Summary Work Motivation

Work Motivation

Mitchell & Daniels, 2003

Motivation varies within and between individuals. Combines with ability (and ind. differences) to produce behavior and outcomes. Because abilities are less malleable, motivation is often seen as discretionary.

Motivation is an inner desire to make an effort. Also defined as the energy a person expends in relation to work.

Pinder (1998) notes that motivation is the combined results of three processes: arousal, direction, and intensity.

According to them, goals are “clearly” the major psychological mechanism associated with motivation.

The AEPT box is behavior, which is separate from performance—an outside standard. Note that Job context affects motivation and also directly affects behavior. There is no “theory of motivation.”

This model and the model above are perfect organizers for comps. Expectancy theory is one of the earliest cognitive approaches to understanding

motivation. It was first articulated by Vroom (1964), who suggested that people tend to make rational decisions about whether to exert effort based on their perceptions of whether their effort will lead to outcomes that they value. The theory is sometimes referred to as VIE theory, referencing its three major constructs: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. Expectancy is a probability assessment reflecting an individual’s belief that a given level of effort will lead to a given level of performance. Instrumentality refers to the subjective assessment that a given performance level will result in one or more secondary outcomes, such as pay or promotion. Finally, valence refers to the value that an individual places on a given secondary outcome. Vroom (1964) argued that individuals subjectively combine these three constructs, summing across outcomes, to determine the extent to which they should exert a particular level of effort. He referred to this as motivational force.

o In this model it is E * (I * V) = motivational force. If any of the three beliefs is zero, motivational force = zero.

o Expectancy theory has been shown consistently to predict job effort and occupational choice, accounting for 5% to 30% of the variance in these criteria (Mitchell, 1997)

o Methodological issues exist. It relies on a mathematical formula, and people rarely make those mental calculations. Biggest debate revolves around whether expectancy theory should be used within-individual or between. The research shows that the theory is a better within-person predictor (see Pinder, 1998).

o Expectancy has been subsumed by other cognitive theories. Locke and Latham, 1990 claim that expectancy measures are similar to self-efficacy measures.

Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) stems from SCT, and is defined as beliefs in one’s ability to mobilize the cognitive, motivational resources and courses of action needed to meet situational demands.

o The SEperformance link is like .40 (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).o Vancouver et al., 1999 has suggested that SE is a by-product of past

performance, and by itself contributes nothing to motivation and future performance.

o Eden, 1992 has shown that communicating high expectations improves SE, which improves performance (Pygmalion effect) while low expectations decreases SE, which decreases performance (golem effect).

o Higher SE more effort and persistence (Bandura, 1997). Higher SE more difficult goals and higher goal commitment (Locke & Latham, 1990).

o Self-efficacy has been differentiated from self-esteem, which tends to be a stable value judgment that people make about themselves (Pinder, 1998); and although low self-efficacy on a given task may influence self-esteem, it does not necessarily do so.

o There is debate that expectancy and self-efficacy are the same, as both are subjective estimates of personal capability. Whereas expectancy relates to a particular performance level on a given task, SE is theorized as applying to multiple performance levels.

o Mitchell and Daniels question how GSE differs from self-esteem. Judge, Locke, Durham, Kluger, 1998: self-esteem is the overall value

one gives oneself as a person (Harter, 1980). GSE is the same as Bandura’s self-efficacy definition, but generalized across tasks and situations. It’s one’s perceived ability to handle whatever life throws at him.

o One way SE influences performance is through goal-setting. Goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990)

o Has been the #1 most dominant theory in the field.o The basic premise is that most of human behavior is the results of consciously

chosen goals and intentions.o Specific and difficult goals (with feedback) lead to higher performanceo The research is uniform in its verdict that difficult and specific goals result in

higher levels of performance than do easy or vague, “do your best” goals. In addition to the importance of difficult and specific goals, the goal-setting research is also clear that several other factors are necessary for goal setting to work. First, in order for goal setting to impact performance, feedback that enables people to gauge their progress toward goal attainment is required. Second, goal commitment is necessary for a goal to have motivational effects. Finally, ability and knowledge are important; giving someone a specific and difficult goal, providing feedback, and ensuring commitment will not result in increased performance if that individual does not have the requisite skills and abilities to perform the task.

