this exercise), so reinforcement becomes critical for learning, not just motivation. This exercise is also useful for discussing the value of feedback as well as the key features of goal setting (e. g. specific). TEAM EXERCISE: BONUS DECISION EXERCISE Purpose This exercise is designed to help students understand the elements of equity theory and how people differ in their equity perceptions. Instructions Four managers in a large national insurance company are described below. The national sales director of the company has given your consulting team (first individually, then together) the task of allocating $100,000 in bonus money to these four managers. It is entirely up to your team to decide how to divide the money among these people. The only requirements are that all of the money must be distributed and that no two branch managers can receive the same amount. The names and information are presented in no particular order. You should assume that economic conditions, client demographics, and other external factors are very similar for these managers. Step 1: Working alone, students are asked to read information about the four managers. Then they fill in the amount they would allocate to each manager in the “Individual Decision” column. Step 2: Still working alone, students fill in the “Equity Inputs Form. ” First, in the “Input Factor” column, they list in order of importance the factors considered when allocating these bonus amounts (e. g. seniority, performance, age, etc.). The most important factor should be listed first and the least important last. Next, in the “Input Weight” column, students estimate the percentage weight that they assigned to this factor. The total of this column must add up to 100 percent. Step 3: Form teams (typically 4 to 6 people). Each team will compare their results and note any differences. Then, for each job, team members will reach a consensus on the bonus amount that each manager should receive. These amounts will be written in the “Team Decision” column. Step 4: The instructor will call the class together to compare team results and note differences in inputs and input weights used by individual students. The class will then discuss these results using equity theory. Instructions (Large Class) Step 1 and Step 2: Same as above. Step 3: The instructor will ask students, by a show of hands (or use of classroom technology), to identify which manager would receive the highest bonus, then how much should be allocated to that manager. Repeat with the manager receiving the lowest bonus. (Some classroom technology allows students to directly indicate their bonus amount to that manager.) The class will then discuss these results using equity theory. Bonus Decision Making Manager Profiles Bob B. Bob has been in the insurance business for over 27 years and has spent the past 21 years with this company. A few years ago, Bob’s branch typically made the largest contribution to regional profits. More recently, however, it has brought in few new accounts and is now well below average in terms of its contribution to the company. Turnover in the branch has been high and Bob doesn’t have the same enthusiasm for the job as he once did. Bob is 56 years old and is married with five children. Three children are still living at home. Bob has a high school diploma as well as a certificate from a special course in insurance management. Edward E. In the two years that Edward has been a branch manager, his unit has brought in several major accounts and now stands as one of the top units in the country. Edward is well respected by his employees. At 29, he is the youngest manager in the region and one of the youngest in the country. The regional director initially doubted the wisdom of giving Edward the position of branch manager because of his relatively young age and lack of experience in the insurance industry. Edward received an undergraduate business degree from a regional college and worked for five years as a sales representative before joining this company. Edward is single and has no children. Lee L. Lee has been with this organization for seven years. The first two years were spent as a sales representative in the office that she now manages. According to the regional director, Lee rates about average as a branch manager. She earned an undergraduate degree in geography from a major university and worked as a sales representative for four years with another insurance company before joining this organization. Lee is 40 years old, divorced, and has no children. She is a very ambitious person but sometimes has problems working with her staff and other branch managers. Sandy S. Sandy is 47 years old and has been a branch manager with this company for 17 years. Seven years ago, her branch made the lowest contribution to the region’s profits, but this has steadily improved and is now slightly above average. Sandy seems to have a mediocre attitude toward her job but is well liked by her staff and other branch managers. Her experience in the insurance industry has been entirely with this organization. She previously worked in non-sales positions, and it is not clear how she became a branch manager without previous sales experience. Sandy is married and has three school-aged children. Several years ago, Sandy earned a diploma in business from a nearby community college by taking evening courses. Comments for Instructors I find it useful (in smaller classes of up to 8 teams) to post the results for each team in a chart (team numbers across the top and the four managers