Motivation

Motivation Introduction The subject of motivation has been centre stage in organisational and managerial thought throughout the second half of the last century. If we understand what motivates people, and in particular if we understand what motivates people to work hard and to work well, we can arrange for those who turn up on time and who do perform well to receive more of what they value, and for the latecomers and poor performers to receive less. Unfortunately, understanding the links between desirable behaviour and rewards is not easy. For a given ability level, performance can vary widely, depending on the effort the employee chooses to exert. You can probably think of a job situation in which you have chosen to work extremely hard, and another set of circumstances when you felt inclined to put rather less into the job. There are a number of theories concerning the motivation of man, all of which are based upon assumptions — largely unproved — about the nature of man. These theories have tended to reflect the dominant mood, opinion or philosophy in society at the time. For example, rationalism has been the dominant philosophy in the West for the last two centuries or so. This philosophy is based on the notion that all problems will yield to logical examination eventually. This has encouraged the astonishing growth of science in the last three centuries. It has also led to ‘scientific management’, manifested in the work of F W Taylor and Henry Ford, and given us work study, the assembly line, division of labour, and so on. Currently, the philosophy is changing rapidly. Modern management thinking is based on a belief that organisations resemble living organisms more closely than they do machines; that is that they are best examined as systems. The systems approach can be regarded as stemming from an attempt by biologists to ‘fight back’ against the prestigious physical sciences shortly after the Second World War. They argued that the highly reductionist approach that had been so successful in physics, namely studying variables in isolation and looking for simple cause–effect relationships, was being applied in areas such as the behavioural sciences where it was singularly unhelpful. In understanding the behaviour of individual organisms, the organism as a whole needs to be considered and the extent to which it could maintain a desired state in the face of environmental difficulties. The biologists argued that the relationship between the parts of the whole organism needed to be studied, rather than the parts in isolation, and the feedback loops allowing the maintenance of a steady state had to be understood. These same ideas were as important for understanding organisations as they were for understanding individual organisms. The organisms were a useful analogy, when conceptualising a problem situation. Thoughts from evolutionary psychology As noted in the Introduction to this module, cognitive psychology has become fashionable once more. To remind you of the principles of this field, this psychology attempts to explain our actions in terms of our beliefs and desires. For example, we slow down when we see a speed camera because we believe that we will be caught for speeding, and we desire to avoid paying a fine and being banned from driving. We claim that these beliefs are the causes of our actions. Cognitive psychology also believes that the mind works like a computer. This is relevant to our understanding of motivation, because it forms the basis of the most modern, process, theories. They are so–called because the individual processes information and draws conclusions. We will find them in the form of expectancy and goal–setting theories. Topics covered in this session Economic theories Needs theories Expectancy and goal–setting theories The psychological contract Learning objectives By the end of this session you should be able to: Explain the difference between content and process theories of motivation and critically assess the relative merits of each perspective Analyse and summarise the differences between economic, needs, goal–setting and expectancy theories of motivation Explain the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and assess the relative importance of these differences for practising managers Evaluate the practical applications of each theory drawing on your own experience of working as an employee and/or manager Describe and assess the nature and importance of the psychological contract Resources you will need Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) Exploring theories of motivation There are three main theoretical approaches that are of interest to us: economic theories needs theories goal–setting and expectancy theories. Economic and needs theories are also known as content theories, whereas goal–setting and expectancy theories are also referred to as process or cognitive theories. The idea of a cognitive theory fits well with our observation in the Introduction to this module that cognitive psychology is back in fashion. Just to recap, this psychology attempts to explain our actions in terms of our beliefs and desires. We claim that these beliefs are the causes of our actions. Motivation can be extrinsic — concerning rewards provided by others, such as praise and money — or intrinsic — concerning the rewards we give ourselves, such as feelings of achievement and self–confidence. There has been a number of theories put forward as to why people choose to exert their efforts in particular directions at particular times, and to varying degrees, and a number of less formally constructed 'theories' of motivation adopted, often unconsciously, by managers. By 'theory' in this second sense we mean a set of assumptions about 'what makes people tick' that managers may not even have articulated to themselves but which