Motivation and Job Design
(Adams, 1963)
Equity Theory: Individuals compare the ratio of their own inputs (e.g., contributions to the job, including effort, skill, ability, and time, among other things) and outcomes (e.g., compensation, rewards, recognition) to the ratios they perceive that referent others have
(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999)
A meta-analysis of 128 studies examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. As predicted, engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively), as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards. Engagement-contingent and completion contingent rewards also significantly undermined self-reported interest (d = -0.15, and —0.17), as did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards. Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31). Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students. Careful consideration of reward effects reported in 128 experiments leads to the conclusion that tangible rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation, with the limiting conditions we have specified. Even when tangible rewards are offered as indicators of good performance, they typically decrease intrinsic motivation for interesting activities. Although rewards can control people's behavior—indeed, that is presumably why they are so widely advocated—the primary negative effect of rewards is that they tend to forestall self-regulation. In other words, reward contingencies undermine people's taking responsibility for motivating or regulating themselves. When institutions— families, schools, businesses, and athletic teams, for example—focus on the short term and opt for controlling people's behavior, they may be having a substantially negative long-term effect.
(Deci, 1971)
Cognitive Evaluation Theory: CET asserts that underlying intrinsic motivation are the psychological needs for autonomy and competence, so the effects of an event such as a reward depend on how it affects perceived self determination and perceived competence. Rewards can be interpreted by recipients primarily as controllers of their behavior (decrease satisfaction/need for autonomy/undermine intrinsic motivation) - OR - As indicators of their competence (positively informational, provide satisfaction/need for competence/enhance intrinsic motivation) Task-Noncontingent Rewards: given for something other than engaging in the target activity, such as simply participating in the study Task-Contingent Rewards: given for doing or completing the target activity Completion-Contingent Rewards: dependent upon completing the target task --- rewards are likely to be experienced as even more controlling - BUT - to the extent that the rewards do represent competence affirmation, implicit positive feedback could offset some of the control (however, expected to undermine intrinsic motivation at a level roughly comparable to engagement-contingent rewards) Engagement-Contingent Rewards: dependent upon engaging in the activity but do not require completing it --- predicted to undermine intrinsic motivation Performance-Contingent Rewards: given specifically for performing the activity well, matching some standard of excellence, or surpassing some specified criterion rewards = linked to performance = stronger control (to meet some standard) = a strong tendency for these rewards to undermine intrinsic motivation can also convey substantial positive competence information when the individual does well --- affirming competence, offsetting some negative effects of control.
(Vroom, 1964)
Expectancy Theory: Expectancy is the perceived link between effort and performing at a certain level and reflects one's confidence in attaining a goal Valence is the desirability, attractiveness, importance, or anticipated satisfaction with outcomes associated with goal pursuit Instrumentality is the perceived probability that if the goal is attained, the outcomes will be received
(Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009) (initial)
How Goals Go Wild: Goals that are too specific Narrow focus (blind people from important issues that appear unrelated to the goal) Too many goals Inappropriate time horizons Goals that are too challenging Risk taking (adopt riskier strategies, choose riskier gambles) Unethical behavior (goal setting can promote unethical behavior) Interplay between organizational culture & goal setting (goal setting impedes ethical decision making by making it harder for employees to recognize ethical issues and easier for them to rationalize unethical behavior "Postulate that aggressive goal setting within an organization increases the likelihood of creating an organizational climate ripe for unethical behavior"
(Kerr, 1975)
Illustrations are presented from society in general, and from organizations in particular, of reward systems that "pay off" for one behavior even though the rewarder hopes dearly for another. Four general factors may be pertinent to an explanation of why fouled up reward systems seem to be so prevalent (1) Fascination with an "objective" criterion --- Desire to establish simple, quantifiable standards which can be measured and thus objectively rewarded (2) Overemphasis on highly visible behaviors (3) Hypocrisy (4) Emphasis on morality or equity rather than efficiency Three possible remedies (1) Selection - employ only those individuals whose goals and motives are wholly consonant with those of management (2) Training (3) Altering the Reward System
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976)
Job Characteristics Model (JCM): This model assumes that all jobs can be described along five core dimensions: (a) skill variety, or the degree to which a job requires a person to perform different activities; (b) task identity, or the degree to which a job requires completion of a whole, identifiable piece of work; (c) task significance, or the degree to which the job has a positive impact on the lives of others; (d) autonomy, or the degree to which the job provides freedom and discretion in performing the work; and (e) feedback, or the degree to which the individual receives feedback on his or her performance. These five job characteristics impact employee outcomes (e.g., motivation, performance, satisfaction) through three psychological states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results) and combine to determine the motivating potential of a job The model postulates that an individual experiences positive affect to the extent that he learns (knowledge of results) that he personally (experienced responsibility) has performed well on a task that he cares about (experienced meaningfulness) Outcomes: high internal work motivation, high quality work performance, high satisfaction with the work, low absenteeism and turnover.
(Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009) (response)
Locke and Latham's (2009) characterization of Ordóñez et al.'s (2009) view of scholarship is incorrect Ordóñez et al. (2009) continue to believe that anecdotes, case studies, & journalistic accounts inform important research questions. Aim was not to report new results, rather the goal was to "make information about empirical research in management accessible to the nonexpert" Ordóñez et al. (2009) believe that Locke and Latham's 2007 paper fell short in examining the downsides to goal setting; slightly opposite of the authors perception. Locke and Latham (2009) described Ordóñez et al.'s (2009) practice of citing out of context --- Ordóñez et al. (2009) believe that they were then also cited out of context when Locke and Latham (2009) quote their "assertion" that "goals should be used only in the narrowest of circumstances"
(Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007)
Meta-analysis of the work design literature integrated motivational, social, and work context characteristics. Has meaningful correlations. The results demonstrate that work design has a large impact on worker attitudes and behaviors, explaining on average 43% of the variance in these outcomes. Organizations may benefit by utilizing the results of the meta-analysis in their work redesign process to pinpoint those work characteristics that maximize the outcomes they are interested in and minimize the negative impact on other desirable outcomes. Work Characteristics: Autonomy, Skill variety, Task variety, Task significance, Task identity, Feedback from the job, Information processing, Job, complexity, Interdependence, Feedback from others, Social support, Interaction outside the organization, Physical demands, Work conditions Social support correlated highly with attitudinal outcomes indicating social stuff matters.
(Tims, Bakkerm Derks, & van Rhenen, 2013)
Previous research suggests that employee job crafting is positively related to job performance through employee work engagement. The present study expands this individual-level perspective to the team level by hypothesizing that team job crafting relates positively to team performance through team work engagement. Job crafting is seen as a specific type of proactive work behavior that employees engage in to adjust their job to their needs, skills, and preferences. Job crafting can be grouped under the general heading proactive person-environment fit behaviors, as job crafting entails proactive behaviors to change the situation or oneself (e.g., through developing more skills) to achieve greater compatibility between one's own attributes and the organizational environment. Specifically, team job crafting was associated with individual performance via the hypothesized sequential mediation paths. Job crafting can be simultaneously used at the team and individual level to improve job performance. Managers should assist employees with job crafting in such a way that it aligns with the organizational goals, as not every type of job crafting was found to contribute to employee and team performance
(Diefendorff & Chandler, 2011).
Review of motivation literature. Motivation is often described as an unobservable force that directs, energizes, and sustains behavior over time and across changing circumstances There are four primary sets of influences on action goals: 1. Distal external - National Cutlure, Organizational Culture & Climate, and Compensation System 2. Proximal external - Job Characteristics, Equity and Fairness, Assigned Goal Characteristics, and Social Influences 3. Distal person - Needs/Motives, Values, Gender, and Personality 4. Proximal person - Affect, Instrumentality, Commitment, Expectancy/Self-Efficacy, Valence, and Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation
(Locke & Latham, 2002)
The authors summarize 35 years of empirical research on goal-setting theory. Relationship of goal difficulty to performance: Positive, linear function Specific, difficult goals consistently have led to higher performance than "do-your-best" goals Goal specificity does not necessarily lead to high performance because specific goals vary in difficulty - it does however reduce variation in performance by reducing the ambiguity about what is to be attained. Practical Applications: Productivity & Cost Improvement - setting a specific difficult goal leads to significant increases in EE productivity - significant correlation b/w goal setting & org. profitability Performance Appraisal - higher performance and satisfaction with performance appraisal process when specific high goals were set Selection - situational judgment tests Self-Regulation - a key variable is goal setting; self-regulation training The High Performance Cycle - explains the lack of direct connection b/w job satisfaction and productivity; a puzzling issue psychologists have long been facing; satisfaction is the result of high performance, not the cause.
(Locke & Latham, 2009)
Their argument is flawed in the nature of "good scholarship." Poor Scholarship: Making causal inferences on the basis of anecdotal stores Ignoring confounding variables Citing unrepresentative studies from a research domain Misreporting results Using emotionally laden language to garner reader support rather than writing dispassionately and striving to remain objective Criticisms of the Ordóñez et al. (2009) Article: Their language is a flagrant appeal to emotion Drawing causal inferences improperly Misquoting/Quoting out of context Treating anecdotes as evidence Failure to gather evidence, document effect sizes --- No scientific evidence to backup claims Reporting/Citing selective and irrelevant sources --- Failure to recognize recent, logical, compelling, and empirically scientific research. --- Selectively reported only negative studies. Use of metaphors to garner attention --- Flawed logic. Lack of theoretical, valuable, and unique contribution to the literature. Use of extreme statements, unverified assertions, unrepresentative references, and scare tactics "The tone of their article and the presentation of the content do not suggest an objective search for truth."
