Motivation Concepts

MOTIVATION CONCEPTS

136 PART TWO The Individual137CHAPTER 6 Motivation Concepts

CHAPTER 6Motivation

Concepts

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Describe the three key three elements of motivation.

2. Identify four early theories of motivation and evaluate their applicability today.

3. Apply the predictions of cognitive evaluation theory to intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.

4. Compare and contrast goal-setting theory and management by objectives

5. Contrast reinforcement theory and goal-setting theory.

6. Demonstrate how organizational justice is a refinement of equity theory.

7. Apply the key tenets of expectancy theory to motivating employees.

8. Compare contemporary theories of motivation.

9. Explain to what degree motivation theories are culture bound.

Summary and Implications for Managers

The theories weve discussed in this chapter address different outcome variables. Some, for instance, are directed at explaining turnover, while others emphasize productivity. The theories also differ in their predictive strength. In this section, we (1) review the most established motivation theories to determine their relevance in explaining the dependent variables, and (2) assess the predictive power of each.

Need Theories We introduced four theories that focused on needs: Maslows hierarchy, ERG, McClellands needs, and the two-factor theory. None of these theories has found widespread support, although the strongest of them is probably McClellands theory, particularly regarding the relationship between achievement and productivity. In general, need theories (Maslow and ERG) are not very valid explanations of motivation.

Goal-Setting Theory There is little dispute that clear and difficult goals lead to higher levels of employee productivity. This evidence leads us to conclude that goal-setting theory provides one of the most powerful explanations of this dependent variable. The theory, however, does not address absenteeism, turnover, or satisfaction.

Reinforcement Theory This theory has an impressive record for predicting factors such as quality and quantity of work, persistence of effort, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates. It does not offer much insight into employee satisfaction or the decision to quit.

Equity Theory/Organizational Justice Equity theory deals with productivity, satisfaction, absence, and turnover variables. However, its strongest legacy probably is that it provided the spark for research on organizational justice, which has more support in the literature.

Expectancy Theory Our final theory, expectancy theory, focuses on performance variables. It has proved to offer a relatively powerful explanation of employee productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. But expectancy theory assumes that employees have few constraints on their decision discretion. It makes many of the same assumptions that the rational model makes about individual decision making (see Chapter 5), and this limits its applicability. Expectancy theory has some validity because for many behaviors, people consider expected outcomes. However, the rational model goes only so far in explaining behavior.

The chapter opens by discussing Chris Gardner, a homeless man in San Francisco and his 20 month son. From rags to riches as a stockbroker, his story is portrayed in a best-selling book and movie. His mother told him, You can only depend on yourself. Capturing his thoughts on motivation and his willingness to succeed would provide a game plan for many organizations.

Brief Chapter Outline

I.Defining Motivation (PPT 62) Motivation is the result of the interaction of the individual and the situation.

Definition: Motivationprocesses that account for an individuals intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.

II.Early Theories of Motivation (PPTs 63 to 610)

A.Introduction

In the 1950s three specific theories were formulated and are the best known: hierarchy of needs theory, Theories X and Y, and the two-factor theory.

They represent a foundation from which contemporary theories have grown. B.Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Abraham Maslows hierarchy of needs is the most well-known theory of motivation.

Physiological

Safety Social Esteem

Self-actualization Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Clayton AlderferERG TheoryC.Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor concluded that a managers view of the nature of human beings is based on a certain grouping of assumptions and he or she tends to mold his or her behavior toward employees according to these assumptions.

Theory X assumptions are basically negative.

Theory Y assumptions are basically positive.

D.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? Intrinsic factors, such as advancement

Dissatisfied respondents tended to cite extrinsic factors.

The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction.

Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying.

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 Herzbergs methodology is questioned.

No overall measure of satisfaction was utilized.

The theory is inconsistent with previous research.

Herzberg assumed a relationship between satisfaction and productivity, but the research methodology he used looked only at satisfaction, not at productivity.

Regardless of criticisms, Herzbergs theory has been widely read, and few managers are unfamiliar with his recommendations. The popularity of vertically expanding jobs to allow workers greater responsibility can probably be attributed to Herzbergs findings

E. McClellands Three Needs Theory

Need for Achievement (nAch)

Need for Power (nPow)

Need for Affiliation (nAff)

People have varying levels of each of the three needs.

Performance Predictions for High nAch People undertake activities with a 50/50 chance of success

Not necessarily good managers

Need high level of power and low level of affiliation for managerial success

Good research support but it is not a very practical theory

III.Contemporary Theories of Motivation (PPTs 611 to 622)

A.Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Cognitive evaluation theoryWhen extrinsic rewards are used by organizations as payoffs for superior performance, the intrinsic rewards, which are derived from individuals doing what they like, are reduced. The popular explanation is that the individual experiences a loss of control over his or her own behavior so that the previous intrinsic motivation diminishes. If the cognitive evaluation theory is valid, it should have major implications for managerial practices. Further research is needed to clarify some of the current ambiguity. The evidence does lead us to conclude that the interdependence of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards is a real phenomenon. Self-concordancethe degree to which peoples reasons for pursuing goals is consistent with their interests and core values. B.Goal-Setting Theory

In the late 1960s, Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of work motivation.

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. People will do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing toward their goals. Self-generated feedback is more powerful a motivator than externally generated feedback.

There are contingencies in goal-setting theory. In addition to feedback, four other factors influence the goals-performance relationship.