nevertheless determine how they handle their subordinates. Economic theories These are based upon the notions of Taylorism and scientific management. Man operates in his own economic self–interest. Payment should be directly linked to measured increments of work, as in payment by results. There are strong links here with Taylor, work study, Henry Ford, the assembly line, and bureaucracy as a form of organisation. There are a number of beliefs that F W Taylor and his followers espoused: Fundamentally people disliked work and had to be pressured into doing it. Employees were untrustworthy and unreliable, and hence had to be constantly supervised and directed. For maximum productivity, it was necessary to standardise jobs by dividing them into tasks and sub–tasks. Each of these was allocated to a different person. Since discipline was necessary to ensure that work was done, a system of hierarchical authority was required to implement management’s policy. The task to be carried out had to be carefully studied, and the ‘one–best–way’ discovered and taught to employees. Each task had to be carefully selected. The tools with which to do the tasks had to be carefully chosen. The careful selection of the best person for the job had to be based on ‘fitness for the job’. Ensure that employees use the ‘one–best–way’ by using a payment by results system — the more you produce, the more you earn. Activity 7.1 Reflect upon the systems of motivation used in your organisation. How many of Taylor’s beliefs are being observed' Record your results in your self–development diary. Feedback on activity 7.1 ------------------------------------------------- In many ways your reflections will depend on your own knowledge and experience of work. If you have worked extensively in a manufacturing environment you may well find that aspects of Taylorism are very much alive. These would include short–term target–driven objectives perhaps linked to bonus. However most work environments now focus on the nature of teams and the subjective aspects of work which Taylor largely ignored. Needs theories The Hawthorne experiments When an individual works as a member of a group, it has a great effect on their behaviour. One of the earliest studies of people working in groups was made at the Hawthorne works of the Western Electric Company in the American city of Chicago over sixty years ago. Included in this pioneering investigation was the observation of a group of workers wiring banks of resistors. It was found that they restricted their output; the group had a standard of output and this was not exceeded by any individual. The attitude of the members of the group towards the company’s financial incentive scheme was one of indifference. The group was highly integrated with its own social structure and code of behaviour which clashed with that of the management. Essentially their code was composed of solidarity on the part of the group against the management. Not too much work should be done, that would be ratebusting; not too little should be done, that would be chiselling. There was little recognition of the organisation’s formal allocation of roles. (Pugh, 1989) Elton Mayo, Professor of Industrial Research at Harvard University from 1926 to 1947, is long associated with these experiments. His approach was scientific; starting from the assumption that the working environment determined work performance, he organised a long–running experiment in which various elements were varied — such as lighting and heating. Astonishingly, every time that he made a change — even a detrimental one — output increased. Clearly something else was happening. Eventually he came to the conclusion that it was something to do with the group itself — group dynamics. The human relations school of management was born which came to dominate management thought in America in the 1960s. Although the findings of the research conducted at the Hawthorne works of the Western Electric Company were ambiguous, a supporter of human relations theory would stress the importance of the following: Individual employee productivity and morale are boosted if staff are given an opportunity to interact freely with each other. Productivity is enhanced if bosses take an interest in their subordinates and their work. Informal groups and leaders have as much (if not more) influence on the behaviour of staff as formal ones. Groups develop their own norms about work output and quality. Groups exert both negative and positive sanctions to control the behaviour of their members. Individuals obtain satisfaction from membership of work groups. Reading 1 — The Hawthorne Studies For futher information on these studies, read the contribution on wikipedia. Go to http://www.wikipedia.com and enter Hawthorne Studies as a search term. You will also find a good description in Huczynski and Buchanan. Activity 7.2 Do you observe groups in your organisation controlling output, despite the efforts of management' How do managers cope with this' Record your findings in your self–development diary. Feedback on activity 7.2 ------------------------------------------------- Managers may use a range of formal and informal methods to manage groups but obviously if a manager consults and talks with the group it is more likely to cooperate. Spending time with the groups enables the manager to observe and to be visible which is important too. Obviously agreeing and negotiating output and performance targets are essential because if the group members think they are part of this decision–making process they will ‘buy into it’ and work with the manager, as opposed to working against them. The influence of Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg and others Douglas McGregor, a professor in management at MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1950s, usefully drew attention