Preview Extract
chapter7 Motivation concepts LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, students should be able to: Describe the three key elements of motivation. Compare the early theories of motivation. Contrast the elements of self-determination theory and goal-setting theory. Demonstrate the differences among self-efficacy theory, reinforcement theory, equity theory, and expectancy theory. Identify the implications of employee job engagement for managers. Describe how the contemporary theories of motivation complement one another. INSTRUCTOR RESOURCES Instructors may wish to use the following resources when presenting this chapter. Text Exercises Career Objectives: Why Won’t He Take My Advice Myth or Science?: “Helping Others and Being a Good Citizen is Good for Your Career” An Ethical Choice: Motivated by Big Brother Personal Inventory Assessments: Work Motivation Indicator Point/Counterpoint: Goals Get You to Where You Want to Be Questions for Review Experiential Exercise: Organizational Justice Task Ethical Dilemma: The New GPA Text Cases Case Incident 1: The Demotivation of CEO Pay Case Incident 2: The Sleepiness Epidemic Instructor’s Choice This section presents an exercise that is NOT found in the student's textbook. Instructor’s Choice reinforces the text's emphasis through various activities. Some Instructor's Choice activities are centered on debates, group exercises, Internet research, and student experiences. Some can be used in class in their entirety, while others require some additional work on the student's part. The course instructor may choose to use these at anytime throughout the class—some may be more effective as icebreakers, while some may be used to pull together various concepts covered in the chapter. Web Exercises At the end of each chapter of this Instructor’s Manual, you will find suggested exercises and ideas for researching OB topics on the Internet. The exercises “Exploring OB Topics on the Web” are set up so that you can simply photocopy the pages, distribute them to your class, and make assignments accordingly. You may want to assign the exercises as an out-of-class activity or as lab activities with your class. Summary and Implications for Managers The motivation theories in this chapter differ in their predictive strength. Maslow’s hierarchy, McClelland’s needs, and the two-factor theory focus on needs. Self-determination theory and cognitive evaluation theory have merits to consider. Goal-setting theory can be helpful but does not cover absenteeism, turnover, or job satisfaction. Reinforcement theory can be helpful, but not regarding employee satisfaction or the decision to quit. Equity theory’s strongest legacy is that it provided the spark for research on organizational justice, which has more support in the literature. Expectancy theory can be helpful, but assumes employees have few constraints on decision making, such as bias or incomplete information, and this limits its applicability. Job engagement goes a long way toward explaining employee commitment. Specific implications for managers are below: Make sure extrinsic rewards for employees are not viewed as coercive, but instead provide information about competence and relatedness. Consider goal-setting theory: clear and difficult goals often lead to higher levels of employee productivity. Consider reinforcement theory regarding quality and quantity of work, persistence of effort, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates. Consult equity theory to help understand productivity, satisfaction, absence, and turnover variables. Expectancy theory offers a powerful explanation of performance variables such as employee productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. This chapter begins with a discussion about corporate social responsibility. As we read in the opening story, employees don’t always volunteer just because it’s a good thing to do; they have to be motivated. A significant part of their motivation comes from an internal desire to contribute, but organizations can also play an important role by encouraging and enabling them. Motivating employees—to volunteer and to work—is one of the most important and challenging aspects of management. As we will see, there is no shortage of advice about how to do it. Motivation is one of the most frequently researched topics in organizational behavior (OB). In one survey, 69 percent of workers reported wasting time at work every day, and nearly a quarter said they waste between 30 and 60 minutes each day. How? Usually by surfing the Internet (checking the news and visiting social network sites) and chatting with coworkers. So, though times change, the problem of motivating a workforce stays the same. In this chapter, we’ll review the basics of motivation, assess motivation theories, and provide an integrative model that fits theories together. But first, take a look at the potential that a little motivation to ask for a raise can yield, shown in the OB Poll. BRIEF CHAPTER OUTLINE Defining Motivation What Is Motivation? The level of motivation varies both between individuals and within individuals at different times. Motivation is the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal. We will narrow the focus to organizational goals in order to reflect our singular interest in work-related behavior. The three key elements of our definition are intensity, direction, and persistence. Early Theories of Motivation Introduction In the 1950s,three specific theories were formulated and are the best known. These early theories are important to understand because they represent a foundation from which contemporary theories have grown. Hierarchy of Needs Theory Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is the most well-known theory of motivation. He hypothesized that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of five needs. (Exhibit 7-1) Physiological: Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs. Safety: Includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm. Social: Includes affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship. Esteem: Includes internal factors such as self-respect, autonomy, and achievement; and external factors such as status, recognition, and attention. Self-actualization: The drive to become what one is capable of becoming; includes growth, achieving one’s potential, and self-fulfillment. As a need becomes substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. No need is ever fully gratified; a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among managers. Research does not generally validate the theory. Two-Factor Theory The two-factor theory is sometimes also called motivation-hygiene theory. Proposed by psychologist Frederick Herzberg when he investigated the question, “What do people want from their jobs?” He asked people to describe, in detail, situations in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. (Exhibit 7-2) These responses were then tabulated and categorized. From the categorized responses, Herzberg concluded: Intrinsic factors, such as advancement, recognition, responsibility, and achievement, seem to be related to job satisfaction. Dissatisfied respondents tended to cite extrinsic factors, such as supervision, pay, company policies, and working conditions. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Job satisfaction factors are separate and distinct from job dissatisfaction factors. Managers who eliminate job dissatisfaction factors may not necessarily bring about motivation. (Exhibit 7-3) When hygiene factors are adequate, people will not be dissatisfied; neither will they be satisfied. To motivate people, emphasize factors intrinsically rewarding that are associated with the work itself or to outcomes directly derived from it. Criticisms of the theory: The procedure that Herzberg used is limited by its methodology. The reliability of Herzberg’s methodology is questioned. No overall measure of satisfaction was utilized. McClelland’s Theory of Needs McClelland’s theory of needs focuses on three needs: achievement, power, and affiliation. Need for achievement (nAch): the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards. High achievers perform best when they perceive their probability of success as 50/50. They like to set goals that require stretching themselves a little. The view that a high achievement need acts as an internal motivator presupposes two U.S. cultural characteristics—willingness to accept moderate risk and concern with performance. Need for power: the need to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise. The need for power (nPow) is the desire to have impact, to be influential, and to control others. Need for affiliation(nAfl): the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships. A mong the early theories of motivation, McClelland’s has had the best research support. Unfortunately, it has less practical effect than the others. Contemporary Theories of Motivation Introduction In contrast, contemporary theories have one thing in common: each has a reasonable degree of valid supporting documentation. Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory proposes that people prefer to feel they have control over their actions, so anything that makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than a freely chosen activity will undermine motivation. Much research on self-determination theory in OB has focused on cognitive evaluation theory, which hypothesizes that extrinsic rewards will reduce intrinsic interest in a task. Self-determination theory also proposes that in addition to being driven by a need for autonomy, people seek ways to achieve competence and positive connections to others. What does self-determination theory suggest for providing rewards? If a computer programmer values writing code because she likes to solve problems, a reward for working to an externally imposed standard she does not accept, such as writing a certain number of lines of code every day, could feel coercive, and her intrinsic motivation would suffer. A recent outgrowth of self-determination theory is which considers how strongly peoples’ reasons for pursuing goals are consistent with their interests and core values. Implications For individuals, it means choose your job for reasons other than extrinsic rewards. For organizations, it means managers should provide intrinsic as well as extrinsic incentives. Goal-Setting Theory Goal-setting theory: in the late 1960s, Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of work motivation. Goals tell an employee what needs to be done and how much effort is needed. Evidence strongly suggests that specific goals increase performance, that difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than do easy goals, and that feedback leads to higher performance than does non-feedback. Specific hard goals produce a higher level of output than do the generalized goals. If factors like ability and acceptance of the goals are held constant, we can also state that the more difficult the goal, the higher the level of performance. There are contingencies in goal-setting theory. In addition to feedback, three other factors influence the goals-performance relationship: goal commitment, task characteristics, and national culture. Goal-setting theory presupposes that an individual is committed to the goal. Believes he or she can achieve the goal and wants to achieve it. Goals themselves seem to affect performance more strongly when tasks are simple rather than complex, well learned rather than novel, and independent rather than interdependent. On interdependent tasks, group goals are preferable. Goal-setting theory is culture bound. In collectivistic and high-power distance cultures, achievable moderate goals can be more motivating than difficult ones. When learning something is important, goals related to performance undermine adaptation and creativity because people become too focused on outcomes and ignore changing conditions. Goals can lead employees to be too focused on a single standard to the exclusion of all others. Despite differences of opinion, most researchers do agree that goals are powerful in shaping behavior. Research has also found that people differ in the way they regulate their thoughts and behaviors during goal pursuit. Generally, people fall into one of two categories, though they could belong to both. Those with a promotion focus strive for advancement and accomplishment and approach conditions that move them closer toward desired goals. Those with a prevention focus strive to fulfill duties and obligations and avoid conditions that pull them away from desired goals. Which is the better strategy? Ideally, it’s probably best to be both promotion and prevention oriented. Implementing goal-setting. How do you make goal-setting operational in practice? Management by Objectives (MBO) Participatively set goals that are tangible, verifiable, and measurable. Organizations’ overall Objectives are translated into specific Objectives for each succeeding level. (Exhibit 7-4) Four ingredients common to MBO programs: Goal specificity. Participation in decision making. Explicit time period. Performance feedback. Goal Setting and Ethics. The relationship between goal-setting and ethics is quite complex: if we emphasize the attainment of goals, what is the cost? We may forgo mastering tasks and adopt avoidance techniques so we don’t look bad, both of which can incline us toward unethical choices. Other Contemporary Theories of Motivation Self-Efficacy Theory Self-efficacy theory, also known as social cognitive theory or social learning theory, refers to an individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. The higher your self-efficacy, the more confidence you have in your ability to succeed in a task. Self-efficacy can create a positive spiral in which those with high efficacy become more engaged in their tasks and then, in turn, increase performance, which increases efficacy further. Goal setting theory and self-efficacy theory don’t compete with one another; they complement each other. (Exhibit 7-5) Albert Bandura, developer of self-efficacy theory: Enactive mastery—gaining relevant experience with the task or job. Vicarious modeling—becoming more confident because you see someone else doing the task. Verbal persuasion—more confident because someone convinces you that you have the skills. Arousal—leads to an energized state driving a person to complete the task. The best way for a manager to use verbal persuasion is through the Pygmalion effect or the Galatea effect. Influencing self-efficacy in others. Training programs often make use of enactive mastery by having people practice and build their skills. Reinforcement Theory Goal-setting is a cognitive approach, proposing that an individual’s purposes direct his action. Reinforcement theory, in contrast, takes a behavioristic view, arguing that reinforcement conditions behavior. Reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens when he or she takes some action. Operant conditioning theory argues that people learn to behave to get something they want or to avoid something they don’t want. Unlike reflexive or unlearned behavior, operant behavior is influenced by the reinforcement or lack of reinforcement brought about by its consequences. Reinforcement strengthens a behavior and increases the likelihood it will be repeated. B. F. Skinner, one of the most prominent advocates of operant conditioning, argued that creating pleasing consequences to follow specific forms of behavior would increase the frequency of that behavior. The concept of operant conditioning was part of Skinner’s broader concept of behaviorism, which argues that behavior follows stimuli in a relatively unthinking manner. Of course, the linkage can also teach individuals to engage in behaviors that work against the best interests of the organization. Social Learning Theory and Involvement The view that we can learn through both observation and direct experience is called social-learning theory. Models are central to the social-learning viewpoint. Four processes determine their influence on an individual: Attentional processes. People learn from a model only when they recognize and pay attention to its critical features. Retention processes. A model’s influence depends on how well the individual remembers the model’s action after the model is no longer readily available. Motor reproduction processes. After a person has seen a new behavior by observing the model, watching must be converted to doing. Reinforcement processes. Individuals are motivated to exhibit the modeled behavior if positive incentives or rewards are provided. Equity Theory/Organizational Justice What role does equity play in motivation? Equity theory: Individuals make comparisons of their job inputs and outcomes relative to those of others and then respond to eliminate any inequities. (Exhibit 7-6) If we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others with whom we compare ourselves, a state of equity is said to exist. We perceive our situation as fair. When we see the ratio as unequal, we experience equity tension. Employees who perceive inequity will make one of six choices: Change their inputs. Change their outcomes. Distort perceptions of self. Distort perceptions of others. Choose a different referent. Leave the field. Some of these propositions have been supported, but