o Goal setting influences performance through four mechanisms (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). Compared with those who do not have goals, individuals with goals are more likely to (a) focus their attention and action toward the

accomplishment of the goal, (b) exert more effort, (c) persist on tasks even in the face of failure, and (d) develop strategies that aid in accomplishing the goal.

o Major determinants of goal level are past performance and ability. Best predictors of goal commitment are self-efficacy, task difficulty, and expectancy of goal attainment (Wofford et al., 1992).

o Locke & Latham, 1990: Goals increase performance (group, personal, and org).o Research has focused on goal commitment as a moderator of the

goalperformance relationship. Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Agle, 1999: Goal commitment moderates

the relationship between goal difficulty and performance (r = .23). Goal commitment can be strengthened with monetary incentives, but this

only holds for easy goals (Wright, 1992). With difficult goals incentives lower commitment.

Hollenbeck et al., 1989 found that nAch and LOC influence goal commitment.

o Task complexity is another moderator of goalperformance Wood et al., 1987 meta shows that goals are twice as effective with

simple tasks, as compared to complex tasks Goal effects are weaker, and even detrimental, for novel or complex

tasks. Could be that while goals increase attention, effort, and persistence, those aren’t helpful with difficult goals. Might need to work smarter (i.e., changing task strategies) than harder.

o Feedback is another moderator. Feedback increases the relationships (Locke & Latham, 1990)

o A meta-analysis by O’Leary-Kelly et al. (1994) confirmed that group goals have a strong and positive effect on performance.

o New directions: What’s the link between individual differences and the goalperformance relationship?

Several studies have highlighted the link between conscientiousness and both self-set goals and goal commitment (Barrick et al., 1993), emphasizing that individuals with higher levels of conscientiousness are more likely to self-select difficult goals and to be committed to difficult goals.

Dweck (1986) described two different goal orientations that people have: learning-goal-oriented individuals are more concerned with mastering the task, and therefore set goals related to learning, whereas performance-goal-oriented individuals are more interested in performing well on the task and therefore self-set goals related to task outcome, regardless of mastery level. VandeWalle (1999) reviewed this literature and found that a learning-goal orientation is related to higher self-set goals, seeking training, and feedback-seeking behavior.

Colquitt and Simmering (1998) found that having a learning-goal orientation was related to the motivation to learn and to performance in a management course.

The literature disagrees about the goal orientationperformance relationship. Winters & Latham, 1996 propose that this can be explained

by the type of task. Learning-orientation leads to performance if task is complex. Performance-orientation leads to performance with simple tasks.

We know relatively little about affective antecedents and consequences of goal setting.

Goal achievement leads to positive affect (Thomas & Mathieu, 1994), but what about failure to achieve goals?

What happens in the goal-striving process? This is all mostly goal setting. See Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989.

Affecto In reference to affect (which had long been studied as simply JS), Judge,

Thoresen, Bono, Patton, 2001 found a .30 correlation between JS and JP.o Debate over whether affect or performance comes first. Locke & Latham, 1990

conceptualize affect as an outcome. Erez et al., 1999 have it as an antecedent. Weiss & Cropanzano (1996) suggest that because affect is immediate, we need to examine the relationships with ESM and mood diaries (e.g., Weiss et al., 1999).

o In short, we don’t know a lot about the motivating influences of affect.o I need to find how to link affect to motivation. Look back at affect summaries.

And AET in particular. Or Judge, Hulin, & Dalal, 2011. Need theories

o Maslow’s (1943) need hierarchy had five categories of human needs in hierarchical order: Physiological, safety, social, esteem, self-actualization.

Has not received much research attention lately because research couldn’t establish strong link between needs and behavior. Also, the premise that people can move from level to level only when a need is filled doesn’t make much sense theoretically.

o McClelland, 1961 Focused on nAch, nPower, nAffiliation. OB has mostly focused on nAch. Achievement motivation emphasizes the need to achieve success and

avoid failure. Those with a high need for achievement have an approach-oriented tendency to select tasks with an intermediate level of difficulty—those on which they are likely to succeed about 50% of the time. On the other hand, those with a high fear of failure are characterized by having avoidance-oriented tendencies. The concept of approach and avoidance orientations has lead to more recent research, which while not explicitly need theory, certainly has its roots in these concepts.