to those implicit 'theories' held by managers, by contrasting what he saw as two very different sets of assumptions which he labelled Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X, he said, assumes that the average working man is naturally lazy, lacking in ambition, indifferent to organisational needs and gullible. In contrast, Theory Y assumes that if people behave in this way it is not innate, but the result of their experience. They are ready to assume responsibility and work towards organisational goals, provided management arranges things so that employees can achieve their own goals best by directing their effort towards organisational objectives. Theory X implies, therefore, a management by coercion and control, Theory Y suggests that collaboration and supportive relationships are more important. McGregor’s work was extremely useful, first in that it highlighted the existence of differing sets of assumptions. We can begin to question our assumptions only when we are aware that they exist at all; when we are aware that we are assuming people are, say, ready to serve organisational goals, and that this is not necessarily the way the world actually is! Having questioned the assumptions underlying our behaviour, we may be better able to modify the behaviour itself. McGregor was trying to formalise implicit theories, which had been perhaps unconsciously adopted rather than carefully worked out. On another tack, researchers were deliberately trying to formalise their understanding of human motivation into testable academic theories. Some of these have been widely quoted in the management literature and will be briefly covered here. Activity 7.3 Is your organisation Theory X or Theory Y' Compare your answer with the one you gave to Activity 7.1. ------------------------------------------------- There is no feedback for this activity. Abraham Maslow One of the earliest, and still widely quoted, motivation theories was that of Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist widely considered to be the father of humanistic psychology. He suggested that people had five sets of needs: needs for self–actualisation esteem needs love needs safety needs physiological needs. By self–actualisation Maslow means the need to fulfil one's potential — 'a poet must write'. Motivation, according to Maslow, arises when a need is unmet: if you are thirsty, you will walk to a well. Furthermore, these needs are ordered. Those listed first have priority over those which follow. If you are hungry or thirsty you will direct your behaviour towards meeting those needs before later, 'higher–order' needs influence you: the poem can wait until you have secured food or water. You will not be influenced by whether people will like you and approve of your actions if you are fighting to save your job. There have been many other categorisations of needs or motives over the years, with numbers of categories ranging from more than 70 down to more manageable sets such as Maslow's. There is nothing magical or definitive about his five categories. Indeed, a more useful (in our view) formulation was proposed by Alderfer (1969). He suggests only three categories: growth needs, for example for learning new skills and for self–respect relatedness needs, for example for social interaction and respect existence needs, related to survival and reproduction. There is another variation in Alderfer's formulation that seems to fit better with our experience. He suggests that all needs can be active at the same time (you can have a starving poet, scribbling away in his icy attic room). However, if the satisfaction of a higher need is blocked, the importance of lower needs may increase. This has important implications for managers. Many jobs are designed so that growth needs cannot be satisfied at work. Alderfer would suggest that, if this were the case, social needs would become more important and, if these were blocked too, existence needs would increase in strength, perhaps leading to increased pay demands and a stronger determination to fight for them. Both Maslow and Alderfer are suggesting that behaviour is need–driven, although Alderfer is suggesting that circumstances can modify needs other than by satisfying them. In contrast to this, several theories focus less on the needs of the person and explain behaviour in terms of its external goals. Frederick Herzberg You have probably already heard of Herzberg's two–factor theory of job satisfaction, but for completeness a brief summary is included here. Herzberg interviewed 200 engineers and accountants in Pittsburgh, USA, asking them to recall events at work resulting in a marked improvement or reduction in job satisfaction. He then categorized the responses. He found that five categories, or factors, were associated much more frequently with times of feelings of satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Five different factors showed the reverse effect. Herzberg summarized his findings as follows. ‘Five factors stand out as strong determiners of job satisfaction — achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement... These five factors appeared very infrequently when the respondents described events that paralleled job satisfaction feelings... When the factors involved in the job dissatisfaction events were coded an entirely different set of factors evolved... (which) served only to bring about job dissatisfaction and were rarely involved in events that led to positive job attitudes. The major dissatisfiers were company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions... Since the dissatisfier factors essentially describe the environment and serve primarily to prevent job dissatisfaction ... they have been named the hygiene factors... (in analogy to the medical use of the term) The 'satisfier' factors were named the motivators, since the other findings of the study suggest that they are effective in motivating the individual to superior performance and effort... the hygiene or maintenance events led to job dissatisfaction because of a need to avoid unpleasantness; the motivator events led to job satisfaction because of a need for growth or self actualisation.’ From Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing Company. Figure 5 represents Herzberg's original findings. Figure [ 5 ] — Graphical representation of Herzberg's findings. This research has its critics. The main problem is that the sample is so limited. It used only white middle–class professionals in one US City. Thus, strictly speaking, it cannot be applied to other cultures, religions, countries, work categories or women. None of these criticisms detract from the attractive simplicity of the research. You may like to consider this when you attempt your project at the end of the course. Herzberg derived a set of principles for job design from his work, which were widely applied in the 1970s in an attempt at improving motivation, and hence performance, at work. These principles can be summarised as follows: Help individuals to become accountable for their own work. I.e. if they make a mistake, it’s down to them. By the same token, if they succeed at something, they should receive acknowledgement. At the same time, reduce the controls by management on their work. Try to arrange work so that individuals have a complete job to perform, not just a small element. For example, it is difficult to see how putting the right–hand front wheel of a car in an assembly plant is about assembling cars. Give individuals authority for making their own decisions. This is about giving them freedom to act. Improve lines of communication so that individuals receive direct feedback, rather than through the supervisor. For example, feedback from a customer will be very potent and more likely to be acted on than second–hand feedback from the supervisor. Increase the difficulty of work to enable individuals to develop. This can be done by giving more specialized tasks, so encouraging them to become experts, or by giving them new and difficult tasks, thus increasing variety at the same time. Herzberg gave a very clear specification as to how managers should approach job enrichment. The following is a simplified version of his list. 1 Look at jobs where it shouldn’t require too much investment in engineering to make the changes. Clearly, a full–scale refit of an assembly plant would not be regarded too enthusiastically by the accountants! 2 Look at jobs where individuals’ attitudes are negative, where it is becoming expensive to introduce hygiene factors, and where motivation will greatly improve performance. 3 There will be resistance from managers, and you will need to adopt a positive attitude, believing that you can make a difference. 4 Derive a list of changes that will enhance job enrichment. Don’t worry if they are impractical at this stage, Brainstorming works well here. 5 From this list, remove the hygiene factors. It is only the job enrichment factors that you want. 6 Remove the motherhood statements from the list. The Americans have an expression “Motherhood and apple pie”. It means those elements that everyone agrees are good things, but are completely useless in showing the way forward. In this case, the expression “Giving individuals more responsibility” falls into this category. What exactly does it mean' Until it is defined carefully, it is of no value. 7 Don’t allow the individuals affected to participate in the process. The point that Herzberg is making is that you are trying to change the content of the jobs, not the attitudes of the jobholders. This is a controversial point, and conflicts with current thinking on culture change. 8 Perform a pilot first before rolling out the full scheme. The pilot will allow you to learn about practicalities and make necessary adjustments. 9 Expect performance to drop initially. We examined this phenomenon in Session 5, Managing Individual Change. Individuals are being called upon to change here as well. 10 Supervisors could feel isolated and without a job to do if the change isn’t handled carefully. Expect some hostility to the change. The term job enrichment was widely used to describe orthodox Herzberg inspired interventions. By extension it came to be used for any attempt to improve motivation by increasing individual responsibility. Some of these initiatives were highly successful, at least in the short term. Others were spectacularly unsuccessful. A systems perspective suggests some of the possible reasons for this. Two key features of a systems approach that we see as crucial in this context are the emphasis on inter–relationships and the emphasis on environment or context. This leads you to pay careful attention to a diagnostic phase before intervention, looking at all the related aspects of a situation. Job enrichment exercises have tended to be focussed very narrowly, applying the solution of 'more responsibility' to an ill–defined problem. Indeed, we know of at least one case where the problem was 'too much responsibility and not enough training' and job enrichment made the situation a great deal worse. Two of the key factors ignored in orthodox job enrichment are the perceptions and objectives of the employees involved, because of the emphasis on an experimental approach. Another area which it downplays is the area of social relations. At about the same time as job enrichment reached its peak popularity in the USA and UK, a more explicitly systems–based approach was being developed and widely applied, mainly in Europe. This was the socio–technical approach which grew out of work in British coal mines carried out by the London Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Trist