others haven’t. First, inequities created by overpayment do not seem to significantly affect behavior in most work situations. Second, not all people are equity sensitive. Organizational justice(fairness in the workplace) draws a bigger picture. For the most part, employees evaluate how fairly they are treated along four dimensions. (Exhibit 7-7) Distributive justice is concerned with the fairness of the outcomes, such as pay and recognition that employees receive. Although employees care a lot about what outcomes are distributed (distributive justice), they also care a lot about how outcomes are distributed. Procedural Justice While distributive justice looks at what outcomes are allocated, procedural justice examines how outcomes are allocated. Having direct influence over how decisions or made, or at the very least being able to present your opinion to decision makers, creates a sense of control and makes us feel empowered. Employees also perceive that procedures are fairer when decision makers follow several “rules.” It turns out that procedural and distributive justice combine to influence people’s perceptions of fairness. If outcomes are favorable and individuals get what they want, they care less about the process, so procedural justice doesn’t matter as much when distributions are perceived to be fair. Informational Justice Research has shown that employees care about two other types of fairness that have to do with the way they are treated during interactions with others. The first type is informational justice which reflects whether managers provide employees with explanations for key decisions and keep them informed of important organizational matters. Interpersonal Justice The second type of justice relevant to interactions between managers and employees is interpersonal justice, which reflects whether employees are treated with dignity and respect. Justice Outcomes How much does justice really matter to employees? A great deal, as it turns out. When employees feel fairly treated, they respond in a number of positive ways. All four types of justice discussed in this section have been linked to higher levels of task performance and citizenship behaviors such as helping coworkers, as well as lower levels of counterproductive behaviors such as shirking job duties. Distributive and procedural justices are more strongly associated with task performance, while informational and interpersonal justices are more strongly associated with citizenship behavior. Despite all attempts to enhance fairness, perceived injustices are still likely to occur. Fairness is often subjective; what one person sees as unfair, another may see as perfectly appropriate. Ensuring Justice It might be tempting for organizations to adopt strong justice guidelines in attempts to mandate managerial behavior, but this isn’t likely to be universally effective. In cases where managers have more rules and less discretion, those who calculate justice are more likely to act fairly, but managers whose justice behavior follows from their affect may act more fairly when they have greater discretion. Culture and Justice In terms of cultural differences, research shows individuals in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures prefer an equitable distribution of rewards over an equal division (everyone gets paid the same regardless of performance). International managers must consider the cultural preferences of each group of employees when determining what is “fair” in different contexts. Expectancy Theory Expectancy theory is one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation. Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory has its critics but most of the research is supportive. Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual. It says that an employee will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when he/she believes that: Effort will lead to a good performance appraisal. That a good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards. That the rewards will satisfy his/her personal goals. Three key relationships: (Exhibit 7-8) Effort-performance relationship: the probability perceived by the individual that exerting a given amount of effort will lead to performance. Performance-reward relationship: the degree to which the individual believes that performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome. Rewards-personal goals relationship: the degree to which organizational rewards satisfy an individual’s personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the individual. Job Engagement Job engagement: the investment of an employee’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into job performance. Many studies attempt to measure this deeper level of commitment. What makes people more likely to be engaged in their jobs? One key is the degree to which an employee believes it is meaningful to engage in work. Another factor is a match between the individual’s values and those of the organization. Leadership behaviors that inspire workers to a greater sense of mission also increase employee engagement. One of the critiques of engagement is that the construct is partially redundant with job attitudes like satisfaction or stress. Engagement may also predict important work outcomes better than traditional job attitudes. Integrating Contemporary Motivation Theories Exhibit 7-9 integrates much of what we know about motivation. Its basic foundation is the expectancy model. Expectancy theory predicts that an employee will exert a high level of effort if he/she perceives that there is a strong relationship between effort and performance, performance and rewards, and rewards and satisfaction of personal goals. The final link in expectancy theory is the rewards-goals relationship. The model considers the achievement, need, reinforcement, and equity/organizational justice theories. Reinforcement theory recognizes that the organization’s rewards reinforce the individual’s performance. Summary and Implications for Management The motivation theories in this chapter differ in their predictive strength. Maslow’s hierarchy, McClelland’s needs, and the two-factor theory focus on needs. None has found widespread support, although McClelland’s is the strongest, particularly regarding the relationship between achievement and productivity. Self-determination theory and related theories have merits to consider. Goal-setting theory can be helpful but does not cover absenteeism, turnover, or job satisfaction. Self-efficacy theory contributes to our understanding of personal motivation. Reinforcement theory can be helpful, but not regarding employee satisfaction or the decision to quit. Equity theory’s strongest legacy is that it provided the spark for research on organizational justice, which has more support in the literature. Expectancy theory can be helpful, but assumes employees have few constraints on decision making, such as bias or incomplete information, and this limits its applicability. Job engagement goes a long way toward explaining employee commitment. Specific implications for managers are below: Make sure extrinsic rewards for employees are not viewed as coercive, but instead provide information about competence and relatedness. Consider goal-setting theory: clear and difficult goals often lead to higher levels of employee productivity. Consider reinforcement theory regarding quality and quantity of work, persistence of effort, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates. Consult equity theory to help understand productivity, satisfaction, absence, and turnover variables. Expectancy theory offers a powerful explanation of performance variables such as employee productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. EXPANDED CHAPTER OUTLINE Defining Motivation What Is Motivation? The level of motivation varies both between individuals and within individuals at different times. Motivation is the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal. We will narrow the focus to organizational goals in order to reflect our singular interest in work-related behavior. The three key elements of our definition are intensity, direction, and persistence. Intensity is concerned with how hard a person tries. This is the element most of us focus on when we talk about motivation. Direction is the orientation that benefits the organization. Persistence is a measure of how long a person can maintain his/her effort. Motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve their goal. Early Theories of Motivation Introduction In the 1950s,three specific theories were formulated and are the best known. These early theories are important to understand because they represent a foundation from which contemporary theories have grown. Hierarchy of Needs Theory Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is the most well-known theory of motivation. He hypothesized that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of five needs. (Exhibit 7-1) Physiological: Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs. Safety: Includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm. Social: Includes affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship. Esteem: Includes internal esteem factors such as self-respect, autonomy, and achievement; and external esteem factors such as status, recognition, and attention. Self-actualization: The drive to become what one is capable of becoming; includes growth, achieving one’s potential, and self-fulfillment. As a need becomes substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. No need is ever fully gratified; a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Physiological and safety needs are described as lower-order needs. Social, esteem, and self-actualization are described as higher-order needs. Higher-order needs are satisfied internally. Lower-order needs are predominantly satisfied externally. Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. Research does not generally validate the theory. Two-Factor Theory The two-factor theory is sometimes also called motivation-hygiene theory. Proposed by psychologist Frederick Herzberg when he investigated the question, “What do people want from their jobs?” He asked people to describe, in detail, situations in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. (Exhibit 7-2) These responses were then tabulated and categorized. From the categorized responses, Herzberg concluded: Intrinsic factors, such as advancement, recognition, responsibility, and achievement, seem to be related to job satisfaction. Dissatisfied respondents tended to cite extrinsic factors, such as supervision, pay, company policies, and working conditions. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Job satisfaction factors are separate and distinct from job dissatisfaction factors. Managers who eliminate job dissatisfaction factors may not necessarily bring about motivation. (Exhibit 7-3) When hygiene factors are adequate, people will not be dissatisfied; neither will they be satisfied. To motivate people, emphasize factors intrinsically rewarding that are associated with the work itself or to outcomes directly derived from it. Criticisms of the theory: The procedure that Herzberg used is limited by its methodology. The reliability of Herzberg’s methodology is questioned. Regardless of criticisms, Herzberg’s theory has been widely read, and few managers are unfamiliar with his recommendations. McClelland’s Theory of Needs McClelland’s theory of needs focuses on three needs: achievement, power, and affiliation. Need for achievement need (nAch): The drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive to succeed. High achievers perform best when they perceive their probability of success as 50/50. They like to set goals that require stretching themselves a little. Predicted relationships: When jobs have a high degree of personal responsibility and feedback and an intermediate degree of risk, high achievers are strongly motivated. A high need to achieve does not necessarily make someone a good manager, especially in large organizations. Needs for affiliation and power tend to be closely related to managerial success. The view that a high achievement need acts as an internal motivator presupposes two U.S. cultural characteristics: Willingness to accept a moderate degree of risk (which excludes countries with strong uncertainty-avoidance characteristics). Concern with performance (which applies to countries with strong achievement characteristics). Need for power: the need to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise. The need for power (nPow): the desire to have impact, to be influential, and to control others. Need for affiliation (nAfl): the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships This need for affiliation is well established and accepted in research. A mong the early theories of motivation, McClelland’s has had the best research support particularly cross-culturally. Contemporary Theories of Motivation Introduction Contemporary theories have one thing in common: Each has a reasonable degree of valid supporting documentation. This doesn’t mean they are unquestionably right. We call them “contemporary theories” because they represent the current state of thinking in explaining employee motivation. Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory proposes that people prefer to feel they have control over their actions, so anything that makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than a freely chosen activity will undermine motivation. Much research on self-determination theory in OB has focused on cognitive evaluation theory, which hypothesizes that extrinsic rewards will reduce intrinsic interest in a task. When people are paid for work, it feels less like something they want to do and more like something they have to do. Self-determination theory also proposes that in addition to being driven by a need for autonomy, people seek ways to achieve competence and positive connections to others. When organizations use extrinsic rewards as payoffs for superior performance, employees feel they are doing a good job less because of their own intrinsic desire to excel than because that’s what the organization wants. Eliminating extrinsic rewards can also shift an individual’s perception of why she works on a task from an external to an internal explanation. What does self-determination theory suggest for providing rewards? If a computer programmer values writing code because she likes to solve problems, a reward for working to an externally imposed standard she does not accept, such as writing a certain number of lines of code every day, could feel coercive, and her intrinsic motivation would suffer. She would be less interested in the task and might reduce her effort. A recent outgrowth of self-determination theory is which considers how strongly peoples’ reasons for pursuing goals are consistent with their interests and core values. If individuals pursue goals because of an intrinsic interest, they are more likely to attain their goals and are happy even if they do not. The process of striving toward them is fun. In contrast, people who pursue goals for extrinsic reasons (money, status, or other benefits) are less likely to attain their goals and less happy even when they do. Because the goals are less meaningful to them. OB research suggests that people who pursue work goals for intrinsic reasons are more satisfied with their jobs, feel they fit into their organizations better, and may perform better. Implications For individuals, it means choose your job for reasons other than extrinsic rewards. For organizations, it means managers should provide intrinsic as well as extrinsic incentives. They need to make the work interesting, provide recognition, and support employee growth and development. Employees who feel what they do is within their control and a result of free choice are likely to be more motivated by their work and committed to their employers. Goal-Setting Theory Goal-setting theory: Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of work motivation. Goals tell an employee what needs to be done and how much effort is needed. Evidence strongly suggests that specific goals increase performance,that difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than do easy goals, and that feedback leads to higher performance than does non-feedback. Specific hard goals produce a higher level of output than do the generalized goals. If factors like ability and acceptance of the goals are held constant, we can also state that the more difficult the goal, the higher the level of performance. Why are people motivated by difficult goals? Challenging goals get our attention and thus, tend to help us focus. Difficult goals energize us because we have to work harder to attain them. When goals are difficult, people persist in trying to attain them. Difficult goals lead us to discover strategies that help us perform the job or task more effectively. People will do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing toward their goals. Self-generated feedback is a more powerful motivator than externally generated feedback. Recent research has shown that people monitor progress differently depending on how close they are to goal accomplishment. The evidence is mixed regarding the superiority of participative over assigned goals. If employees have the opportunity