Goal commitment Adequate self-efficacy Task characteristics National culture C.MBO Programs: Putting Goal-Setting Theory into Practice

Impressive base of research support Management by objectives Four ingredients Goal specificity Participation in decision making Explicit time period Performance feedbackD.Self-Efficacy Theory

Social cognitive theory Social learning theory Complements goal-setting theory Albert Bandera increasing self-efficacy Enactive mastery Vicarious modeling Verbal persuasion ArousalE.Reinforcement Theory

Reinforcement theory is a behavioristic approach.

Reinforcement theorists see behavior as being environmentally caused.

Reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens to a person when he or she takes some action.

F.Equity Theory

Employees make comparisons of their job inputs and outcomes relative to those of others. .

When we see the ratio as unequal, we experience equity tension. There are four referent comparisons that an employee can use:

Self-inside Self-outside Other-inside Other-outside Which referent an employee chooses will be influenced by the information the employee holds about referents, as well as by the attractiveness of the referent.

There are four moderating variables: gender, length of tenure, level in the organization, and amount of education or professionalism.

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.

Theory establishes the following propositions relating to inequitable pay:

Given payment by time, overrewarded employees will produce more than will equitably paid employees.

Given payment by quantity of production, overrewarded employees will produce fewer, but high-quality, units than will equitably paid employees.

Given payment by time, underrewarded employees will produce less or poorer quality of output.

Given payment by quantity of production, underrewarded employees will produce a large number of low-quality units in comparison with equitably paid employees.

Recent research has been directed at expanding what is meant by equity or fairness. (Exhibit 69) Distributive justice Organization justice Procedural justice Interactional justiceG.Expectancy Theory

Victor Vrooms expectancy theory is one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation. 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.

A good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards.

The rewards will satisfy his/her personal goals. Three key relationships: (See Exhibit 610). Effort-performance relationship Performance-reward relationship Rewards-personal goals relationship Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers merely do the minimum necessary to get by. As a contingency model, expectancy theory recognizes that there is no universal principle for explaining everyones motivations.

IV.Integrating Contemporary Motivation Theories (PPT 6-23) The Model in Exhibit 611 integrates much of what we know about motivation. Its basic foundation is the expectancy model.

V.Caveat Emptor: Motivation Theories Are Often Culture-Bound (PPT 6-24)

The most blatant pro-American characteristic inherent in these theories is the strong emphasis on individualism and quality of life. There are cross-cultural consistencies.

The desire for interesting work seems important to almost all workers.

Growth, achievement, and responsibility were rated the top three and had identical rankings in another study of several countries.

VI.SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS

A.Need Theories

B.Goal-Setting Theory

C.Reinforcement Theory

D.Equity Theory/Organizational Justice

E.Expectancy Theory

Expanded Chapter Outline

I.Defining Motivation What Is Motivation?

Many people incorrectly view motivation as a personal traitthat is, some have it and others do not. Motivation is the result of the interaction of the individual and the situation. Definition: Motivation is the processes that account for an individuals 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.

II.Early Theories of Motivation

A.Introduction

In the 1950s three specific theories were formulated and are the best known: hierarchy of needs theory, Theories X and Y, and the two-factor theory.

These early theories are important to understand because they represent a foundation from which contemporary theories have grown. Practicing managers still regularly use these theories and their terminology in explaining employee motivation.

B.Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Abraham Maslows 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: (See Exhibit 61).

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 ones 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.

Social, esteem, and self-actualization are as higher-order needs.

Higher-order needs are satisfied internally.

Lower-order needs are predominantly satisfied externally.

Maslows need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. Research does not generally validate the theory. Maslow provided no empirical substantiation, and several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it.

ERG Alderfer argued that there are three groups of core needs

Existence

Relatedness

Growth

C.Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor concluded that a managers view of the nature of human beings is based on a certain grouping of assumptions and he or she tends to mold his or her behavior toward employees according to these assumptions.

Theory X assumptions are basically negative.

Employees inherently dislike work and, whenever possible, will attempt to avoid it.

Since employees dislike work, they must be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment.

Employees will avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction whenever possible.

Most workers place security above all other factors and will display little ambition.

Theory Y assumptions are basically positive.

Employees can view work as being as natural as rest or play.

People will exercise self-direction and self-control if they are committed to the objectives.

The average person can learn to accept, even seek, responsibility.

The ability to make innovative decisions is widely dispersed throughout the population.

What are the implications for managers? This is best explained by using Maslows framework:

Theory X assumes that lower-order needs dominate individuals. Theory Y assumes that higher-order needs dominate individuals. McGregor himself held to the belief that Theory Y assumptions were more valid than Theory X. There is no evidence to confirm that either set of assumptions is valid.

Either Theory X or Theory Y assumptions may be appropriate in a particular situation.

D.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. 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.

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 Herzbergs methodology is questioned.

No overall measure of satisfaction was utilized.

Herzberg assumed a relationship between satisfaction and productivity, but the research methodology he used looked only at satisfaction, not at productivity.

Regardless of criticisms, Herzbergs theory has been widely read, and few managers are unfamiliar with his recommendations.

The popularity of vertically expanding jobs to allow workers greater responsibility can probably be attributed to Herzbergs findings.

E. McClellands Theory of Needs

The theory focuses on three needs: achievement, power, and affiliation.

Need for achievement: The drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive to succeed Some people have a compelling drive to succeed. They are striving for personal achievement rather than the rewards of success per se. This drive is the achievement need (nAch). McClelland found that high achievers differentiate themselves from others by their desire to do things better.

They seek personal responsibility for finding solutions to problems.

They want to receive rapid feedback on their performance so they can tell easily whether they are improving or not. They can set moderately challenging goals. High achievers are not gamblers; they dislike succeeding by chance.