Drawing on their research on the self-regulatory process, Kanfer et al. (1996) proposed that differences in self-regulatory ability might be due to individual differences in terms of motivational skills. Further research indicated that these skills are influenced by motivational traits that fall into two primary trait clusters: achievement and anxiety (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997). These two trait clusters are remarkably similar to McClelland’s ideas of approach and avoidance orientations. And like the research surrounding McClelland’s theory, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) showed support for the idea that ideally motivated employees have high-achievement and low-anxiety traits.

Dispositionso In reviewing the literature, we believe that core self-evaluations can be

considered a positive affective disposition. The concept of core self-evaluations has been developed by Judge and his colleagues as a higher order or broad personality construct in which self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism (reverse scored) all load onto it. Like other studies examining the long-term effect of PA, core self-evaluations predict job and life satisfaction (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) as well as task motivation and performance (Erez & Judge, 2001), and these relationships are stable over time. In one study, core job evaluations measured in childhood and early adulthood were linked to job satisfaction measured in middle adulthood (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). Like measures of non-affective disposition, core self-evaluations seem to have their impact on performance through self-regulatory mechanisms such as activity level, goal setting, and goal commitment (Erez & Judge, 2001).

Reinforcemento Reinforcement and equity-justice approaches to motivation have a focus on

outcomes, or what a person receives as a result of his or her behavior. Although both approaches share an outcomes orientation to motivation, they differ significantly in terms of their underlying assumptions about human behavior. Reinforcement looks at behavior as a function of its consequences and virtually ignores the psychological mechanisms that might mediate environmental stimuli and behavior. Reinforcement has also traditionally been concerned with learning; that is, reinforcement has been examined as a way to improve how and what people learn. Equity and justice approaches, on the other hand, examine a person’s perceptions of fairness as a determinant of motivation. Clearly, psychological and perceptual characteristics are key for these approaches.

o Reinforcement purists would argue that there is no such thing as motivation as an unobservable psychological process (cf. Skinner, 1990). On the other hand, reinforcement works, and it has provided the basis for many organizational practices from pay to discipline.

o Reinforcement theory is based on the idea that some behavioral consequences increase the likelihood that a behavior will be exhibited again, whereas other behavioral consequences decrease the likelihood that the behavior will be exhibited. The implications for managers are that they should reward behavior that they would like repeated, and make sure that undesirable behavior is not rewarded.

o A reinforcer is anything that increases the frequency of the demonstration of a desired behavior. Reinforcement theory also argues that reinforcers need to be presented consistently and in a timely manner.

o Jenkins et al., 1998 meta reported an r of .34 between financial incentives and performance quantity. No relationship found between incentives and performance quality.

o Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997 meta showed that systematic reinforcement increased performance (d = .51). Found similar effects for financial and nonfinancial reinforcement.

o Luthans and Stajkovic, 1999 show that nonfinancial reinforcement has performance effects similar to those of financial reinforcement.

o New directions: Reinforcement has traditionally focused on positive reinforcers. Operant

conditioning, however, includes the application of punishment to decrease undesired behavior. We know very little about punishment in organizations.

Justiceo **See Colquitt chapters.o The theory surrounding distributive justice developed from Adams’s (1965) work

on equity theory. In brief, this theory predicts that people will evaluate the fairness of their situation in an organization based on a comparison of the ratio of their own inputs and outcomes with some referent’s ratio of inputs and outcomes. When these ratio comparisons are not equal, people are motivated to change the situation by either modifying their inputs and outcomes, changing their referent other, distorting their perceptions, or quitting.

o Bloom, 1999 found that pay inequity among professional baseball players led to lower ind. performance for those on the low end of the scale.

o Thibaut and Walker (1975) identified voice as an important determinant of whether a procedure was considered fair. This is consistent with research showing that people who have choice in determining which task to engage in are more likely to view the process as fair (Cropanzano & Folger, 1991). Leventhal (1980) proposed that fair procedures are those that meet six different criteria: consistently applied, free from bias, accurate, correctable, representative of all concerns, and based on prevailing ethical standards.

o A large number of studies have shown that procedural justice is an antecedent of OCBs (for a review, see Morgeson, 1999). This relationship is mediated by satisfaction (Moorman, 1991) and perceived organizational support (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998), and this is especially true for reciprocation-wary employees—those who believe that they may be exploited by others (Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999).