and Bamforth (1951) were studying the effects of the introduction of a mechanised method for longwall mining, organised very much along traditional assembly line principles, with extreme job specialisation. Different shifts were responsible for different tasks, with those on a shift having only the skills needed for that specific task. The researchers observed that where this method was 'successfully' introduced, major problems of absenteeism and low productivity arose. However, in some places geological considerations meant only partial implementation was possible, and something closer to the old team–method of working continued, multi–skilled teams being responsible for the whole coal–extracting cycle rather than just a part of it. In these cases such problems did not arise. This led Trist and Bamforth to suggest that thinking purely of the technical system was unhelpful. You could design a maximally productive technical system on paper but, if you ignored the social system with which it interacted, the output of the combined socio–technical system would be less than optimal. Out of this work grew the concept of the autonomous working group. As with job enrichment the emphasis is on increasing responsibility, but this is done on a group, rather than individual basis. This allows for necessary inter–relations to be worked out and for the social system to be developed. Groups are given wide discretion for the planning and organisation of their own work. The supervisor's role changes to that of advisor. Instead of controlling the group, the supervisor becomes a resource to it. Sometimes the supervisor role is abolished entirely, although there are risks attached to this strategy. The group is given clear objectives and left to decide how to achieve them. Groups have access to resources such as training specialists, and will often wish to increase the range of skills of individual group members. This gives more flexibility in how the work is carried out. Where autonomous working groups function well, closely–knit teams can evolve, with firm commitment to meeting the group's objectives. Skills are increased and output is high. Rewards for the group can be realistically linked to attainment of targets and work is socially rewarding, too. On the cost side of the equation is the need for considerable training, especially for supervisors faced with a drastically altered role. Additional capital may be required, for example in tooling, to enable a group to do a 'whole' job. Social misfits can be hard to incorporate into the autonomous working group system. The best known examples of this approach are probably Saab and Volvo, both of whom moved away from assembly line production and towards group working, with groups, for example, responsible for assembling a complete engine. In this country a good example is Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. Even more interesting was the experience of United Biscuits who introduced their Herzberg United Biscuits (HUB) scheme as straight job enrichment. However this rapidly developed into the formation of autonomous working groups with assembly line operators, chosen on a rotating basis by the group, taking responsibility for regulating the speed of the line and for liaising with the rest of the factory. The 'theories' described above are fairly selective about what they choose to explain. We find them interesting, but only partly helpful. Herzberg suggests that we concentrate on 'motivators', but the conceptual underpinning for this is not particularly convincing. The idea of group autonomy is more satisfying as it is clear that it will often make sense to delegate a whole 'chunk' of responsibility to a group. This will make both targets and their attainment more obvious, thus increasing the scope for feedback. Increasing responsibility on an individual basis may cause coordination problems, which limit what you can do. The importance of the social system is convincing too. We know from personal experience that working as a member of a team towards a common goal satisfies social needs, and can be a powerfully motivating experience. Chatting with colleagues cannot begin to match this. However, in trying to structure the work of subordinates, or indeed in thinking about how one’s own job is designed, we find that the expectancy model provides a useful complement to the theories of motivation described above. It suggests a mechanism by which the effects described by Herzberg (1966) and Trist and Bamforth (1951) might operate at the level of the individual. This focuses us on aspects we might otherwise ignore, such as the individual's ability (for personal or contextual reasons) to achieve a desired level of performance, the link between performance and outcomes or rewards, and the expectations about outcomes held by that person. Figure [ 6 ] — Expectancy model of job performance The description of the expectancy model that we give here is highly simplified. It does not stress a key aspect of the model, namely that what matters is the individual's perceived probabilities that desired performance will follow effort and that desired outcomes will follow on attainment of the performance level. Actual probabilities are irrelevant unless they are correctly perceived. There is a time dimension, too. The more rapidly an outcome follows on performance the more effective it is in influencing performance. A possible promotion in ten years is unlikely to exert a powerful effect on present effort for most people. These considerations, among others, caused those developing the expectancy model to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes contingent upon performance. Intrinsic outcomes are those which result directly from the performance of work. A sense of achievement is an intrinsic outcome. It does not have to be 'given' by