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. 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.

Individuals high in nPow enjoy being in charge. Strive for influence over others. Prefer to be placed into competitive and status-oriented situations. Tend to be more concerned with prestige and gaining influence over others than with effective performance. Need for affiliation: The desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships The third need isolated by McClelland is affiliation (nAfl). This need has received the least attention from researchers. Individuals with a high affiliation motive strive for friendship. Prefer cooperative situations rather than competitive ones. Desire relationships involving a high degree of mutual understanding. Relying on an extensive amount of research, some reasonably well-supported predictions can be made based on the relationship between achievement need and job performance.

First, as shown in Exhibit 64, individuals with a high need to achieve prefer job situations with personal responsibility, feedback, and an intermediate degree of risk. When these characteristics are prevalent, high achievers will be strongly motivated. Second, a high need to achieve does not necessarily lead to being a good manager, especially in large organizations. People with a high achievement need are interested in how well they do personally and not in influencing others to do well.

Third, the needs for affiliation and power tend to be closely related to managerial success. The best managers are high in their need for power and low in their need for affiliation.

Finally, employees have been successfully trained to stimulate their achievement need. Trainers have been effective in teaching individuals to think in terms of accomplishments, winning, and success, and then helping them to learn how to act in a high achievement way by preferring situations where they have personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risks.

III.Contemporary Theories of Motivation

Teaching Note: At this point in the lecture you may want to introduce International OB: How Managers Evaluate Their Employees Depends on Culture. found in the text and at the end of the chapter. The cultural background of a manager can influence the way that an employee is evaluated.

A..Cognitive Evaluation Theory

The introduction of extrinsic rewards, such as pay, for work effort that had been previously intrinsically rewarding due to the pleasure associated with the content of the work itself, tends to decrease the overall level of motivation.

This has come to be called the cognitive evaluation theory. Well researched and supported theorists have assumed that intrinsic motivations, such as achievement, etc., are independent of extrinsic motivators such as high pay, promotions, etc.

Cognitive evaluation theory suggests otherwise. When extrinsic rewards are used by organizations as payoffs for superior performance, the intrinsic rewards, which are derived from individuals doing what they like, are reduced.

The popular explanation is that the individual experiences a loss of control over his or her own behavior so that the previous intrinsic motivation diminishes.

Furthermore, the elimination of extrinsic rewards can produce a shiftfrom an external to an internal explanationin an individuals perception of causation of why he or she works on a task.

If the cognitive evaluation theory is valid, it should have major implications for managerial practices.

If pay or other extrinsic rewards are to be effective motivators, they should be made contingent on an individuals performance. Cognitive evaluation theorists would argue that this will tend only to decrease the internal satisfaction that the individual receives from doing the job. If correct, it would make sense to make an individuals pay non-contingent on performance in order to avoid decreasing intrinsic motivation.

While supported in a number of studies, cognitive evaluation theory has also met with attacks, specifically on the methodology used and in the interpretation of the findings. Further research is needed to clarify some of the current ambiguity. The evidence does lead us to conclude that the interdependence of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards is a real phenomenon.

Its impact on employee motivation at work may be considerably less than originally thought. First, many of the studies testing the theory were done with students.

Second, evidence indicates that very high intrinsic motivation levels are strongly resistant to the detrimental impacts of extrinsic rewards.

The theory may have limited applicability to work organizations because most low-level jobs are not inherently satisfying enough to foster high intrinsic interest, and many managerial and professional positions offer intrinsic rewards.

Self-concordance

The degree to which peoples reasons for pursuing goals are consistent with their interests and core values. People who pursue goals for intrinsic reasons are more likely to attain those goals. People who pursue work goals for intrinsic reasons are more satisfied at work.B..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. The evidence strongly supports the value of goals.

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.

People will do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing toward their goals. Self-generated feedback is more powerful a motivator than externally generated feedback.

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 goal setting, they are more likely to accept even a difficult goal than if they are arbitrarily assigned it by their boss.

There are contingencies in goal-setting theory. In addition to feedback, three other factors influence the goals-performance relationship.

Goal commitment. Goal-setting theory presupposes that an individual is committed to the goal.

Task characteristics. Individual goal setting does not work equally well on all tasks. Goals seem to have a more substantial effect on performance when tasks are simple, well-learned, and independent.

National culture. Goal-setting theory is culture bound and it is well adapted to North American cultures.

Overall conclusion goal setting: Intentions, as articulated in terms of hard and specific goals, are a potent motivating force. However, there is no evidence that such goals are associated with increased job satisfaction.

C.MBO Programs: Putting Goal-Setting Theory Into Practice

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 66)

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.

D..Self-Efficacy Theory

Known also as social cognitive theory and social learning theory

The higher your self-efficacy, the more confidence you have in your ability to succeed in a task.

Goal setting theory and self-efficacy theory dont compete with one another; they complement each other (Exhibit 67).

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:

Enactive masterygaining relevant experience with the task or job Vicarious modelingbecoming more confident because you see someone else doing the task Verbal persuasionmore confident because someone convinces you that you have the skills Arousalleads to an energized state driving a person to complete the taskE..Reinforcement Theory

In contrast to Goal-Setting theory, which is a cognitive approach, Reinforcement theory is a behavioristic approach. It argues that reinforcement conditions behavior.

Reinforcement theorists see behavior as being environmentally caused.

Reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens to a person when he or she takes some action.

F.Equity Theory

What role does equity play in motivation? An employee with several years experience can be frustrated to find out that a recent college grad hired at a salary level higher than he or she is currently earnings, causing motivation levels to drop. Why?