to participate in the setting of their own goals, will they try harder? A major advantage of participation may be in increasing acceptance. If people participate in goalsetting, they are more likely to accept even a difficult goal than if they are arbitrarily assigned it by their boss. If participation isn’t used, then the individual assigning the goal needs to clearly explain its purpose and importance. There are contingencies in goal-setting theory. In addition to feedback, three other factors influence the goals-performance relationship: goal commitment, task characteristics, and national culture. Goal commitment. Goal-setting theory presupposes that an individual is committed to the goal. Believes he or she can achieve the goal and wants to achieve it. Goal commitment is most likely to occur when goals are made public, when the individual has an internal locus of control, and when the goals are self-set rather than assigned. Task Characteristics. Goals themselves seem to affect performance more strongly when tasks are simple rather than complex, well learned rather than novel, and independent rather than interdependent. On interdependent tasks, group goals are preferable. National Culture. Setting specific, difficult, individual goals may have different effects in different cultures. In collectivistic and high-power-distance cultures, achievable moderate goals can be more highly motivating than difficult ones. Finally, assigned goals appear to generate greater goal commitment in high than in low power-distance cultures. More research is needed to assess how goal constructs might differ across cultures. When learning something is important, goals related to performance undermine adaptation and creativity because people become too focused on outcomes and ignore changing conditions. Goals can lead employees to be too focused on a single standard to the exclusion of all others. Despite differences of opinion, most researchers do agree that goals are powerful in shaping behavior. Research has also found that people differ in the way they regulate their thoughts and behaviors during goal pursuit. Generally, people fall into one of two categories, though they could belong to both. Those with a promotion focus strive for advancement and accomplishment and approach conditions that move them closer toward desired goals. Those with a prevention focus strive to fulfill duties and obligations and avoid conditions that pull them away from desired goals. Which is the better strategy? Ideally, it’s probably best to be both promotion and prevention oriented. Implementing goal-setting. How do you make goal-setting operation in practice? Management by Objectives (MBO) Participatively set goals that are tangible, verifiable, and measurable. Organizations’ overall Objectives are translated into specific Objectives for each succeeding level. (Exhibit 7-4) Four ingredients common to MBO programs: Goal specificity. Participation in decision making. Explicit time period. Performance feedback. MBO programs are common in many business, health care, educational, government, and nonprofit organizations. Goal Setting and Ethics. The relationship between goal-setting and ethics is quite complex: If we emphasize the attainment of goals, what is the cost? Time pressure often increases as we are nearing a goal, which can tempt us to act unethically to achieve it. Specifically, we may forgo mastering tasks and adopt avoidance techniques so we don’t look bad, both of which can incline us toward unethical choices. Other Contemporary Theories of Motivation Self-Efficacy Theory Self-efficacy theory, known also as social cognitive theory and social learning theory, refers to an individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. The higher your self-efficacy, the more confidence you have in your ability to succeed in a task. Self-efficacy can create a positive spiral in which those with high efficacy become more engaged in their tasks and then, in turn, increase performance, which increases efficacy further. Changes in self-efficacy over time are related to changes in creative performance as well. Individuals high in self-efficacy also seem to respond to negative feedback with increased effort and motivation, while those low in self-efficacy are likely to lessen their effort after negative feedback. Goal-setting theory and self-efficacy theory don’t compete with one another; they complement each other. (Exhibit 7-5) When a manager sets difficult goals for employees, it leads employees to have higher levels of self-efficacy, leading them to set higher goals for their own performance. Albert Bandura, developer of self-efficacy theory, identified four ways to increase self-efficacy: Enactive mastery—gaining relevant experience with the task or job. Vicarious modeling—becoming more confident because you see someone else doing the task. Verbal persuasion—more confident because someone convinces you that you have the skills. Arousal—leads to an energized state driving a person to complete the task. The best way for a manager to use verbal persuasion is through the Pygmalion effect or the Galatea effect. The Pygmalion effect is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy in which believing something can make it true. In some studies, teachers were told their students had very high IQ scores when in fact they spanned a range from high to low. Consistent with the Pygmalion effect, the teachers spent more time with the students they thought were smart, gave them more challenging assignments, and expected more of them—all of which led to higher student self-efficacy and better grades. This strategy has also been used in the workplace. Training programs often make use of enactive mastery by having people practice and build their skills. In fact, one reason training works is that it increases self-efficacy. Individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy also appear to reap more benefits from training programs and are more likely to use their training on the job. Reinforcement Theory Goal-setting is a cognitive approach, proposing that an individual’s purposes direct his action. Reinforcement theory, in contrast, takes a behavioristic view, arguing that reinforcement conditions behavior. The two theories are clearly at odds philosophically. Reinforcement theorists see behavior as environmentally caused. You need not be concerned, they would argue, with internal cognitive events; what controls behavior is reinforcers—any consequences that, when immediately following responses, increase the probability that the behavior will be repeated. Reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens when he or she takes some action. Because it does not concern itself with what initiates behavior, it is not, strictly speaking, a theory of motivation. But it does provide a powerful means of analyzing what controls behavior, and this is why we typically consider it in discussions of motivation. Operant conditioning theory argues that people learn to behave to get something they want or to avoid something they don’t want. Unlike reflexive or unlearned behavior, operant behavior is influenced by the reinforcement or lack of reinforcement brought about by its consequences. Reinforcement strengthens a behavior and increases the likelihood it will be repeated. B. F. Skinner, one of the most prominent advocates of operant conditioning, argued that creating pleasing consequences to follow specific forms of behavior would increase the frequency of that behavior. He demonstrated that people will most likely engage in desired behaviors if they are positively reinforced for doing so; that rewards are most effective if they immediately follow the desired response; and that behavior that is not rewarded, or is punished, is less likely to be repeated. The concept of operant conditioning was part of Skinner’s broader concept of behaviorism, which argues that behavior follows stimuli in a relatively unthinking manner. Skinner’s form of radical behaviorism rejects feelings, thoughts, and other states of mind as causes of behavior. In short, people learn to associate stimulus and response, but their conscious awareness of this association is irrelevant. You can see illustrations of operant conditioning everywhere that reinforcements are contingent on some action on your part. Of course, the linkage can also teach individuals to engage in behaviors that work against the best interests of the organization. Individuals can learn by being told or by observing what happens to other people, as well as through direct experiences. By watching models—parents, teachers, peers, film and television performers, bosses, and so forth, we can learn through both observation