somebody else: it is generated by the performance itself. Feelings of having learned something, or of having performed a worthwhile job, similarly require no external mediation (though a word of praise may help!). By contrast, extrinsic rewards require an intermediary: praise and salary increases are examples. They may be given because of good work performance: they do not automatically arise from it. By definition, then, intrinsic rewards are more closely related to performance, therefore potentially (other things being equal) more motivating. Activity 7.4 ------------------------------------------------- Think back over the discussion of motivation so far and link in with the previous section on teamwork. Feedback on activity 7.4 ------------------------------------------------- Effective teams will be motivating because there may be opportunities for skill and task variety. Task significance is also important because very often jobs are interdependent. However employees like to feel autonomous and have a sense of identity and of course all of us like some feedback. This is a form of reward which is also important when motivating people. Following this line, it is worth looking at how jobs should be designed to facilitate intrinsic rewards following on performance. Hackman and Oldham (1976) suggested that the following job dimensions were crucial: Notice how closely it reflects Herzberg’s principles for job enrichment. Element | Effect | Increase the variety of jobs | These all increase the meaningfulness of the job. The individual can then see that there is some point in what (s)he does. | Help the individual to identify with the job (s)he is performing | | Help the individual to understnd how important the job is | | Allow the individual to have more autonomy | This leads to the individual taking more responsibility for the work carried out | Provide the individual with feedback | This allows the individual to know the results of work carried out. The implication is that the individual will make adjustments to improve quality, service and work output. | Absence of any of these factors would reduce the scope for intrinsic rewards to almost zero. If I spend all day carrying pieces of paper around with no idea of why, no sense of a task with a clear result, no feeling that I, rather than anybody who walked in off the street, have the skill necessary for this, the work will be meaningless and performance of it unrewarding. If I have no discretion over how to do the work I shall tend to see success or failure as someone else's rather than anything to do with me. 'They' set inappropriate targets or specified stupid methods! If I have no feedback on my success or otherwise, clearly success cannot give me a sense of achievement. As with other 'techniques', job redesign is not effective if seen as a way of manipulating employees. Rather it works when it reflects the 'people matter’ philosophy often referred to in the course, and the strategic implications are enormous. Walton (1985) argued that in the USA an attitude shift is apparent. Organisations are moving away from a policy of control and towards one of commitment. The shift is risky. The change in policies required must go hand– in–hand with commitment in the workforce developing as anticipated. The range of strategies needing to be developed is very wide but the potential gains are enormous. Goal–setting and expectancy theories The human relations school, with its emphasis on human relations, declined rapidly in influence in the 1970s as American companies turned their attention to issues of organisational culture and structure and other ‘hard’ issues, as a response to the threat posed by Japan. Goal–setting and expectancy theories now receive most attention. A model more commonly used in discussing job design and job performance is particularly useful here. This is the expectancy model, and it offers an explanation of why a person chooses to exert effort at work, and how that effort is transformed into effective performance. Figure 6 gives an outline of the model. The essence of this model (Figure 6) is that: A person decides to make a particular effort. That effort has a certain chance of achieving the required performance. This chance will depend on the amount of effort exerted role clarity, that is the extent to which it is clear to the person just what constitutes good performance their skills and abilities the availability of the necessary tools, materials, information, time and so on. The performance has a certain chance of being followed by 'outcomes', that is rewards or punishments. These may be of a financial or social nature or have to do with status or a sense of achievement. These outcomes are evaluated by the person against their desired outcomes and efforts modified according to this comparison. If you are a manager, the feedback that you provide, or that the job has been designed to provide, has four functions within this model. Firstly, it increases role clarity. Through detailed feedback your subordinates may develop a clearer idea of what it is that you require of them. Secondly, it may allow a person to develop skills. Both of these have the effect of increasing the likelihood that the person will perform successfully, given that the appropriate effort is exerted. The third purpose of feedback if given by you or another person, is to function as a social reward in its own right (or punishment if negative) and thus to affect the person's decision to exert effort, that is, their motivation. Fourthly, feedback, whether given by a person or not, enables employees to know how they have performed and thus to feel a sense of achievement if it was well. This is another powerful reward and likely to have a marked effect on a person's decision to exert effort in the future. As a manager, though, you also have some