Need theories

Maslow, 1943 proposed 5 needs (physiological, safety, social, esteem, self-actualization).

Alderfer, 1972 came up with ERG (existence, relatedness, growth) theory. Does not assume there is a rigid hierarchy between the needs. Empirical research hasn’t supported ERG theory anymore than it has Maslow.

McGregor, 1960 proposed Theory X (people are lazy and must be coerced to perform) and Theory Y (people like work and are self-directed). There is no evidence to support either set of assumptions, nor do we know that accepting either view leads to better (or different) outcomes.

The two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1959), also called motivation-hygiene theory, relates intrinsic factors to JS and extrinsic factors to dissatisfaction. He is proposing that satisfaction and dissatisfaction aren’t ends of a continuum. Opposite of JS is no-JS and opposite of dissatisfaction is no-dissatisfaction. Conditions surrounding the job are characterized as hygiene factors. When they are adequate people won’t be dissatisfied, but it won’t make them satisfied either. He

suggests that motivators affect where on the satisfaction to no-satisfaction continuum people lie. The theory has not been supported.

McClelland, 1961: nAch, nPow, nAff. nAch people don’t gamble with success—they want to succeed legitimately, but choose tasks with intermediate difficulty. McClelland, 1975: nAch people are:

Interested in excellence for its own sake rather than for external rewards Argues this doesn’t translate into great leadership. nAch is a self-focused motivation.

Managers probably more concerned with power than nAch. The leadership motive pattern (LMP)—which is associated with managerial effectiveness

—is nPower, low in nAffiliation, high in self control. nAch important at lower managerial levels and positions. LMP more important at higher

levels (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982) There are multiple LMPs that can be effective, depending on the situation

Expectancy theories

**Know how to compare and contrast the 3 main expectancy theories (Ajzen, Vroom, Bandura).

Vroom, 1964.

Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996 meta-analyzed expectancy model tests. They found that intention, in comparison to behavior, was more highly related to expectancy. This goes along with Mitchell’s (1974) that expectancy works well within-person.

EffortPerformanceOutcomes. EP is expectancy: will effort lead to success. PO is instrumentality: will performance equate to outcomes. O is valence: will the outcomes be satisfying.

Self-efficacy shapes our expectancy (Bandura, 1977). Our self-efficacy is shaped by our own experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional cues. Those four things impact 1. our analysis of task requirements and 2. our assessment of personal and situational resources. We look at the requirements of the task and ask if we are up for the job. Look up SCT theory for more.

Outcomes are seen as positively valenced when they help satisfy needs. See above for types of needs.

Intrinsic/Extrinsic motivation (not sure if this is an expectancy theory)

Porter and Lawler (1968) proposed a model of intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation. Intrinsic motivation involves people doing an activity because they find it interesting and derive spontaneous satisfaction from the activity itself. Extrinsic motivation, in contrast, requires an instrumentality between the activity and some separable consequences such as tangible or verbal rewards, so satisfaction comes not from the activity itself but rather from the extrinsic consequences to which the activity leads.

Porter and Lawler (1968) advocated structuring the work environment so that effective performance would lead to both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, which would in turn produce total job satisfaction. This was to be accomplished by enlarging jobs to make them more interesting, and thus more intrinsically rewarding, and by making extrinsic rewards such as

higher pay and promotions clearly contingent upon effective performance. Implicit in this model is the assumption that intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are additive, yielding total job satisfaction.

Theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975): Ajzen, 2001 also calls this the expectancy-value model. TRA suggests that a person's behavioral intention depends on the person's attitude about the behavior and subjective norms (BI = AB + SN). If a person intends to do a behavior then it is likely that the person will do it.

Behavioral intention measures a person's relative strength of intention to perform a behavior. Attitude consists of beliefs about the consequences of performing the behavior multiplied by his or her valuation of these consequences.[citation needed] Subjective norm is seen as a combination of perceived expectations from relevant individuals or groups along with intentions to comply with these expectations. In other words, "the person's perception that most people who are important to him or her think he should or should not perform the behavior in question" (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975).

To put the definition into simple terms: a person's volitional (voluntary) behavior is predicted by his/her attitude toward that behavior and how he/she thinks other people would view them if they performed the behavior. A person's attitude, combined with subjective norms, forms his/her behavioral intention.

Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991): Upgraded TRA to included perceived behavioral control. The theory states that attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions and behaviors.

In addition to attitudes and subjective norms (which make the theory of reasoned action), the theory of planned behavior adds the concept of perceived behavioral control, which is functionally the same as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was proposed by Bandura in 1977, which came from social cognitive theory. According to Bandura, expectations such as motivation,

performance, and feelings of frustration associated with repeated failures determine effect and behavioral reactions. Bandura (1986)[Full citation needed] separated expectations into two distinct types: self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. He defined self-efficacy as the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes. The outcome expectancy refers to a person's estimation that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes.

All of these expectancy theories are cognitive. Thus, they ignore the affective component of behavior.

Erez & Isen, 2002: Look at the affective component of expectancy.

The results of this study indicate that positive affect has a facilitative effect on motivation and performance. Participants in a positive mood state performed better, exhibited more persistence, tried harder, and reported higher levels of motivation than did those in a neutral mood. However, the results also show that these motivation effects cannot simply be attributed to a higher activation level on the part of people in positive moods. Rather, the results show that positive affect influences the component cognitive processes underlying motivation. These cognitive processes involve evaluation of the rewards and estimates of the strength of the links between effort and performance (expectancy) and between performance and outcome (instrumentality). Participants in whom positive affect was induced were more likely than control subjects to have high levels of expectancy (to see a greater connection between their effort and their performance), and they also expressed more liking of the rewards, especially for favorable rewards.

Goal-setting Theory

Locke & Latham, 1990.

Specific and difficult goals are best.

From Colquitt text The theory states that the simplest most direct motivational explanation of why some

people perform better than others is because they have different performance goals (Latham and Locke, 1991). The essence of the theory is fourfold. First, difficult specific goals lead to significantly higher performance than easy goals, no goals, or even the setting of an abstract goal such as urging people to do their best. Second, holding ability constant, as this is a theory of motivation, and given that there is goal commitment, the higher the goal the higher the performance. Third, variables such as praise, feedback, or the involvement of people in decision-making only influences behavior to the extent that

it leads to the setting of and commitment to a specific difficult goal. Fourth, goal-setting, in addition to affecting the three mechanisms of motivation, namely, choice, effort, and persistence, can also have a cognitive benefit. It can influence choice, effort, and persistence to discover ways to attain the goal.

To ways to increase goal commitment: 1. convey outcome expectancies. 2. increase the person’s self-efficacy.

o Me: This is a LOT like SCT. SCT is, essentially, Can I do it? and Is it worth doing?

o How to induce self-efficacy: enactive mastery, modeling, arousal, and persuasion (Bandura, 1997).

Cognitive Evaluation Theory

CET (Deci, 1975) was proposed to explain the effects of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic motivation.

Proposed that external factors diminish feelings of autonomy (by shifting LOC) and competence (by preventing them from feeling responsible for their successful performance). Negative feedback also decreases intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Factors that enhance

The inattention to SDT in organizational research can be partially attributed to its being a descendant of cognitive evaluation theory (CET)—a theory of dubious relevance in the workplace (Latham, 2007). Although it is very applicable in other areas. CET posits that external factors, such as pay, diminish perceptions of autonomy and undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). At least two conceptual problems with CET, and SDT to a lesser extent, are first, that work assignments are rarely autonomously motivated because they are, by definition, “assignments,” and second, the extrinsic motivation of pay cannot be removed from the job without the performance of the job also coming to a halt. Additionally, there are some jobs that can’t be made intrinsically interesting.

Answering the criticisms of CET and early SDT, Deci and Ryan (2000) formulated a revised version of SDT which theorizes that behaviors are motivated by three innate psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) which are essential for psychological growth, integrity, and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These motives lie on a continuum which ranges from autonomous (internal perceived local of causality) to controlled (external perceived locus of causality) (Ryan & Connell, 1989). A motive’s position on the continuum is then predictive of outcomes such as performance, well-being, and goal persistence (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The “new” SDT provides that external motivation (i.e., being assigned tasks or paid for tasks) does not preclude the behavior from being autonomously motivated. An individual can be autonomously extrinsically motivated if he or she identifies with the value of a behavior for his or her own self-selected goals (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

In many respects SDT is a need theory. It notes that we have competence, relatedness, and autonomy needs. SDT focuses not on the strengths of those needs but on the consequences of the extent to which individuals are able to satisfy those needs.

According to SDT, intrinsic motivation and integration/internalization can’t happen unless those needs are fulfilled.

SDT postulates that when people experience satisfaction of the needs for relatedness and competence with respect to a behavior, they will tend to internalize its value and regulation, but the degree of satisfaction of the need for autonomy is what distinguishes whether identification or integration, rather than just introjection, will occur. Stated differently, satisfaction of the needs to be connected to others and to be effective in the social world support people’s tendency to internalize the values and regulatory processes that are ambient in their world. However, such internalization does not ensure that the resulting behavior will be autonomous. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy while internalizing the behavior is also necessary for the value and regulation to be more fully internalized so the subsequent enactment of the behavior will be autonomous.

Learning theories

Theories of learning

3 main theories have been offered to explain the process by which we acquire patterns of behavior.

Classical conditioning (def) : a type of conditioning in which an individual responds to some stimulus that would not ordinarily produce such a response.

o Grew out of experiments to teach dogs to salivate in response to a bell ringing (Pavlov, 1902). In his experiment he linked the bell to meat. The meat was an unconditioned stimulus, the reaction (increase in salivation) was an unconditioned response, the artificial stimulus (the bell) was the conditioned stimulus, and the dogs eventual response to only the bell is the conditioned response.

o Learning a conditional response involves building up an association between a conditioned stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus.

o Is used as an example for everyday things, such as why Christmas carols bring back good memories.

o Classical conditioning is passive. It can explain simple reflexive behaviors. But, most behavior is more complex and emitted rather than elicited (voluntary not reflexive).

Operant conditioning (def): a type of conditioning in which desired voluntary behavior leads to a reward or prevents a punishment.

o Argues that behavior is a function of its consequences. People learn to behave to get something they want or to avoid something they don’t want. Refers to voluntary or learned behavior instead of reflexive or unlearned behavior (Pavlov).

o Repetition of behavior is influenced by reinforcement or lack of reinforcement brought about by the consequences of the behavior. Thus, reinforcement strengthens behavior.

o Associated with B. F. Skinner (1971). He demonstrated that people will most likely engage in desired behaviors if they are positively reinforced for it, rewards are most effective if they immediately follow the desired response, and behavior that is not rewarded, or is punished, is less likely to be repeated.

o Operant conditioning is part of Skinner’s broader concept of behaviorism, which argues that behavior follows stimuli in a relatively unthinking manner.

o According to Skinner, feelings, thoughts, and other states of mind are not causes of behavior.

o People learn to associate stimulus and response, but their conscious awareness of it is irrelevant.

o Rewarding people on a variable schedule tends to lead to higher levels of performance than fixed schedules (Pinder, 2008). Example: Pop quizzes probably prompt more consistent studying that fixed exams.

Social Learning Theory (def): the view that people can learn through observation (watching others or being told about something) and direct experience (Bandura, 1986)

o Social learning is an extension of operant conditioning in that it assumes that behavior is a function of consequences, but also acknowledges the existence of observational learning and the importance of perception in learning.

o The influence of models is essential to the social-learning viewpoint. 4 processes determine the influence that a model will have on an individual:

(1) Attentional processes. People learn from a model only when they recognize and pay attention to its critical features. We are most influenced by models that are attractive, repeatedly available, important to us or similar to us.

(2) Retention processes. A model’s influence depends on how well we remember the model’s actions after the model is on longer readily available.

(3) Motor reproduction processes. After observing a new behavior, the watching must be converting to doing.