on the left side to form rows.) When the entire set of results are documented, ask participants to debate any variations across teams. The discussion should make students aware that it is very difficult to consider all of the employee inputs when allocating bonuses. Very likely, someone will feel that the process is unfair because different people assign different weights to these factors. Where team members easily agree on factors, it is useful to remind them that (1) they are a relatively homogeneous group of business students (consensus may be more difficult if non business students are included in the teams), and (2) people from different cultures hold different values. For example, students from some African and Asian countries tend to have difficulty accepting a very high performance orientation. The results of this exercise will vary from one team to the next, particularly if the class includes non business students and/or people from diverse cultural backgrounds. For example, the average distribution of bonus money in my classes has been approximately $17K, $37K, $23K, and $23K to Bob, Edward, Lee, and Sandy, respectively. However, the amount varies considerably. One team with a strong seniority-orientation allotted $43K, $19K, $28K, and $10K to the four managers, whereas another team with a strong performance orientation allotted $5K, $50K, $15K, and $30K. SELF-ASSESSMENT: NEED STRENGTH QUESTIONNAIRE Purpose This self-assessment is designed to help students to estimate their level of need for achievement and need for social approval. Overview and Instructions Although everyone has the same innate drives, our secondary or learned needs vary based on our self-concept. This self-assessment provides an estimate of your need strength on selected secondary needs. Read each of the statements below and check the response that you believe best reflects your position regarding each statement. Then use the scoring key in Appendix B to calculate your results. To receive a meaningful estimate of your need strength, you need to answer each item honestly and with reflection to your personal experiences. Class discussion will focus on the meaning of the needs measured in this self-assessment as well as their relevance in the workplace. Feedback for the Personal Needs Scale This instrument includes two scales: achievement striving and need for social approval. Achievement Striving This scale, formally called “achievement striving,” estimates the extent to which you are motivated to take on and achieve challenging personal goals. It includes a desire to perform better than others and to reach one’s potential. This scale ranges from 0 to 28. How high or low is your need for achievement? The ideal would be to compare your score with the collective results of other students in your class. Otherwise, the following exhibit offers a rough set of norms for you to compare your score on this scale. Need for Social Approval The need for social approval scale estimates the extent to which your are motivated to seek favorable evaluation from others. Based on the drive to bond, the need for social approval is a secondary need in that people vary in this need based on their self-concept, values, personality, and possibly socialized social norms. This scale ranges from 0 to 32. How high or low is your need for social approval? The ideal would be to compare your score with the collective results of other students in your class. Otherwise, the following exhibit offers a rough set of norms for you to compare your score on this scale. Chapter 6: Applied Performance Practices SOLUTIONS TO CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. As a consultant, you have been asked to recommend either a gainsharing plan or a profit-sharing plan for employees who work in the four regional distribution and warehousing facilities of a large retail organization. Which reward system would you recommend? Explain your answer. Answer: Gainsharing plans are team rewards that motivate team members to reduce costs and increase labor efficiency in their work process. Profit sharing includes any arrangement where a designated group of employees receives a share of corporate profits. In this situation, a gainsharing plan in each of the four regional facilities would probably be more appropriate. The main reason is that these employees would have a small effect on corporate profits, but could significantly influence costs in their respective facility. As noted in the textbook, rewards are more effective when employees have direct control over the outcomes measured for those rewards. A related explanation is that gainsharing is team-based whereas profit sharing applies to all employees. The mandate here is clearly to introduce a reward system for people within the four facilities, not a reward for the entire organization. 2. Which of the performance reward practices—individual, team, or organizational—would work better in improving organizational goals? Please comment with reference to an organization of your choice. Answer: Individual, team or organizational performance based rewards are likely to work differently depending on the type of organization. For example, in a research based organization, individual reward practices are likely to discourage researchers from sharing thoughts and ideas and any information related to their research with their colleagues. Team rewards are likely to work better because it will encourage researchers to come together as groups and will enhance within-group sharing practices. Organizational level rewards may create a culture where the researchers feel aligned with the organization’s success, however, it may not work enough to motivate the poor-performers nor provide enough incentives for the top performers to work harder. 