Employees make comparisons of their job inputs and outcomes relative to those of others. (See Exhibit 67). 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. Additionally, the referent that an employee selects adds to the complexity of equity theory. There are four referent comparisons that an employee can use:

Self-inside: An employees experiences in a different position inside his or her current organization Self-outside: An employees experiences in a situation or position outside his or her current organization Other-inside: Another individual or group of individuals inside the employees organization Other-outside: Another individual or group of individuals outside the employees organization Which referent an employee chooses will be influenced by the information the employee holds about referents, as well as by the attractiveness of the referent.

There are four moderating variables: gender, length of tenure, level in the organization, and amount of education or professionalism.

Gender

Men and women prefer same-sex comparisons. This also suggests that if women are tolerant of lower pay, it may be due to the comparative standard they use.

Employees in jobs that are not sex-segregated will make more cross-sex comparisons than those in jobs that are either male- or female-dominated. Length of tenure

Employees with short tenure in their current organizations tend to have little information about others. Employees with long tenure rely more heavily on coworkers for comparison.

Level in the organization

Upper-level employees tend to be more cosmopolitan and have better information about people in other organizations. Therefore, these types of employees will make more other-outside comparisons. Amount of education or professionalism

Employees with higher education are more likely to include others outside the organization as referent points

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.

The theory establishes the following propositions relating to inequitable pay:

Given payment by time, overrewarded employees will produce more than will equitably paid employees.

Given payment by quantity of production, overrewarded employees will produce fewer, but higher quality, units than will equitably paid employees.

Given payment by time, underrewarded employees will produce less or poorer quality of output. Given payment by quantity of production, underrewarded employees will produce a large number of low-quality units in comparison with equitably paid employees.

These propositions have generally been supported with a few minor qualifications.

Inequities created by overpayment do not seem to have a very significant impact on behavior in most work situations.

Not all people are equity sensitive.

Employees also seem to look for equity in the distribution of other organizational rewards.

Finally, recent research has been directed at expanding what is meant by equity or fairness.

Historically, equity theory focused on distributive justice or the perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among individuals. Equity should also consider procedural justice, the perceived fairness of the process used to determine the distribution of rewards. The evidence indicates that distributive justice has a greater influence on employee satisfaction than procedural justice.

Procedural justice tends to affect an employees organizational commitment, trust in his or her boss, and intention to quit.

By increasing the perception of procedural fairness, employees are likely to view their bosses and the organization as positive even if they are dissatisfied with pay, promotions, and other personal outcomes.

Equity theory demonstrates that, for most employees, motivation is influenced significantly by relative rewards as well as by absolute rewards, but some key issues are still unclear.

Recent research expands what is meant by equity or fairness:(Exhibit 69)

Distributive justiceperceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards Organization justiceoverall perception of what is fair in the workplace Procedural justiceperceived fairness of the process used to determine the distribution of rewards Interactional justiceperception of the degree to which the individual is treated with dignity, concern, and respectG..Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory is one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation. Victor Vrooms 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 (See Exhibit 610).

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 individuals personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the individual

Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers merely do the minimum necessary to get by. For example:

If I give a maximum effort, will it be recognized in my performance appraisal? No, if the organizations performance appraisal assesses nonperformance factors. The employee, rightly or wrongly, perceives that his/her boss does not like him/her.

If I get a good performance appraisal, will it lead to organizational rewards? Typically many employees see the performance-reward relationship in their job as weak.

If I am rewarded, are the rewards ones that I find personally attractive? It is important that the rewards be tailored to individual employee needs

The key to expectancy theory is the understanding of an individuals goals and the linkage between effort and performance, between performance and rewards, and finally, between the rewards and individual goal satisfaction.

As a contingency model, expectancy theory recognizes that there is no universal principle for explaining everyones motivations.

Attempts to validate the theory have been complicated by methodological criterion and measurement problems.

Published studies that purport to support or negate the theory must be viewed with caution.

Importantly, most studies have failed to replicate the methodology as it was originally proposed.

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.

IV.Integrating Contemporary Motivation Theories

The Model in Exhibit 611 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.

ERG theory would come into play at this point. Motivation would be high to the degree that the rewards an individual received for his or her high performance satisfied the dominant needs consistent with his or her individual goals.

The model considers the achievement, need, reinforcement, and equity 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 organizations rewards reinforce the individuals 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.

V.Caveat Emptor: Motivation Theories Are Often Culture-Bound

The most blatant pro-American characteristic inherent in these theories is the strong emphasis on individualism and quality of life. Both goal-setting and expectancy theories emphasize goal accomplishment as well as rational and individual thought.

Maslows need hierarchy

People start at the physiological level and then move progressively up the hierarchy in this order: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. This hierarchy aligns with American culture. In countries where uncertainty avoidance characteristics are strong, Japan, Greece and Mexico, security needs would be on top of the need hierarchy. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark who score high on quality of life characteristics would have social needs at the top.

The view that a high achievement need acts as an internal motivator presupposes two cultural characteristicsa willingness to accept a moderate degree of risk and a concern with performance. Equity theory

It is based on the assumption that workers are highly sensitive to equity in reward allocations. In the United States, equity is meant to be closely tying pay to performance. However, in collectivist cultures such as the former socialist countries, employees expect rewards to reflect their individual needs as well as their performance. Moreover, consistent with a legacy of communism and centrally planned economies, employees exhibited an entitlement attitude.

There are cross-cultural consistencies

The desire for interesting work seems important to almost all workers.

Growth, achievement, and responsibility were rated the top three and had identical rankings in another study of several countries.