(4) Reinforcement processes. Individuals will be motivated to exhibit the modeled behavior if positive incentives or rewards are provided. Behaviors that are positively reinforced will be given more attention, learned better, and performed more often.

Goal orientation

Dweck (1986) conceptualized learning and performance goals. Learning is learning for its own sake. Performance is trying to gain favorable judgments from others. Dweck theorized that those with an incremental view of intelligence were learning oriented. Those with entity view were performance oriented.

Learning orientation: building competence is deemed more important than demonstrating competence. For others, the demonstration of competence is deemed a more important goal than

the building of competence. Those with a performance-prove orientation focus on demonstrating their competence so that others think favorably of them. Those with a performance-avoid orientation focus on demonstrating their competence so that others will not think poorly of them. In either case, “performance-oriented” people tend to work mainly on tasks at which they’re already good, preventing them from failing in front of others. Such individuals view failure in negative terms—as an indictment of their ability and competence. Research has shown that a learning goal orientation improves self-confidence, feedback-seeking behavior, learning strategy development, and learning performance. On the whole, a performance-prove orientation tends to be a mixed bag, producing varying levels of performance and outcomes. What’s more clear are the detrimental effects of having a performance-avoid orientation. Employees who enter learning situations with a fear of looking bad in front of others tend to learn less and have substantially higher levels of anxiety (meta: Payne et al., 2007)

Explicit vs. tacit knowledge. Tacit is acquired only through experience. Explicit is easily communicated. Nonaka, 1994: Tacit knowledge may be orgs most important strategic asset.

Feedback/Rewards/Reinforcement

**Look up more research on this. See Tolli & Schmidt, 2008; DeShon et al., 2004; Alvero et al., 2001

Feedback leads to higher performance than does non-feedback. (Locke & Latham, 1990). DeShon et al., 2004 show this for team and individual performance.

People will do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing toward their goals because feedback helps to identify discrepancies between what they have done and what they want to do; that is, feedback acts to guide behavior. But all feedback is not equally potent. Self-generated feedback—for which employees are able to monitor their own progress— has been shown to be a more powerful motivator than externally generated feedback (Ivancevich & McMahon, 1982)

Kluger & DeNisi, 1996:o Since the beginning of the century, feedback interventions (FIs) produced

negative--but largely ignored---effects on performance. A meta-analysis (607 effect sizes; 23,663 observations) suggests that FIs improved performance on average (d = .41 ) but that over 1/3 of the FIs decreased performance. This finding cannot be explained by sampling error, feedback sign, or existing theories. The authors proposed a preliminary FI theory (FIT) and tested it with moderator analyses. The central assumption of FIT is that FIs change the locus of attention among 3 general and hierarchically organized levels of control: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (including self-related) processes. The results suggest that FI effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and away from the task. These findings are further moderated by task characteristics that are still poorly understood.

o Feedback valence not necessarily a moderator of feedbackperformance. Ashford & Cummings, 1983: Feedback is an individual resource. It’s a personal strategy

for creating information. Three primary motives that underlie feedback seeking: instrumental motive to achieve a goal or perform well, the ego-based motive to defend or enhance one’s ego, and the image-based motive to protect or enhance the impressions that others hold of one.

Dahling et al., 2012: Feedback orientation (a quasi trait) Feedback inquiries Supervisor ratings of task and LMX. This is a “new direction”, although all the work is in JOM.

Brown et al., 2001: information seeking performance is moderated by self-efficacy. VandeWalle et al. (2000) found that people with an LGO disposition are more likely than

those with a PGO disposition to process negative feedback on ways to improve performance. Perceived value of feedback seeking fully mediated the effect of LGO on actual feedback seeking in VandeWalle’s study. LGO individuals are able to put negative feedback into perspective, and rebound from distress.

Control theory (Carver et al. 2000) states that failure motivates more than success, whereas goal-setting (Locke&Latham 2002) and social cognitive theories (Bandura 1997) state that positive feedback in relation to goal pursuit increases effort and goal difficulty levels. Drawing on Higgins’ (2000) theory, Van-Dijk & Kluger (2004) conducted a series of experiments to resolve these contradictory predictions. They showed that people who receive either positive feedback under a promotion focus or negative feedback under a prevention focus have higher motivation than do people who receive feedback that is incongruent with their regulation focus. However, as regulatory focus was easily manipulated/induced, it is questionable whether regulatory focus should be considered as an individual difference variable, or whether feedback sign should be tailored to occupations as suggested by the authors (e.g., positive feedback for people in artistic and investigative jobs).