control over the resources needed to turn effort into desired performance. In reviewing performance with one of your subordinates you will be getting feedback yourself on how well you (or the organisation) is succeeding in providing these resources. You should be getting feedback too on how successful any training you have arranged has been in giving the person the necessary skills to perform effectively. In the process you will also become aware of any further training need. Thus, the situation you set up to give feedback allows you to receive feedback that will enable you to improve aspects of your own performance. Another, simpler, way of looking at expectancy theory is as follows: Figure [ 7 ] — The motivation calculus In this simple model of motivation, needs emerge from the theories of Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor. ‘E’ is what the individual puts into the venture; it can be effort, energy, excitement, enthusiasm, emotion, expenditure of time, money and passion. The model works as follows: The calculus is different for each individual. There are three separate elements, as follows: The strength or salience of the need The expectancy that ‘E’ will lead to a particular result (This is where the theory obtains its name). The instrumentality of the result in reducing the need. If any element is zero, the whole sum is zero. To understand how this would work, imagine a senior executive who had been given an important assignment to perform. His boss has told him that, should he do well in this assignment, he will be promoted to the very senior and powerful position of Regional Manager, Operations for Northern Europe, based in Berlin. Will he be motivated by this challenge' Well, if he has a high need for power, he will expend energy on the task to the degree that he believes: that good performance will lead to promotion (expectancy) that the promotion will satisfy his power needs (instrumentality). If either of these conditions does not apply, he will not expend energy over and above that needed to keep him employed (assuming that his need for security is operating). The expectancy model can be expressed slightly differently as the ‘3C’ model. That is, the three conditions for success are Competence, Commitment and Confidence. This useful model (which will crop up in slightly different form in Situational Leadership in Session 8, Leadership), suggests a method for holding discussions with an individual to check out their likelihood for success. For example, simple (perhaps too simple) questions such as “Have you ever heard of Toyota’s Just–in–Time system'” checks out competence in that field; “how are you feeling right now'” checks out confidence, and “how important is this to you'” checks out commitment. Activity 7.5 Do you have a performance review/appraisal scheme in your organisation' If you do, are the stages of your process similar to the expectancy model shown above' If not, where do they vary' Record your reflections in your self–development diary. Feedback on activity 7.5 ------------------------------------------------- It is difficult to give specific feedback here but it is important to remember that a good review scheme should include goals and objectives which are achievable and the job holder thinks they can work towards successfully and should also cover such concepts as skill variety and task significance. Goal–setting theories Payment should be related to attaining goals or to modified ways of working that have been identified as desirable by the employee — such as pay for performance. There is a great deal of empirical evidence to suggest that high achievers set themselves many — but not particularly demanding — targets. Goal–setting is particularly evident in UK public corporations, where local authorities, utilities, and a host of others have to achieve targets set by central Government. This is nothing more than a system designed to motivate such organisations to improve their service to the public. Activity 7.6 Think about which of the theories above seem to fit in with your perception and experience of motivation in the workplace. Record your reflections in your self–development diary. Feedback on activity 7.6 ------------------------------------------------- Remember that the definition of motivation can be very wide and cover goal achievement and decisions relating to goal attainment. It can also mean social influence in order to change the behaviour of others. Content theories tend of be limited value because they ignore individual differences in many ways and also the wider context of the motivation process. Expectancy theory takes into account valued outcomes and the subjective probability of achieving these outcomes and also links in the concept of reward which is very important when considering motivating individuals in the workplace. The psychological contract There is usually an implied, usually unstated psychological contract between the individual and the organisation, be it work, the family, or the group. This contract is essentially a set of expectations — what the individual expects from the organisation and what the organisation expects from the individual. For example, until the 1980s, a bank worker could expect a job for life with the reasonable expectation of periodic promotion. The bank expected the individual to obey orders unquestioningly, to accept promotion when offered, and to move from branch to branch as directed. The banks broke this contract in the 1980s when they introduced compulsory redundancies on a massive scale. The result was widespread uncertainty amongst bank employees, occurring as it did at a time of great public unpopularity for the banks. Perhaps the two events were connected in some way. Systems theory would tell us that they were. According to Etzioni (1971), organisations can be