VI.SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS

A.Need Theories

B.Goal-Setting Theory

C.Reinforcement Theory

D.Equity Theory/Organizational Justice

E.Expectancy Theory

Text Exercises

Myth or

Science?Women Are More Motivated to Get Along, and Men Are More Motivated to Get Ahead

This statement is true. Compared to women, men are relatively more motivated to excel at tasks and jobs. Compared to men, women are more motivated to maintain relationships.

Before proceeding any further, though, it is important to note that these gender differences do not mean that every man is more motivated by his career than every woman. There are differences, but think of it like gender and longevity. Women, on average, live longer than men, but in a significant percentage of couples (roughly 45 percent), a husband will outlive his wife. So, there are differences, but you need to resist the human tendency to turn a group difference into a broad generalization or stereotype.

Research indicates that men are more likely to be described by what are called agentic traits, such as active, decisive, and competitive. Women are more likely to be described by what are termed communal traits, such as caring, emotional, and considerate. This evidence, however, might reflect gender stereotypes. We might hold stereotypes of the traits of men and women, but that doesnt necessarily prove that men and women are motivated by different things.

Other evidence, though, suggest that this is not just a gender stereotype. A study of 1,398 working Germans revealed that men were more motivated by agentic strivings and women more by communal strivings, and these gender differences did not change over the 17-month course of the study. As a result of these differences, men had higher levels of objective career success (income, occupational status) than women. Women, however, were more involved in their families than were men.

We dont know whether these differences are ingrained or socialized. If they are socialized, though, evidence suggests that it begins early. A study of the stories that children aged 4 through 9 told about their lives revealed that girls were more likely to emphasize communion (friendships, helping others, affectionate contact) than were boys.

Class Exercise

Before reviewing this situation, discuss with students the task of working on team projects.

Questions

1.What constitutes working hard on a team project?

2.What motivates them to work hard?

3.Why would a team member not work hard? Not carry his/her fair share?

4.How could they make the team project as important to the other team members as it is to them?

IN THE

Paying Employees Not to Work

There is no better illustration of the woes of the Detroit automakers than the fact that each of Big Three has been forced to pay employees for work they dont do. This pay has taken two major forms.

First, Ford and General Motors have offered employees cash payments to leave their jobs. The employees are unionized, and their labor agreements guarantee full employment, so the companies must offer buyout deals that workers will accept. Because, in the words of a labor relations specialist, employees almost see their job as a property right, the cash payments have been substantialoften in the six-figures range. Ford and GM also pay workers to go to college, paying half their salary and up to $15,000 per year in tuition, as long as they quit when theyre done.

A second, more controversial, policy is the Jobs Bank in which Ford and GM have paid more than 15,000 employees full salary and benefits to produce nothing. Although some of these employees are paid to perform some company-approved activity, such as volunteer work, many report to what is called the rubber rooma windowless old storage shedwhere their job is to, literally, do nothing. The Jobs Bank is estimated to cost Ford and GM between $1.4 and $2 billion each year. Why does it exist? It was negotiated as part of the automakers agreement to full employment policies in the 1980s.

As expensive as the Jobs Bank has proven to be for the automakers, it is not exactly motivating for some employees. Jerry Mellon said time in the rubber room makes you want to bang your head against the wall. Others, though, love it. Tom Adams said, The Jobs Bank has been wonderful for me. Its doing what it is supposed to do, which is make it so I wont be a burden on society.

Sources: M. Maynard and J. W. Peters, Getting Auto Workers to Leave a Golden Job,

New York Times, March 22, 2006, pp. C1, C8; and J. McCracken, Detroits Symbol of Dysfunction: Paying Employees Not to Work, Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2006, pp. A1, A12.Class Exercise

Before students read the selection, have them write down what they see as the five most important aspects of a job.

1. Ask students why money does not make the list of top five factors in the selection.2. What motivates students to work hard?3. What would students see as a demotivator in the workplace?International

How Managers Evaluate Their Employees Depends on Culture

A recent study found interesting differences in managers perceptions of employee motivation. The study examined managers from three distinct cultural regions: North America, Asia, and Latin America. The results of the study revealed that North American managers perceive their employees as being motivated more by extrinsic factors (for example, pay) than intrinsic factors (for example, doing meaningful work), Asian managers perceive their employees as being motivated by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors, while Latin American managers perceive their employees as being motivated by intrinsic factors.

Even more interesting, these differences affected evaluations of employee performance. As expected, Asian managers focused on both types of motivation when evaluating their employees performance, and Latin American managers focused on intrinsic motivation. Oddly, North American managers, though believing that employees are motivated primarily by extrinsic factors, actually focused more on intrinsic factors when evaluating employee performance. Why the paradox? One explanation is that North Americans value uniqueness, so any deviation from the normsuch as being perceived to be unusually high in intrinsic motivationis rewarded.

For Latin American managers, their focus on intrinsic motivation when evaluating employees may focus on a cultural norm termed simpatia, a tradition that compels employees to display their internal feelings. Consequently, Latin American managers are more sensitized to these displays and can more easily notice their employees intrinsic motivation.

So, from an employee perspective, the cultural background of your manager can play an important role in how you are evaluated.

Based on S. E. DeVoe and S. S. Iyengar, Managers Theories of Subordinates: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Manager Perceptions of Motivation and Appraisal of Performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, January 2004, pp. 4761.

Class ExerciseWhile the chapter does not contain this element, you may wish to choose from one of the other instructional resources provided for this chapter.

Point ( ( CounterpointFailure Motivates!Point

Its sad but true that many of the best lessons we learn in life are from our failures. Often when were riding on the wings of success, we coastuntil we crash to earth.