Rewards ???

Job Design

Hackman & Oldham, 1976

The three mediating variables are called the “critical psychological states.” Renn & Vandenberg, 1985: The CPS contributed significantly to the job characteristics

model’s explanatory power, and thus, should not be excluded from the theory. Although they supported the inclusion of the CPS, the findings did not support the CPS’ inclusion as was originally hypothesized and depicted in the job characteristics model. The findings did not support the requirement that all three CPS need to be experienced to maximize the explanation of work outcomes–a finding that was consistent with our hypothesis and with the findings of past research (Arnold & House, 1980; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In addition, the findings did not support the CPS’ role as complete mediators of the core job dimensions-outcomes relations (as depicted in the job characteristics model). Findings from both studies demonstrated that the core job dimensions had direct and indirect effects (through the CPS) on the outcome variables.

Fried and Ferris (1987) provide a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of relevant research on JCT. They conclude that: (1) job characteristics are related to both psychological and behavioral outcomes; (2) the critical psychological states mediate the role between job characteristics and outcomes; and (3) growth need strength (GNS) moderates the relationship between job characteristics and performance. However, Fried and Ferris also note that: (1) the correlations between job characteristics and the psychological states were less supportive of the

model; and (2) although the results support the multidimensionality of job characteristics, there was no agreement on the exact number of dimensions.

Job design that emphasizes VISAF (like flexible manufacturing, continual improvement, operator control, job rotation) should improve job satisfaction.

Campion and McClelland (1991) examined the costs and benefits of job enlargement. They noted that most research on job design uses a motivational approach to evaluated outcomes-focusing on benefits like satisfaction and motivation. However, Campion and McClelland noted the relevance of three other approaches: mechanistic (focusing on efficiencies), biological (focusing on benefits of physical comfort and health), and perceptual-motor (focusing on reliability and usability). They suggested that enlarged jobs will be higher on motivational attributes, but lower on mechanistic and perceptual-motor. Their results generally supported these predictions. However, unexpectedly, motivational job design was positively related to efficiency and negatively related to work space. (This effect is consistent with Oldham et aI., 1991.) Campion and McClelland concluded that a broader consideration of costs and benefits should be included when implementing job design.

The applications of the model generally find support for its predictions regarding employee attitudes and behaviors, and tests of the theory provide consistent support for the mediating effect of the critical psychological states. However, effects for GNS remain inconclusive, with the bulk of the research suggesting an unmoderated model is best.

There has been little research on JCT since 1993, and this decline in research may be appropriate. After twenty years of research, a clear picture of the psychological and behavioral effects of job design has emerged. Grant, 2008: This may have been premature.

Grant, 2008: Field experiments show that task significance increases job performance. The findings suggest that task significance is not merely received from job characteristics and social cues and then processed as job-focused cognition isolated from other people. Instead, employees process task significance as true social cognition (Fiske & Haslam, 1996), experiencing their jobs as more strongly related to other people through heightened perceptions of social impact and social worth. The attention to relational mechanisms thus broadens existing knowledge about the social psychological processes through which task significance influences employees’ behaviors.

A new spark to the topic emerged with Grant’s (2007) work on relational job design and prosocial motivation. Job’s don’t just have task structures. They also have relational architectures. He introduces a model of relational job design to describe how jobs spark the motivation to make a prosocial difference, and how this motivation affects employees’ actions and identities. Whereas existing research focuses on individual differences and the task structures of jobs, I illuminate how the relational architecture of jobs shapes the motivation to make a prosocial difference. A simplified version of the model is that job design emphasizing job impact on beneficiaries and increasing contact with beneficiaries will increase the perceived impact on beneficiaries, which leads to “motivation to make a prosocial difference, with leads to increased effort, persistence, and helping behavior. Those lead to ind. outcomes of competence and social worth.

Bunderson & Thompson, 2009: Callings. Can be negative if you feel you can’t leave.