3. Waco Tire Corporation redesigned its production facilities around a team-based system. However, the company president believes that employees will not be motivated unless they receive incentives based on their individual performance. Give three reasons why Waco Tire should introduce team-based rather than individual rewards in this setting. Answer: Waco Tire should definitely use team rather than only individual rewards in this situation. One reason is that the company probably won’t be able to identify or measure individual contributions very well in the redesigned production facility. Even if Waco Tire could distinguish individual performance, it should use team incentives because they tend to make employees more co-operative and less competitive. People see that that their bonuses or other incentives depend on how well they work with co-workers, and they act accordingly. The third reason for having team rewards in team settings is that they influence employee preferences for team based work arrangements. If Waco Tire wants employees to accept and support the team-based structure, a team based reward system would help to increase that acceptance. 4. What can organizations do to increase the effectiveness of financial rewards? Answer: Link rewards to performance. Use objective performance criteria; ensure rewards are timely and significant enough to create positive emotions. Ensure rewards are relevant. Reward people for performance within their control/influence and be ready to adjust performance measures due to factors beyond employees’ control. Ensure rewards are valued. Know your employee and what you need and want. Watch out for unintended consequences. Use pilot projects to test the impact the reward will have on employees and make changes before implementing throughout the organization. 5. Most of us have watched pizzas being made while waiting in a pizzeria. What level of job specialization do you usually notice in these operations? Why does this high or low level of specialization exist? If some pizzerias have different levels of specialization than others, identify the contingencies that might explain these differences. Answer: The answer to this question partly depends on how pizzas are made in your area. Our non systematic observation of pizza-making is that, in busy pizza places, several people are assigned to specific tasks. One person prepares the dough; one or more people fill the orders (puts ingredients on the pizza and places it in the conveyor or fixed oven); someone else unloads, cuts, and boxes the cooked pizzas. The person operating the cash register usually has the pizza unloading task. Other people perform the pizza delivery task. This relatively high level of specialization occurs because it increases efficiency. Time is saved because employees don’t change tasks. They develop their skills quickly in their assigned task (an important issue where pizza shops rely on students and other temporary part-time staff). This specialization also allows the store to assign people to tasks for which they demonstrate the best skill. For example, some people have better coordination at tossing the pizza dough so it spreads out evenly. Others have good physical strength to cut pizzas. Students will probably identify different degrees of specialization than we have noted here. Smaller pizza shops may be operated by two people who share most tasks (except delivery). They might both prepare the pizzas as well as load and unload them from the oven. Technology may also play a role in the division of labor. Conveyor-type ovens (uncooked pizza is placed on one end and cooked pizza comes out the other end) would allow two people to load and unload the pizzas, respectively. A fixed oven (where the pizza is loaded in and pulled out) might work better with one person because he/she keeps track of the cooking time. Lastly, some students might note that jobs are generally specialized but there is job rotation throughout the shift. This might occur to minimize boredom and avoid repetitive strain injuries. In pizzerias, you typically notice a high level of job specialization, with employees focusing on specific tasks like dough stretching, topping placement, or oven operation. This specialization exists to increase efficiency and consistency in pizza production. Differences in specialization levels between pizzerias may depend on factors such as size of the operation, menu variety, and management preferences. 6. Can a manager or supervisor “empower” an employee? Discuss fully. Answer: Empowerment refers to a feeling of control and self-efficacy that emerges when people are given power in a previously powerless situation. Empowered people are given autonomy -- the freedom, independence, and discretion over their work activities. They are assigned tasks that have high levels of task significance -- importance to themselves and others. In summary, empowerment is a psychological concept. Supervisors or managers cannot directly empower an employee. However, they can create a work environment where employees are more likely to experience empowerment. Some of these initiatives include: • Ensuring employees have the necessary competencies to be effective • Reducing bureaucratic control • Designing jobs that provide task significance and task identify • Ensuring employees have the information and resources they need • Appreciating learning and recognizing mistakes are part of the learning employees- Trusting employees 7. Describe a time when you practiced self-leadership to per- form a task successfully. With reference to each step in the self-leadership process, describe what you did to achieve this success. Answer: This question provides the opportunity for students to reflect on their own application and experience with self leadership. Increasingly, corporate leaders desire to hire employees with the ability to demonstrate self-leadership. Reflecting on a time when you demonstrated self-leadership and describing your behaviors will prepare you to respond to an interview question designed to assess this valued competency. Responses will vary. Following are some considerations that an organizational recruiter may look for: Personal goal setting. Establishing goals that were specific, results-oriented and challenging. Constructive thought patterns. Engaging in positive self talk and/or using mental imagery to visualize successful completion of a task. Designing natural rewards. Considering your own needs and preferences to make your job more motivating and satisfying. Self-monitoring. Keeping track of your progress and/or ensuring you received feedback needed to enhance your performance. Self-reinforcement. Using self-induced forms of positive reinforcement to reward yourself for completing a task or achieving a goal. 8. Can self-leadership replace formal leadership in an organizational setting? Answer: Self-leadership is an applied performance practice that enhances and supports formal leadership in an organization. Self-leadership is a process where people regulate their own actions and manage themselves most of the time. Effective formal leadership practices will still be needed in certain situations to ensure alignment of individual and team results with organizational goals. CASE STUDY: YAKKATECH, INC. Case Synopsis This case describes events at the customer service centers of YakkaTech, Inc. , an information technology services firm employing 1500 people throughout Washington and Oregon. YakkaTech relies on a ticket system, in which staff complete work for a specific “ticket” rather than serve one client all of the time. The system (as well as dramatically larger customer service centers) has resulted in several problems, including poorer customer service, employee indifference to client problems, slow response, and lack of staff knowledge about each client. Staff turnover has increased above the industry average. Employees report that the work is monotonous and they feel disconnected from their work results. the company increased pay rates and introduced a vested profit-sharing plan to improve morale and reduce turnover. turnover dropped, but customer complaints and productivity remain below expectations or have worsened. Discussion Questions with Suggested Answers 1. What symptom(s) in this case suggest that something has gone wrong? Answer: This case identifies several symptoms, including poorer customer service, employee indifference to client problems, slow response, lack of staff knowledge about each client, high staff turnover (prior to reward system change), declining employee referrals, lower productivity. Students should distinguish these symptoms according to their causes (problem analysis). Symptoms indicating a problem include the journalist's increasing fatigue and despondency, leading to sick leave, contrasting with the other journalist's ability to manage workload and enjoy challenges. The difference in reactions suggests a potential issue with stress management or workplace support. Additionally, the need for sick leave due to stress implies a significant impact on the journalist's well-being and work performance. 2. What are the main causes of these symptoms? Answer: (a) Jobs Have Low Motivational Potential The main problem in this case is that the jobs have low motivational potential. Students need to analyze the motivational potential of these jobs by considering the five core job characteristics: Skill variety -- Seems to be moderate because each ticket would result in some variety of tasks. However, staff say the work gets monotonous over time. Furthermore, staff are organized into departments, which may result in a narrow range of tasks performed by each person. Task identity -- Some students might say task identity is high because staff complete an entire ticket. But is the ticket an entire task? The case suggests that managing the clients entire system (or subsystem, such as software maintenance, hardware, maintenance, etc) is the “whole task. ” As such, the ticket system results in fairly low task identity. Task significance -- This appears to be quite low because staff don’t know how their work affects the client. Also, if they perform one small task for a particular client (low task identity), the significance of their work is less apparent, and likely perceived to be low. Autonomy -- Not much information on autonomy. We don’t know whether staff members need to follow precise procedures or whether they have a lot of freedom to conduct their work. However, the ticket system necessarily restricts autonomy regarding managing one’s job duties, because staff are fed precise jobs to perform, rather than having the autonomy to arrange timing on when they perform a variety of jobs. Job feedback -- The case indicates that employees receive very little job feedback. They don’t know whether