Take the example of Dan Doctoroff. Doctoroff is a successful New York investment banker who spent 5 years obsessed with bringing the 2012 Olympics to New York. In his efforts, he used $4 million of his own money, traveled half a million miles, worked 100-hour weeks, and staked his reputation on achieving a goal many thought was foolhardy.

What happened? New York wasnt selected, and all Doctoroffs efforts were in vain. His immediate reaction? He felt emotionally paralyzed. But Doctoroff is not sorry he made the effort. He said he learned a lot about himself in trying to woo Olympic decision makers in 78 countries. Colleagues had once described him as brash and arrogant. As a result of his efforts, Doctoroff said, he learned to listen more and talk less. He also said that losing made him realize how supportive his wife and three teenage children could be.

Not only does failure bring perspective to people such as Doctoroff, it often provides important feedback on how to improve. The important thing is to learn from the failure and to persist. As Doctoroff says, The only way to ensure youll lose is not to try.

One of the reasons successful people fail so often is that they set their own bars so high. Harvards Rosabeth Moss Kanter, who has spent her career studying executives, says, Many successful people set the bar so high that they dont achieve the distant goal. But they do achieve things that wouldnt have been possible without that bigger goal.

Counterpoint

Do people learn from failure? Weve seen that one of the decision-making errors people make is escalation of commitment: They persist in a failed venture just because they think persistence is a virtue or because their ego is involved, even when logic suggests they should move on. One research study found that managers often illogically persist in launching new products, even when the evidence becomes clear that the product is going nowhere. As the authors note, It sometimes takes more courage to kill a product thats going nowhere than to sustain it. So, the thought of learning from failure is a nice ideal, but most people are too defensive to do that.

Moreover, there is ample evidence that when people fail, they often rationalize their failures to preserve their self-esteem and thus dont learn at all. Although the example of Dan Doctoroff is interesting, its not clear hes done anything but rationalize his failure. Its human nature. Research shows that when we fail, we often engage in external attributionsblaming the failure on bad luck or powerful othersor we devalue what we failed to get (It wasnt that important to me anyway, we may tell ourselves). These rationalizations may not be correct, but thats not the point. We engage in them not to be right but to preserve our often fragile self-esteem. We need to believe in ourselves to motivate ourselves, and because failing undermines that self-belief, we have to do what we can to recover our self-confidence.

In sum, although it is a nice story that failure is actually good, as one songwriter wrote, the world is not a song. Failure hurts, and to either protect ourselves or recover from the pain, we often do not learn from failurewe rationalize it away.

Class Exercise

1.This exercise reveals at what level money motivates.

2.Bring a one dollar bill, a fifty-cent piece, a quarter, a dime, a nickel, and a penny to class.

3.Ask for a volunteer to come up to the front of class. [Be sure the volunteer can bend and pick something up off the floor.] Have the volunteer face away from the class.

4.While placing the one dollar bill on the floor, tell a story to the class and the volunteer about walking across campus and coming across the dollar on the ground.

5.Caution the class not to speak their answers to your questions.

6.Now ask the class how many would bend over and pick up the dollar. Have them raise their hand rather than speak. Record the number where you can refer to it later but not where the volunteer can see it.

7. Ask the volunteer to turn around, and ask him/her what he/she would do.

If he/she would pick it up, let him/her do so and keep it. [This will increase volunteerism in later classes!]

If he/she will not, ask why (almost all students will).

8.Have the volunteer face away from the class again. Continue the story while placing the fifty-cent piece on the floor.

9.Again ask the class what they would do; record the raised hands for picking it up, for leaving it.

10. Again ask the volunteer to turn around, and ask him/her what he/she would do.

11.Repeat this cycle with each denomination of coin.

12. Stop when you reach a denomination that the volunteer will not pick up.

13. Now, lead a discussion regarding the different responses from the class and the student.

At what point did the value of the money go low enough that most students would not pick it up? Why?

Why did the volunteer continue to pick up the money at a point when the class members probably would not?

At what point does a bonus or pay raise motivate them on the job? What factors make a raise or bonus important enough to motivate extra effort?

Questions for Review

1. Define motivation. What are the key elements of motivation?

Answer:

Motivation is the processes that account for an individuals intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal specifically, an organizational goal. The key elements of motivation are:

Intensity how hard a person tries

Direction effort that is channeled toward, and consistent with, organizational goals

Persistence how long a person can maintain effort

2.What are the early theories of motivation? How well have they been supported by research?

Answer: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Alderfers ERG (Existence, Relatedness, and Growth)

McGregors Theory X and Theory Y

Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory

McClellands Theory of Needs

Most of the theories have not been proven to be valid although, they form a basis for the contemporary theories that are used by managers today.

3.What is cognitive evaluation theory? What does it assume about the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on behavior?

Answer: Cognitive evaluation theory proposes that the introduction of extrinsic reward such as pay for work effort that was previously intrinsically rewarding due to the pleasure of the work itself tends to decrease overall motivation. Some of the work implications include:

Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are not independent; extrinsic rewards decrease intrinsic rewards; pay should be noncontingent on performance; and verbal rewards increase intrinsic motivation; tangible rewards reduce it.

4.What are the major predictions of goal-setting theory? Have these predictions been supported by research?

Answer: Goal-setting theory states that specific and difficult goals, with self-generated feedback, lead to higher performance. Difficult goals: focus and direct attention, energize the person to work harder, difficulty increases persistence and force people to be more effective and efficient. Intentions articulated in difficult and specific goals can be a potent motivating force. The motivating power of goal-setting theory has been proven on more than 100 tasks ivolving more than 40,000 perticiapants across a variety of industries. Setting specific, challenging goals for employees is one of the best things that managers can do to improve performance.