and direct experience and it is called social-learning theory. Although social-learning theory is an extension of operant conditioning—that is, it assumes behavior is a function of consequences—it also acknowledges the effects of observational learning and perception. People respond to the way they perceive and define consequences, not to the objective consequences themselves. Models are central to the social-learning viewpoint. Four processes determine their influence on an individual: Attentional processes. People learn from a model only when they recognize and pay attention to its critical features. Retention processes. A model’s influence depends on how well the individual remembers the model’s action after the model is no longer readily available. Motor reproduction processes. After a person has seen a new behavior by observing the model, watching must be converted to doing. Reinforcement processes. Individuals are motivated to exhibit the modeled behavior if positive incentives or rewards are provided. Equity Theory/Organizational Justice What role does equity play in motivation? Equity theory: individuals make comparisons of their job inputs and outcomes relative to those of others and then respond to any inequities. (Exhibit 7-6) If we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others with whom we compare ourselves, a state of equity is said to exist. We perceive our situation as fair. When we see the ratio as unequal, we experience equity tension. When employees perceive an inequity, they can be predicted to make one of six choices: Change their inputs. Change their outcomes. Distort perceptions of self. Distort perceptions of others. Choose a different referent. Leave the field. Some of these propositions have been supported, but others haven’t. First, inequities created by overpayment do not seem to significantly affect behavior in most work situations. People have more tolerance of overpayment inequities than of underpayment inequities or are better able to rationalize them. It’s pretty damaging to a theory when half the equation falls apart. Second, not all people are equity sensitive. A few actually prefer outcome-input ratios lower than the referent comparisons. Predictions from equity theory are not likely to be very accurate about these “benevolent types.” Organizational justice (fairness in the workplace) draws a bigger picture. For the most part, employees evaluate how fairly they are treated along four dimensions. (Exhibit 7-7) Distributive Justice. Distributive justice is concerned with the fairness of the outcomes, such as pay and recognition that employees receive. Procedural Justice. Although employees care a lot about what outcomes are distributed (distributive justice), they also care a lot about how outcomes are distributed. While distributive justice looks at what outcomes are allocated, procedural justice examines how outcomes are allocated. Having direct influence over how decisions are made, or at the very least being able to present your opinion to decision makers, creates a sense of control and makes us feel empowered. Employees also perceive that procedures are fairer when decision makers follow several “rules.” It turns out that procedural and distributive justice combine to influence people’s perceptions of fairness. If outcomes are favorable and individuals get what they want, they care less about the process, so procedural justice doesn’t matter as much when distributions are perceived to be fair. Informational Justice. Research has shown that employees care about two other types of fairness that have to do with the way they are treated during interactions with others. The first type is informational justice which reflects whether managers provide employees with explanations for key decisions and keep them informed of important organizational matters. Interpersonal Justice. The second type of justice relevant to interactions between managers and employees is interpersonal justice, which reflects whether employees are treated with dignity and respect. Justice Outcomes. How much does justice really matter to employees? A great deal, as it turns out. When employees feel fairly treated, they respond in a number of positive ways. All four types of justice discussed in this section have been linked to higher levels of task performance and citizenship behaviors such as helping coworkers, as well as lower levels of counterproductive behaviors such as shirking job duties. Distributive and procedural justices are more strongly associated with task performance, while informational and interpersonal justices are more strongly associated with citizenship behavior. Studies suggest that managers are indeed motivated to foster employees’ perceptions of justice because they wish to ensure compliance, maintain a positive identity, and establish fairness at work. Despite all attempts to enhance fairness, perceived injustices are still likely to occur. Fairness is often subjective; what one person sees as unfair, another may see as perfectly appropriate. Ensuring Justice. It might be tempting for organizations to adopt strong justice guidelines in attempts to mandate managerial behavior, but this isn’t likely to be universally effective. In cases where managers have more rules and less discretion, those who calculate justice are more likely to act fairly, but managers whose justice behavior follows from their affect may act more fairly when they have greater discretion. Culture and Justice. In terms of cultural differences, meta-analytic evidence shows individuals in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures prefer an equitable distribution of rewards over an equal division (everyone gets paid the same regardless of performance). International managers must consider the cultural preferences of each group of employees when determining what is “fair” in different contexts. Expectancy Theory Expectancy theory is one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation. Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory has its critics but most of the research is supportive. Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual. It says that an employee will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when he/she believes that: Effort will lead to a good performance appraisal. That a good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards. That the rewards will satisfy his/her personal goals. Three key relationships: (Exhibit 7-8) Effort-performance relationship: the probability perceived by the individual that exerting a given amount of effort will lead to performance. Performance-reward relationship: the degree to which the individual believes that performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome. Rewards-personal goals relationship: the degree to which organizational rewards satisfy an individual’s personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the individual. Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers aren’t motivated on their jobs and do only the minimum necessary to get by. Three questions employees need to answer in the affirmative if their motivation is to be maximized: If I give maximum effort, will it be recognized in my performance appraisal? If I get a good performance appraisal, will it lead to organizational rewards? If I’m rewarded, are the rewards attractive to me? Some critics suggest that the theory has only limited use, arguing that it tends to be more valid for predicting in situations where effort-performance and performance-reward linkages are clearly perceived by the individual. Job Engagement Job engagement: the investment of an employee’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into job performance. Practicing managers and scholars alike have lately become interested in facilitating job engagement, believing something deeper than liking a job or finding it interesting drives performance. Many studies attempt to measure this deeper level of commitment. The Gallup organization has been using 12 questions to assess the extent to which employee engagement is linked to positive work outcomes for millions of employees over the past 30 years. There are far more engaged employees in highly successful organizations than in average organizations, and groups with more engaged employees have higher levels of productivity, fewer safety incidents, and lower turnover. Academic studies have also found positive outcomes. One examined multiple business units for their level of engagement and found a positive relationship with a variety of practical outcomes. Another reviewed 91 distinct investigations and found higher levels of engagement associated with task performance and citizenship behavior. What makes people more likely to be engaged in their jobs? One key is the degree to which an employee believes it is meaningful to engage in work. This is partially determined by job characteristics and access to sufficient resources to work effectively. Another factor is a match between the individual’s values and those of the organization. Leadership behaviors that inspire workers to a greater sense of mission also increase employee engagement. One of the critiques of engagement is that the construct is partially redundant with job attitudes like satisfaction or stress. However, engagement questionnaires usually assess motivation and absorption in a task, quite unlike job satisfaction questionnaires. Engagement may also predict important work outcomes better than traditional job attitudes. Other critics note that there may be a “dark side” to engagement, as evidenced by positive relationships between engagement and work-family conflict. Individuals might grow so engaged in their work roles that family responsibilities become an unwelcome intrusion. Further research exploring how engagement relates to these negative outcomes may help clarify whether some highly engaged employees might be getting “too much of a good thing.” Integrating Contemporary Motivation Theories Exhibit 7-9 integrates much of what we know about motivation. Its basic foundation is the expectancy model. Expectancy theory predicts that an employee will exert a high level of effort if he/she perceives that there is a strong relationship between effort and performance, performance and rewards, and rewards and satisfaction of personal goals. Each of these relationships, in turn, is influenced by certain factors. For effort to lead to good performance, the individual must have the requisite ability to perform, and the performance appraisal system must be perceived as being fair and objective. The final link in expectancy theory is the rewards-goals relationship. The model considers the achievement, need, reinforcement, and equity/organizational justice theories. High achievers are internally driven as long as the jobs they are doing provide them with personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risks. Reinforcement theory recognizes that the organization’s rewards reinforce the individual’s performance. Individuals will compare the rewards (outcomes) they receive from the inputs they make with the outcome-input ratio of relevant others and inequities may influence the effort expended. Summary and Implications for Management The motivation theories in this chapter differ in their predictive strength. Maslow’s hierarchy, McClelland’s needs, and the two-factor theory focus on needs. Self-determination theory and cognitive evaluation theory have merits to consider. Goal-setting theory can be helpful but does not cover absenteeism, turnover, or job satisfaction. Reinforcement theory can be helpful, but not regarding employee satisfaction or the decision to quit. Equity theory’s strongest legacy is that it provided the spark for research on organizational justice, which has more support in the literature. Expectancy theory can be helpful, but assumes employees have few constraints on decision making, such as bias or incomplete information, and this limits its applicability. Job engagement goes a long way toward explaining employee commitment. Specific implications for managers are below: Make sure extrinsic rewards for employees are not viewed as coercive, but instead provide information about competence and relatedness. Consider goal-setting theory: clear and difficult goals often lead to higher levels of employee productivity. Consider reinforcement theory regarding quality and quantity of work, persistence of effort, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates. Consult equity theory to help understand productivity, satisfaction, absence, and turnover variables. Expectancy theory offers a powerful explanation of performance variables such as employee productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. Career Objectives Why won’t he take my advice? The new guy in the office is nice enough, but he’s straight out of college, and I have 20 years of experience in the field. I’d like to help him out, but he won’t take it, no matter how I approach him. Is there anything I can do to motivate him to accept my advice? He badly needs a few pointers. —James Dear James: It’s great that you want to help, and surely you have wisdom to offer. But let’s start with this: When was the last time you took someone else’s advice? Chances are, it’s easier for you to remember the last time you didn’t take someone’s advice than when you did. That’s because we want success on our own terms, and we don’t like the idea that a ready answer was out there all along (and we missed it). “When somebody says, ‘You should do something, the subtext is, ‘You’re an idiot for not already doing it,’” said psychologist Alan Goldberg. “Nobody takes advice under those conditions.” So under what conditions do people take advice? There are two parts to the motivational equation for advice: what your coworker wants to hear and how you can approach him. For the first part, keep this rule in mind: He wants to believe that whatever decisions he’s made are brilliant. If he hears anything different from that, he’s likely to tune you out or keep talking until you come over to his side. For the second part, your coworker's motivation to accept and, more importantly, act on advice has a lot to do with how you approach him. Are you likely to “impart your wisdom to the younger generation?" Anything like “I wish I had known this when I was just starting out like you” advice will likely have him thinking you (and your advice) are out of date. Are you going to give “If I were you, I would do this” advice? He may resent your intrusion. According to research, what is most likely to work is a gentle suggestion, phrased as a request. Ravi Dhar, a director at Yale, said, “Interrogatives have less reaction and may be more effective.” You might say, for instance, “Would you consider trying out this idea?” Take heart; the problem isn’t that we don't like advice—we do, as long as we seek it. According to research, we are more motivated toward advice when we are facing important decisions, so good timing may work in your favor. When he does ask, you may suggest that he write down the parameters of his choices and his interpretations of the ethics of each decision. Researcher Dan Ariely has found that we are much more motivated to make morally right decisions when we’ve considered the moral implications in a forthright manner. In this way, your coworker may motivate himself to make the right decisions. Keep trying! Sources: D. Ariely, “What Price for the Soul of a Stranger?” The Wall Street Journal, May10–11, 2014, C12; J. Queenan, “A Word to the Wise,” The Wall Street Journal, February8–9, 2014, C1–C2; and S. Reddy, “The Trick to Getting People to Take the Stairs? Just Ask,” The Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2015, R4. Myth or Science? “Helping Others and Being a Good Citizen Is Good for Your Career” We might think we should motivate employees to display organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and that helping others would benefit their careers. We would probably also believe our own OCB will yield us career benefits. Surprisingly, there is some evidence that these assumptions are false, at least in certain organizations. Why? In some organizations, employees are evaluated more on how their work gets done than on how much. If they possess the requisite knowledge and skills, or if they demonstrate the right behaviors on the job (for example, always greeting customers with a smile), they are determined by management to be motivated, “good” performers. In these situations, OCBs are considered to have the next highest level of good employee behavior. Employees’ careers thus benefit as a result of their helpfulness toward coworkers. However, in other organizations, employees are evaluated more based on what gets done. Here, employees are determined to be “good” performers if they meet objective goals such as billing clients a certain number of hours or reaching a certain sales volume. When managers overlook employee OBC, frown on helpful behaviors, or create an overly competitive organizational culture, employees become unmotivated to continue their helpful actions. Those who still engage in OCBC can find their career progress is slowed when they take time away from core tasks to be helpful. The upshot? There may be a trade-off between being a good performer and being a good citizen. In organizations that focus more on behaviors, following your motivation to be a good citizen can help you accomplish your career goals. However, in organizations that focus more on objective outcomes, you may need to consider the cost of your good deeds. Sources: D. M. Bergeron, “The Potential Paradox of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Good Citizens at What Cost?” Academy of Management Review, 32, no. 4 (2007); and D. M. Bergeron, A. J. Shipp, B. Rosen, & and S. A. Furst, “Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Career Outcomes: The Cost of Being a Good Citizen,” Journal of Management, 39, no. 4 (2013), pp. 958–-984. Class Exercise Divide the class into groups of five to six students each. Ask students to identify the benefits and drawbacks of evaluating employees on how their work gets done. Then, ask students to consider the benefits and drawbacks of evaluating employees on what gets done. Discuss the type of organization where each approach could be successful and where it might not. Each group should present the results of their analysis to the class. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLifefor more information. An Ethical Choice Motivated by Big Brother Technology is a great thing. The Internet provides us with instant access to an abundance of information, and smartphones allow us to stay easily connected with others through e-mail, texting, tweeting, and conversation. Yet that ease of connectivity has also given employees the sinking feeling they are being watched, and . . they are right. But is it ethical? Some companies are using technology to track their employees’ activities, and some of this tracking is done in the name of science. For example, Bank of America Corp. wanted to learn whether face-to-face interaction made a difference to the productivity of its call centre teams, so it asked around 100 workers to wear badges for a few weeks that tracked their whereabouts. Discovering that the most productive workers interacted most frequently with others, the company scheduled work breaks for groups rather than individually. This is an interesting outcome, but how did the monitoring affect the behavior and motivation of the workers? Other companies track employees to ensure they are hard at work, which risks completely demotivating some. Accurate Biometrics, for example, uses computer monitoring to oversee its telecommuters. According to Timothy Daniels, VP of Operations, looking at websites his employees have visited “enables us to keep a watchful eye without being overly invasive." Currently, around 70 percent of organizations monitor their employees. Practically speaking, managers may not want to adopt technologies that demotivate their employees through micromanagement. Perhaps more importantly, how can they use monitoring technology ethically in workplace applications? First and foremost, employees should be informed that their activities will be tracked. Second, the purpose of tracking should be made clear to employees. Are workers being monitored to learn something that might help them and the organization as a whole? Or are they being monitored to ensure they never slack off? Finally, it should be made clear which behaviors are inappropriate. Taking a legitimate work break is different from spending hours on a social networking site. These guidelines should increase the likelihood that monitoring programs are accepted and perceived to be fair. Sources: S. Shellenbarger, “Working from Home without Slacking Off,” The Wall Street Journal, July 13–15, 2012, 29;R. Richmond, “3 Tips for Legally and Ethically Monitoring Employees Online,” Entrepreneur, May 31, 2012, http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/223686; and R. E. Silverman, “Tracking Sensors Invade the Workplace,” The Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2003, www.wsj.com Class Exercise Divide the class into groups of three to five students each. Ask the groups to discuss whether it is ethical for employers to track their employees. Then, ask students how they would feel if they learned that their activities had been tracked. Finally, ask each group to develop a list of “acceptable” actions by companies and a list of “unacceptable” actions. Each group should present their results to the class. Were the lists similar across groups? What does this tell students about the ethics of employee tracking by employers? Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Personal Inventory Assessments Work Motivation Indicator Do you find that some jobs motivate you more than others? Take this PIA to determine your work motivation. Point/Counterpoint Goals Get You to Where You Want to Be Point Of course this is a true statement. Goal-setting theory is one of the best-supported theories in all the motivation literature. Study after study has consistently shown the benefits of goals. Want to excel on a test, lose a certain amount of weight, obtain a job with a particular income level, or improve your golf game? If you want to be a high performer, merely set a specific, difficult goal and let nature take its course. That goal will dominate your attention, cause you to focus, and make you try harder. All too often, people are told by others to simply “do their best.” Could anything be more vague? What does “do your best” actually mean? Maybe you feel that your “best” on one day is to muster a grade of 50 percent on an exam, while your “best” on another day is an 80. But if you were given a more difficult goal—say, to score a 95 on the exam—and you were committed to that goal, you would ultimately perform better. Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, the researchers best known for goal-setting theory, put it best when they said, “The effects of goal-setting are very reliable.” In short, goal-setting theory is among the most valid and practical theories of motivation in organizational psychology. Counterpoint Sure, a lot of research has shown the benefits of goal-setting, but those studies ignore the harm that’s often done. For one, how often have you set a “stretch” goal, only to see yourself later fail? Goals create anxiety and worry about reaching them, and they often create unrealistic expectations as well. Imagine those who had set a goal to earn a promotion in a certain period of time (a specific, difficult goal), only to find themselves laid off once the recession hit. Or how about those who envisioned a retirement of leisure yet were forced to take on a part-time job or delay retirement altogether in order to continue to make ends meet. When too many things are out of our control, our difficult goals become impossible. Or, consider this: goals can lead to unethical behavior and poorer performance. How many reports have you heard over the years about teachers who “fudged” students’ test scores in order to achieve educational standards? Another example: when Ken O’Brian, a professional quarterback for the New York Jets, was penalized for every interception he threw, he achieved his goal of fewer interceptions quite easily—by refusing to throw the ball even when he should have. In addition to this anecdotal evidence, research has directly linked goal-setting to cheating. We should heed the warning of Professor Maurice E. Schweitzer— that “Goal-setting is like a powerful medication”—before blindly accepting that specific, difficult goal. Sources: E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham, “Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation,” American Psychologist57 (2002), pp. 705–771; A. Tugend, “Expert’s Advice to the Goal-Oriented: Don’t Overdo It,” The New York Times (October 6, 2012), p. B5; and C. Richards, “Letting Go of Long-Term Goals,” The New York Times (August 4, 2012). Class Exercise In most universities, professors use fear to motivate students to performance. They are likely to say something like, “Study hard to make a good grade on the test. If you don’t, you’ll fail the class!” This has led to an emphasis on students’ parts to make a grade rather that learn the information. Divide the class into groups of three to five students each. Ask students to discuss what their goals are in the class. Students should identify their first objective. Is it to make a grade? Or is it to learn the topic? Ask them to be honest. Most often, the former is most students’ primary objective. Ask the groups to compare this finding against goal-setting theory and expectation theory. Discuss whether or not these theories would make a difference in a professor’s approach to the motivation of students. Do the students believe their performance would be affected by different motivational approaches? Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Instructor Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016