categorised in accordance with the psychological contract: Coercive, for example prisons Calculative, for example industrial organisations Cooperative, for example organisations trying to move in this direction. Activity 7.7 Read the appropriate chapter in Huczynski and Buchanan (2007). After reading this chapter do you think that your organisation has a psychological contract' What is it' Do your colleagues agree with you' Record your thoughts in your self–development diary. ------------------------------------------------- There is no feedback for this activity. Review of learning After working through this session you should be able to: Understand that theories of motivation are based upon assumptions about the psychological nature of people. All of us have needs and drives and we seek situations where we can achieve and be rewarded for a successful performance. Explain the difference between content and process theories of motivation and be able to assess the relative insights and merits of these theories. Understand the difference between economic, needs, goal–setting and expectancy theories of motivation and as a practising manager ensure that you can assess the relevance of each theory and apply the principles in practice. Explain the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and be aware of the power of the two perspectives and also be aware of the limitations of each theory. Understand the nature and importance of the psychological contract and be aware of how it is important to be explicit when discussing expectations of employees in the workplace. References and further reading Alderfer, C P (1969) 'An empirical test of a new theory of human needs' Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, vol 4, pp 142–75 Ardrey, R (1967) The Territorial Imperative, Collins Argyris, C (1960) Understanding Organizational Behaviour, Dorsey Argyris, C (1964) Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Wiley Brehm, J W , and A R Cohen (1962) Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance, Wiley Davis, L E and J C Taylor (eds) (1972) Design of Jobs, Penguin. This is an excellent collection of reprinted articles. Dunbar, R L M (1971)'Budgeting for control', Admin Science Quarterly, March Etzioni, A (1971) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, Free Press Hackman, J R and G R Oldham (1976) 'Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory' Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, vol 16, pp 250–79 Hall, D T (1971) 'A theoretical model of career subidentity Development in organizational settings', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, January Hall, G S , and G Lindzey (1973) Theories of Personality, Wiley Handy, C B (1985) Understanding Organizations (3rd edn) Penguin (especially chapter 2) Herzberg, F (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing Co Horney, K (1951) Neurosis and Human Growth, Routledge & Kegan Paul House, R J and L A Wigdor (1967) 'Herzberg's dual factor theory', Personnel Psychogy, Winter Hunt, J (1981) Managing People at Work, Pan Kelly, J E (1982) Scientific Management, Job Redesign and Work Performance, Academic Press. This is an interesting book, written after the main flush of enthusiasm for job design While critical of much of the earlier work, questioning its underlying assumptions, it argues that job design is still an important topic Kolb, D A, I M Rubin and J M McIntyre (1971) Organizational Psychology, Prentice Hall Leavitt, H J, and R A H Mueller (1951) 'Some effects of feedback on communication', Human Relations Levinson, H (1972)'An effort towards understanding man at work' European Business , Spring Likert, R (1961) New Patterns of Management, McGraw–Hill Litwin, G H , and R A Stringer (1968) Motivation and Organizational Climate, Harvard University Press McClelland, D C (1961) The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand McElroy, J C (1982) 'A typology of attribution leadership research', Academy of Management Review McGregor, D (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw–Hill Maslow, A (1954) Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row Mead, G H (1934) Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press Mullins, L J (2007) Management and Organizational Behaviour, London: Pitman Myers, M (1966) 'Condition for manager motivation', Harvard Business Review, January–February Niles, F S (unpublished) The Influence of Parents and Friends on Adolescent Girls, M Ed thesis, University of Manchester Opsahl, R S , and M D Dunnette (1969) 'The role of financial compensation', in L L Cummings and W E Scott (eds ) Readings in Organizational Performance and Human Behaviour, Irwin Peters, T J , and R H Waterman, R H (1982) In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row Porter, L W , and E E Lawler (1968) Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Dorsey Porter, L W , and E E Lawler, (1968)'What job attitudes tell about motivation', Harvard Business Review, January–February D.S. Pugh D S and Hickson D J (1989). Writers on Organizations (fourth edition). London: PenguinSchein, E H (1980) Organizational Psychology, Prentice Hall Torrington, D and L Hall (1987) Personnel Management: a new approach, Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd Trist, E. & Bamforth, K., Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting, in: Human Relations, 4, 3–38, 1951. Vroom, V H (1964) Work and Motivation, Wiley Vroom, V H and E L Deci (eds) (1970) Management and Motivation, Penguin This is another useful collection of reprinted 'classics' on this topic Walton, R (1985) 'Control to commitment in the workplace,' Harvard Business Review, March–April, pp 77–84 White, R (1959) 'Motivation re–considered: the concept of competence', Psychological Review, vol. 66 White, W F (1969) Organizational Behaviour, Irwin