5.What is reinforcement theory? How is it related to goal-setting theory? Has research supported reinforcement theory?

Answer: Reinforcement theory is a theory that believes that behavior is a function of consequences. It is similar to Goal-Setting Theory, in that it is focused on a behavioral approach rather than a cognitive one. It is a counterpoint to goal-setting theory, in the sense that it argues that reinforcement conditions behavior. This theory views behavior as environmentally-caused . Although it is not strictly a theory of motivation because it does not adress what initiates behavior, it does provide an analysis of what controls behavior Accroding to research, reinfrocement is an influence on behavior but not the only one.

6.What is equity theory? Why has it been supplanted by organizational justice?

Answer: The equity theory says that employees compare their ratios of outcomes-to-inputs of relevant others and then respond to eliminate any inequities. .It has been somewhat supplanted because equity theory has focused on distributive justice which is the employees perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among individuals. Organizational justice is broader and equity is now viewed from an overall perception of what is fair in the workplace.

7.What are the key tenets of expectancy theory? What has research had to say about this theory?

Answer: Expectancy theory says that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation and that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of the outcome to the individual. Expectancy thoery focuses on three relationships: effort-perfomance relationship; performance-reward relationship and rewards-personal goals relationship. This research has been difficult to rplicate and theerfore validate. Some others believe it is limited in application and idealistic since it is based on a high correlation between perfomance and rewards in a job situation.

8.How do the contemporary theories of work motivation complement one another?

Answer: Many of these theories have been supported and many of them are complementary. Recognizing that opportunity can either aid or hinder individual effort, expectancy theory, for example predicts that employees will exert a high level of effort if they believe there is a strong correlation between effort and performance, performance and rewards and rewards and satisfaction of personal goals. The model in Exhibit 6-10 shows a flowchart of the relationship between achievement, job design, reinforcement, and equity theories/organizational justice.

9.Do you think motivation theories are often culture bound? Why or why not?

Answer: Motivation theories are often culture-bound.

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Theory - order of needs is not universal

McClellands Three Needs Theory - nAch presupposes a willingness to accept risk and performance concerns not universal traits

Adams Equity Theory - a desire for equity is not universal

Each according to his need socialist/former communists

Also the desire for interesting work seems to be universal. There is some evidence that the intrinsic factors of Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory may be universal.

Ethical Dilemma

IS Goal-Setting MANIPULATION?Managers are interested in the subject of motivation because theyre concerned with learning how to get the most effort from their employees.

Is this ethical? For example, when managers link rewards to productivity, arent they manipulating employees? Is this ethical? For example, when managers link rewards to productivity, arent they manipulating employees?

Manipulate is defined as (1) to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance; (2) to manage or influence by artful skill; (3) to adapt or change to suit ones purpose or advantage. Arent one or more of these definitions compatible with the notion of managers skillfully seeking to influence employee productivity for the benefit of the manager and the organization?

Do managers have the right to seek control over their employees? Does anyone, for that matter, have the right to control others? Does control imply manipulation? And is there anything wrong with managers manipulating employees?

Suggested Responses

1. Linking rewards to productivity is not control nor is it seeking control over employees. It is not manipulation but rather providing the opportunities for individuals to pursue valued rewards. Individuals can exercise their freedom to choose. If the rewards are valued, employees will pursue those behaviors.2. Managers are not seeking control over employees. However, managers do have the responsibility to control the work environment in ways that ensure employee safety and security. Managers are responsible for productive work environments and for stakeholder satisfaction. 3. Control does not imply manipulation. Managerial control is one of the functions of management. Control over processes, procedures, rules, and resources. All individuals attempt to manipulate their environments to produce satisfying rewards. Manipulation is not a pejorative term.4. The implication is that managers are negatively manipulating employees. What managers should do is to provide the necessary resources for employees to manipulate the environment for productive ends that lead to organizational effectiveness and employee rewards.Case Incident 1

DO U.S. Workers LIVE TO WORK?

Many people around the world believe that U.S. adults live only to work. Do we really work that much harder than people in other countries? To answer this question, we turn to data collected by OECD, an organization that does research on economic development issues. The following figures represent the average hours worked per week (total number of hours an average employee works per year, divided by 52), averaged over the more recent 5 years available, for countries that are members of the OECD:

1. South Korea46.7

2. Greece39.9

3. Hungary38.6

4. Czech Republic38.2

5. Poland38.1

6. Mexico36.0

7. Italy35.2

8. Iceland34.9

9. New Zealand34.9

10. Japan34.5

11. Canada33.6

12. Slovak Republic33.5

13. Australia33.4

14. Finland33.2

15. United States33.0

16. Spain32.7

17. Portugal32.5

18. United Kingdom32.4

19. Ireland31.8

20. Switzerland31.7

21. Austria31.6

22. Luxembourg30.5

23. Sweden30.4

24. Denmark29.8

25. France29.8

26. Belgium29.6

27. Germany27.8

28. Netherlands26.1

29. Norway26.0

Questions

1.Do these results surprise you? Why or why not?

Answer: Yes, the results are surprising. May other studies show U.S. employees working many more hours than employees in other countries. 2.Why do you think U.S. employees have a reputation for living to work?

Answer: Yes, U.S. employees do have a reputation of living to work since so many people seem to be workaholics in pursuit of monetary wealth. 3.Do these results prove that Koreans, for example, are more motivated to work than their U.S. counterparts? Why or why not?