their actions produced a long-term or only brief solution to the problem, because a recurring problem results in a new ticket submitted randomly to another staff member. Furthermore, the case implies that staff have limited direct interaction with clients. Client feedback, including subtle verbal and nonverbal communication, can be considered a form of job feedback, so job feedback is low in this regard. This diagnosis predicts that employees experience low meaninglessness in their jobs, a conditions which is verified in employee comments that they feel disconnected from the results of their work and that employees show little care towards client issues. Jobs with low motivational potential also result in lower job satisfaction and lower work effectiveness, both of which are apparent in this case. (b) Poor Alignment of Money and Rewards The latter part of this case stated that YakkaTech increased raise pay rates for its customer service staff to become among the highest in the industry. The assumption was that the high pay rates would improve morale and reduce turnover, thereby reducing hiring costs and improving productivity. In addition, YakkaTech introduced a vested profit-sharing plan, in which employees received the profit-sharing bonus only if they remained with the company for two years after the bonus was awarded. these actions reduced turnover because both were clearly linked to continued employment. the vested profit sharing plan punished those who quit because they lost up to two years of profit sharing bonus. the significant pay increase punished those who left because few other jobs in the industry paid as well. However, the reward system was misaligned in other ways. First, these pay interventions were only remotely associated with individual job performance. Specifically, the profit sharing bonus would have been affected to a very small extent by each employees performance. This remote connection is unlikely to motivate employees to perform better, particularly in a company of this size and when the bonus is not paid out two years later. the pay system also relies heavily on individual membership, whereas it appears that these jobs have a degree of interdependence, such as working with the on0site team or sharing a ticket with people in another department. Thus, the individual reward plan was minimally aligned with the work. (c) Continuance Commitment from Golden Handcuffs Some students will analyze this case, in part, from the perspective or continuance commitment. Specifically, the company introduced a vested profit-sharing plan, in which employees receive the profit sharing bonus for that year only if they remain with the company for the subsequent two years. This situation creates continuance commitment, in which it becomes more costly to leave the company -- employees who quit or are sacked for just cause lose up to two years of profit sharing bonus. Continuance commitment tends to produce lower job performance and lower job satisfaction, both of which occurred in this case after the vested profit-sharing plan was introduced. (d) Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect (EVLN) Some students might apply the EVLN model. In this case, however, EVLN is more a description of what happened rather than any explanation. Exit (high turnover until pay incentive introduced); Voice (indirect complaints to mgt, survey results); Loyalty (not much evidence of this); Neglect (poor service, not passing on jobs). 3. What actions should YakkaTech executives take to correct these problems? Answer: The clearest action in this case is to reorganize jobs to increase their motivational potential as well as improve coordination for interdependent work. Job enrichment around establishing client relationships seems to be well suited to this situation. In effect, individuals (or more likely, teams) would be organized around clients such that clients approach the same staff for all of their IT problems and needs. Staff members would feel a greater sense of task significance and task identity. They would develop a better understanding of the client’s needs for each incident, would develop better feedback about the effectiveness of their interventions, and would feel more responsibility for their actions (because of greater psychological closeness to the client). A second solution is to revise the reward and recognition practices so they are aligned with the work and desirable attitudes and behaviors. If jobs are redesigned around teams and clients, then a team-based reward system could be considered because specific people can be identified with specific long-term client successes and failures. Profit sharing might remain, but more proximate rewards are preferred. TEAM EXERCISE: IS STUDENT WORK ENRICHED? Purpose This exercise is designed to help students to learn how to measure the motivational potential of jobs and to evaluate the extent that jobs should be further enriched. Instructions (Small Class) Being a student is like a job in several ways. You have tasks to perform and someone (such as your instructor) oversees your work. Although few people want to be students most of their lives (the pay rate is too low!), it may be interesting to determine how enriched your job is as a student. Step 1: Students are placed into teams (preferably 4 or 5 people). Step 2: Working alone, each student completes both sets of measures in this exercise. Then, using the guidelines below, they individually calculate the score for the five core job characteristics as well as the overall motivating potential score for the job. Step 3: Members of each team compare their individual results. The group should identify differences of opinion for each core job characteristic. They should also note which core jobs characteristics have the lowest scores and recommend how these scores could be increased. Step 4: The entire class will now meet to discuss the results of the exercise. The instructor may ask some teams to present their comparisons and recommendations for a particular core job characteristic. Instructions (Large Class) Step 1: Working alone, each student completes both sets of measures in this exercise. Then, using the guidelines below, they individually calculate the score for the five core job characteristics as well as the overall motivating potential score for the job. Step 2: Using a show of hands or classroom technology, students indicate their results for each core job characteristics. The instructor will ask for results for several bands across the range of the scales. Alternatively, student can complete this activity prior to class and submit their results through online classroom technology. Later, the instructors will provide feedback to the class showing the collective results (i. e. distribution of results across the range of scores). Step 3: Where possible. t instructor might ask students with very high or very low results to discuss their views with the class. Comments to Instructors This exercise is self-explanatory. The answer key is provided in the textbook for students to score their own results. they can also completed this self-assessment online, with automatic scoring and documented feedback. Students tend to enjoy this exercise because it forces them to evaluate something that is central to them (particularly full-time students). Be prepared for some searching questions about why some instructors don’t make student work more enriched! Here are some discussion activities for this exercise. 1. Compare student enrichment scores with those of other jobs. The average scores of the five core job characteristics and MPS for selected job groups are presented in the exhibit below. (This information is not provided in the textbook.) 2. Determine where students are least enriched in their work, and determine how this could become more enriched. In other words, after identifying the weakest core job characteristic(s), identify job enrichment strategies that would raise the motivating potential score for students along this or these dimensions. SELF-ASSESSMENT: WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD MONEY? Purpose This exercise is designed to help students to understand the types of attitudes toward money and to assess their attitude toward money. Overview Money is a fundamental part of the employment relationship, but it is more than just an economic medium of exchange. Money affects our needs, our emotions, and our self-perception. People hold a variety of attitudes towards money. One set of attitudes, known as the “money ethic”, is measured in this self-assessment. Instructions Students are asked to read each of the statements in the survey instrument and circle the response that they believe best reflects their position regarding each statement. Student then use the scoring key in Appendix B to calculate their results. , or they can have the results self-scored by using the student CD. Feedback for the Money Attitude Scale This self-assessment generates considerable interest among students, not surprising given the interest that most people have about money. This money attitude scale estimates the person’s overall “money ethic” as well as scores on its three dimensions: money as power/prestige, retention time, and money anxiety. Each subscale has a potential score ranging from 4 to 20 points; the overall money attitude scale has a range from 12 to 60 points. Higher scores indicate that the person has a higher level of each attitude. The following tables indicate the range of scores among a sample of over 200 MBA students. Money as Power/Prestige People with higher scores on this dimension tend to use money to influence and impress others. Scores on this subscale range from 4 to 20. The average score among a sample of MBA students was 9. 9. Score Interpretation 12 to 20 9 to 11 4 to 8 High power/prestige score Moderate power/prestige score Low power/prestige score Retention Time People with higher scores on this dimension tend to be careful financial planners. Scores on this subscale range from 4 to 20. The average score among a sample of MBA students was 15. Score Interpretation 17 to 20 14 to 16 4 to 13 High retention time score Moderate retention time score Low retention time score Money Anxiety People with higher scores on this dimension tend to view money as a source of anxiety. Scores on this subscale range from 4 to 20. The average score among a sample of MBA students was 12. 8. Score Interpretation 12 to 20 9 to 11 4 to 8 High money anxiety score Moderate money anxiety score Low money anxiety score Money Attitude Total This is a general estimate of how much respect and attention you give to money. Scores on this total scale range from 12 to 60. The average score among a sample of MBA students was 37. 6. Score Interpretation 41 to 60 35 to 40 16 to 34 High money ethic score Moderate money ethic score Low money ethic score Solution Manual for Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge, Global Reality Steven McShane, Mary Von Glinow 9780077862589, 9781259280634, 9781259562792, 9780071077989
Download
Close
Close