Answer: No, not necessarily. Motivation may or may not be the sole factor in this study. The U.S. known for its productivity and work ethic.4.A research study has suggested that changes in hours worked over time are due, in part, to changes in tax rates. If taxes and [government expenditures] are high, that may lead to less work, said one of the researchers. Supporting this theory, since 2001, workers in the United States have increased their hours worked while tax rates have dropped. What theory or theories of motivation might support such a change?

Answer: A number of theories may be explained at this point. Expectancy theory would be one theory that would support an increase in hours worked, while tax rates have dropped as the given outcome becomes stronger.

Sources: L. Ohanian, A. Raffo, and R. Rogerson, Long-Term Changes in Labor Supply and Taxes: Evidence from OECD Countries, 19562004, NBER working paper 12786, December 2006; and J. J. Smith, Taxes Likely Causing Some Countries Workers to Labor Fewer Hours

Case Incident 2BULLYING BOSSES

It got to where I was twitching, literally, on the way into work, states Carrie Clark, a 52-year-old retired teacher and administrator. After enduring 10 months of repeated insults and mistreatment from her supervisor, she finally quit her job. I had to take care of my health.

Though many individuals recall bullies from their elementary school days, some are realizing that bullies can exist in the workplace as well. And these bullies do not just pick on the weakest in the group; rather, any subordinate in their path may fall prey to their torment, according to Dr. Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying and Trauma Institute. Dr. Namie further says workplace bullies are not limited to menwomen are at least as likely to be bullies. However, gender discrepancies are found in victims of bullying, as women are more likely to be targets.

What motivates a boss to be a bully? Dr. Harvey Hornstein, a retired professor from Teachers College at Columbia University, suggests that supervisors may use bullying as a means to subdue a subordinate that poses a threat to the supervisors status. Additionally, supervisors may bully individuals to vent frustrations. Many times, however, the sheer desire to wield power may be the primary reason for bullying.

What is the impact of bullying on employee motivation and behavior? Surprisingly, even though victims of workplace bullies may feel less motivated to go to work every day, it does not appear that they discontinue performing their required job duties. However, it does appear that victims of bullies are less motivated to perform extra-role or citizenship behaviors. Helping others, speaking positively about the organization, and going beyond the call of duty are behaviors that are reduced as a result of bullying. According to Dr. Bennett Tepper of the University of North Carolina, fear may be the reason that many workers continue to perform their job duties. And not all individuals reduce their citizenship behaviors. Some continue to engage in extra-role behaviors to make themselves look better than their colleagues.

What should you do if your boss is bullying you? Dont necessarily expect help from coworkers. As Emelise Aleandri, an actress and producer from New York who left her job after being bullied, stated, Some people were afraid to do anything. But others didnt mind what was happening at all, because they wanted my job. Moreover, according to Dr. Michelle Duffy of the University of Kentucky, coworkers often blame victims of bullying in order to resolve their guilt. They do this by wondering whether maybe the person deserved the treatment, that he or she has been annoying, or lazy, they did something to earn it, states Dr. Duffy. One example of an employee who observed this phenomenon firsthand is Sherry Hamby, who was frequently verbally abused by her boss and then eventually fired. She stated, This was a man who insulted me, who insulted my family, who would lay into me while everyone else in the office just sat there and let it happen. The people in my office eventually started blaming me.

What can a bullied employee do? Dr. Hornstein suggests that employees try to ignore the insults and respond only to the substance of the bullys gripe. Stick with the substance, not the process, and often it wont escalate, he states. Of course that is easier said than done.

Questions

1. Of the three types of organizational justice, which one does workplace bullying most closely resemble?Answer: An argument can be made that distributive justice is at work here in that the workplace bully is attempting to influence the distribution of rewards, etc. in the workplace. Arguments may be made for retributive justice if one is dealing with the disposition of the one engaged in the bullying behavior.

2. What aspects of motivation might workplace bullying reduce? For example, are there likely to be effects on an employees self-efficacy? If so, what might those effects be?Answer: It appears that workplace bullying reduces the level of motivation exerted by individuals to go beyond a level of performance than what is minimally acceptable. It could be argued that individuals self-efficacy is diminished in that those who are victims of bullying tend to downgrade the organization that they work for, cease to engage in citizenship behavior, etc. These reactions may affect an individuals self worth over the long run.

3. If you were a victim of workplace bullying, what steps would you take to try to reduce its occurrence? What strategies would be most effective? What strategies might be ineffective? What would you do if one of your colleagues was a victim of an abusive supervisor?Answer: Students need to provide a strategy for dealing with this type of behavior. It is clearly an opinion based question that has significant latitude to accommodate a wide range of responses.

4. What factors do you believe contribute to workplace bullying? Are bullies a product of the situation, or are they flawed personalities? What situations and what personality factors might contribute to the presence of bullies?Answer: Some factors could be work history (that is emulating ones former supervisor), a lack of appropriate management training and development, low self-esteem, insecurity, lack of adequate job knowledge.

Source: Based on C. Benedict, The Bullying Boss, New York Times, June 22, 2004, p. F.1.

This section is based on F. J. Landy and W. S. Becker, Motivation Theory Reconsidered, in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 9 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987), pp. 2435.

J. Zaslow, Losing Well: How a Successful Man Deal with a Rare and Public Failure, Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2006, p. D1.

E. Biyalogorsky, W. Boulding, and R. Staelin, Stuck in the Past: Why Managers Persist with New Product Failures, Journal of Marketing, April 2006, pp. 108121.

Copyright 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice HallCopyright 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice HallCopyright 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall