i. If outcomes are favorable and individuals get what they want,
they care less about the process, so procedural justice doesn’t
matter as much when distributions are perceived to be fair.
b. Informational Justice. Research has shown that employees care about
two other types of fairness that have to do with the way they are treated
during interactions with others.
i. The first type is informational justice, which reflects whether
managers provide employees with explanations for key decisions and
keep them informed of important organizational matters.
c. Interpersonal Justice. The second type of justice relevant to interactions
between managers and employees is interpersonal justice, which reflects
whether employees are treated with dignity and respect.
2. Justice Outcomes. How much does justice really matter to employees?
a. A great deal, as it turns out. When employees feel fairly treated, they
respond in a number of positive ways.
b. All four types of justice discussed in this section have been linked to
higher levels of task performance and citizenship behaviors such as
helping coworkers, as well as lower levels of counterproductive behaviors
such as shirking job duties.
i. Distributive and procedural justices are more strongly associated with
task performance, while informational and interpersonal justices are
more strongly associated with citizenship behavior.
c. Studies suggest that managers are indeed motivated to foster employees’
perceptions of justice because they wish to ensure compliance, maintain a
positive identity, and establish fairness at work.
d. Despite all attempts to enhance fairness, perceived injustices are still
likely to occur.
i. Fairness is often subjective; what one person sees as unfair, another
may see as perfectly appropriate.
3. Ensuring Justice. It might be tempting for organizations to adopt strong
justice guidelines in attempts to mandate managerial behavior, but this isn’t
likely to be universally effective.
a. In cases where managers have more rules and less discretion, those who
calculate justice are more likely to act fairly, but managers whose justice
behavior follows from their affect may act more fairly when they have
greater discretion.
4. Culture and Justice. In terms of cultural differences, meta-analytic evidence
shows individuals in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures prefer an
equitable distribution of rewards over an equal division (everyone gets paid
the same regardless of performance).
a. International managers must consider the cultural preferences of each
group of employees when determining what is “fair” in different contexts.
B. Expectancy Theory
1. Expectancy theory is one of the most widely accepted explanations of
motivation. Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory has its critics but most of the
research is supportive.
2. 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.
3. It says that an employee will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when
he/she believes that:
a. Effort will lead to a good performance appraisal.
b. That a good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards.
c. That the rewards will satisfy his/her personal goals.
d. Three key relationships: (Exhibit 7-8)
i. Effort-performance relationship: the probability perceived by the
individual that exerting a given amount of effort will lead to
performance.
ii. 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.
iii. Rewards-personal goals relationship: the degree to which
organizational rewards satisfy an individual’s personal goals or needs
and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the individual.
4. Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers aren’t motivated on
their jobs and do only the minimum necessary to get by.
5. Three questions employees need to answer in the affirmative if their
motivation is to be maximized:
a. If I give maximum effort, will it be recognized in my performance
appraisal?
b. If I get a good performance appraisal, will it lead to organizational
rewards?
c. If I’m rewarded, are the rewards attractive to me?
6. 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.
C. Job Engagement
1. Job engagement: the investment of an employee’s physical, cognitive, and
emotional energies into job performance.
a. Practicing managers and scholars alike have lately become interested in
facilitating job engagement, believing something deeper than liking a job
or finding it interesting drives performance.
2. Many studies attempt to measure this deeper level of commitment.
a. The Gallup organization has been using 12 questions to assess the extent
to which employee engagement is linked to positive work outcomes for
millions of employees over the past 30 years.
b. There are far more engaged employees in highly successful organizations
than in average organizations, and groups with more engaged employees
have higher levels of productivity, fewer safety incidents, and lower
turnover.
c. Academic studies have also found positive outcomes.
i. One examined multiple business units for their level of engagement
and found a positive relationship with a variety of practical outcomes.
ii. Another reviewed 91 distinct investigations and found higher levels of
engagement associated with task performance and citizenship
behavior.
3. What makes people more likely to be engaged in their jobs?
a. One key is the degree to which an employee believes it is meaningful to
engage in work.
b. This is partially determined by job characteristics and access to sufficient
resources to work effectively.
c. Another factor is a match between the individual’s values and those of the
organization.
d. Leadership behaviors that inspire workers to a greater sense of mission
also increase employee engagement.
4. One of the critiques of engagement is that the construct is partially redundant
with job attitudes like satisfaction or stress.
a. However, engagement questionnaires usually assess motivation and
absorption in a task, quite unlike job satisfaction questionnaires.
5. Engagement may also predict important work outcomes better than traditional
job attitudes.
6. Other critics note that there may be a “dark side” to engagement, as evidenced
by positive relationships between engagement and work-family conflict.
a. Individuals might grow so engaged in their work roles that family
responsibilities become an unwelcome intrusion.
7. Further research exploring how engagement relates to these negative
outcomes may help clarify whether some highly engaged employees might be
getting “too much of a good thing.”
II. Integrating Contemporary Motivation Theories
A. Exhibit 7-9 integrates much of what we know about motivation. Its basic
foundation is the expectancy model.
B. 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.
1. 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.
2. The final link in expectancy theory is the rewards-goals relationship.
3. The model considers the achievement, need, reinforcement, and
equity/organizational justice theories.
a. High achievers are internally driven as long as the jobs they are doing
provide them with personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risks.
C. Reinforcement theory recognizes that the organization’s rewards reinforce the
individual’s performance.
1. 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.
III. Summary and Implications for Management
A. The motivation theories in this chapter differ in their predictive strength.
B. Maslow’s hierarchy, McClelland’s needs, and the two-factor theory focus on
needs.
C. Self-determination theory and cognitive evaluation theory have merits to consider.
D. Goal-setting theory can be helpful but does not cover absenteeism, turnover, or
job satisfaction.
E. Reinforcement theory can be helpful, but not regarding employee satisfaction or
the decision to quit.
F. Equity theory’s strongest legacy is that it provided the spark for research on
organizational justice, which has more support in the literature.
G. Expectancy theory can be helpful, but assumes employees have few constraints on
decision making, such as bias or incomplete information, and this limits its
applicability. Job engagement goes a long way toward explaining employee
commitment. Specific implications for managers are below:
1. Make sure extrinsic rewards for employees are not viewed as coercive, but
instead provide information about competence and relatedness.
2. Consider goal-setting theory: clear and difficult goals often lead to higher
levels of employee productivity.
3. Consider reinforcement theory regarding quality and quantity of work,
persistence of effort, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates.
4. Consult equity theory to help understand productivity, satisfaction, absence,
and turnover variables.
5. Expectancy theory offers a powerful explanation of performance variables
such as employee productivity, absenteeism, and turnover.
Career OBjectives
Why won’t he take my advice?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objectives: Describe the three key elements of motivation; Demonstrate the differences among
self-efficacy theory, reinforcement theory, equity theory, and expectancy theory
Learning Outcome: Describe the major theories of motivation and relate them to organizational
performance
AACSB: Diverse and multicultural work environment; Reflective thinking
The new guy in the office is nice enough, but he’s straight out of college, and I have 20
years of experience in the field. I’d like to help him out, but he won’t take it, no matter
how I approach him. Is there anything I can do to motivate him to accept my advice? He
badly needs a few pointers. —James
Dear James:
It’s great that you want to help, and surely you have wisdom to offer. But let’s start with
this: When is the last time you took someone else’s advice? Chances are it’s easier for
you to remember the last time you didn’t take someone’s advice than when you did.
That’s because we want success on our own terms, and we don’t like the idea that a ready
answer was out there all along (and we missed it). “When somebody says, ‘You should
do something,’ the subtext is: ‘You’re an idiot for not already doing it,’” said psychologist
Alan Goldberg. “Nobody takes advice under those conditions.” So under what conditions
do people take advice?
There are two parts to the motivation equation for advice: what your coworker wants to
hear, and how you can approach him. For the first part, keep this rule in mind: He wants
to hear that whatever decisions he’s made are brilliant. If he hears anything different from
that, he’s likely to tune you out or keep talking until you come over to his side.
For the second part, your coworker’s motivation to accept and, more importantly, act on
advice has a lot to do with how you approach him. Are you likely to “impart your wisdom
to the younger generation?” Anything like “I wish I had known this when I was just
starting out like you” advice will likely have him thinking you (and your advice) are out
of date. Are you going to give “If I were you, I would do this” advice? He may resent
your intrusion. According to research, what is most likely to work is a gentle suggestion,
phrased as a request. Ravi Dhar, a director at Yale, said, “Interrogatives have less
reactance and may be more effective.” You might say, for instance, “Would you consider
trying out this idea?”
Take heart, the problem isn’t that we don’t like advice—we do, as long as we seek it.
According to research, we are more motivated toward advice when we are facing
important decisions, so good timing may work in your favor. When he does ask, you may
suggest that he writes down the parameters of his choices and his interpretations of the
ethics of each decision. Researcher Dan Ariely has found that we are much more
motivated to make morally right decisions when we’ve considered the moral implications
in a forthright manner. In this way, your coworker may motivate himself to make the
right decisions.
Keep trying!
Sources: D. Ariely, “What Price for the Soul of a Stranger?” The Wall Street Journal, May 10–11, 2014, C12; J. Queenan, “A Word to
the Wise,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8–9, 2014, C1–C2; and S. Reddy, “The Trick to Getting People to Take the Stairs? Just
Ask,” The Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2015, R4.
Myth or Science?
“Helping Others and Being a Good Citizen Is Good for
Your Career”
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Describe the three key elements of motivation; Contrast the elements of
self-determination theory and goal-setting theory; Demonstrate the differences among self-efficacy theory,
reinforcement theory, equity theory, and expectancy theory
Learning Outcome: Describe the major theories of motivation and relate them to organizational
performance
AACSB: Reflective thinking
We might think we should motivate employees to display organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB), and that helping others would benefit their careers. We would probably
also believe our own OCB will yield us career benefits. Surprisingly, there is some
evidence that these assumptions are false, at least in certain organizations. Why?
In some organizations, employees are evaluated more on how their work gets done than
on how much. If they possess the requisite knowledge and skills, or if they demonstrate
the right behaviors on the job (for example, always greeting customers with a smile), they
are determined by management to be motivated, “good” performers. In these situations,
OCBs are considered as the next higher level of good employee behavior. Employees’
careers thus benefit as a result of their helpfulness toward coworkers.
However, in other organizations, employees are evaluated more on what gets done. Here,
employees are determined to be “good” performers if they meet objective goals such as
billing clients a certain number of hours or reaching a certain sales volume. When
managers overlook employee OCB, frown on helpful behaviors, or create an overly
competitive organizational culture, employees become unmotivated to continue their
helpful actions. Those who still engage in OCB can find their career progress is slowed
when they take time away from core tasks to be helpful.
The upshot? There may be a trade-off between being a good performer and being a good
citizen. In organizations that focus more on behaviors, following your motivation to be a
good citizen can help to accomplish your career goals. However, in organizations that
focus more on objective outcomes, you may need to consider the cost of your good
deeds.
Sources: D. M. Bergeron, “The Potential Paradox of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Good Citizens at What Cost?” Academy of
Management Review, 32, no. 4 (2007); and D. M. Bergeron, A. J. Shipp, B. Rosen, & and S. A. Furst, “Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Career Outcomes: The Cost of Being a Good Citizen,” Journal of Management, 39, no. 4 (2013), pp. 958–-984.
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into groups of five to six students each.
2. Ask students to identify the benefits and drawbacks of evaluating employees on
how their work gets done.
3. Then, ask students to consider the benefits and drawbacks of evaluating
employees on what gets done.
4. Discuss the type of organization where each approach could be successful and
where it might not.
5. Each group should present the results of their analysis to the class.
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
An Ethical Choice
Motivated by Big Brother
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Demonstrate the differences among self-efficacy theory, reinforcement theory, equity
theory, and expectancy theory
Learning Outcome: Describe the major theories of motivation and relate them to organizational
performance
AACSB: Ethical understanding and reasoning; Reflective thinking
Technology is a great thing. The Internet provides us with instant access to an abundance
of information, and smartphones allow us to stay easily connected with others through
e-mail, texting, tweeting, and conversation. Yet that ease of connectivity has also given
employees the sinking feeling they are being watched . . . and they are right. But is it
ethical?
Some companies are using technology to track their employees’ activities, and some of
this tracking is done in the name of science. For example, Bank of America Corp. wanted
to learn whether face-to-face interaction made a difference to the productivity of its call
center teams, so it asked around 100 workers to wear badges for a few weeks that tracked
their whereabouts. Discovering that the most productive workers interacted most
frequently with others, the company scheduled work breaks for groups rather than
individually. This is a nice outcome, but how did the monitoring affect the behavior and
motivation of the workers?
Other companies track employees to ensure they are hard at work, which risks completely
demotivating some. Accurate Biometrics, for example, uses computer monitoring to
oversee its telecommuters. Says Timothy Daniels, VP of Operations, looking at websites
his employees have visited “enables us to keep a watchful eye without being
over-invasive.” Currently, around 70 percent of organizations monitor their employees.
Practically speaking, managers may not want to adopt technologies that demotivate their
employees through micromanagement. Perhaps more importantly, though, how can they
use monitoring technology ethically in workplace applications? First and foremost,
employees should be informed their activities will be tracked. Second, the purpose of
tracking should be made clear to employees. Are workers being monitored to learn
something that might help them and the organization as a whole? Or are they being
monitored to ensure they never slack off? Finally, it should be made clear which
behaviors are inappropriate. Taking a legitimate work break is different from spending
hours on a social networking site. These guidelines should increase the likelihood that
monitoring programs are accepted and perceived to be fair.
Sources: S. Shellenbarger, “Working from Home without Slacking Off,” The Wall Street Journal, July 13–15, 2012, 29; R. Richmond,
“3 Tips for Legally and Ethically Monitoring Employees Online,” Entrepreneur,May 31, 2012,
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/223686; and
R. E. Silverman, “Tracking Sensors Invade the Workplace,” The Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2003, www.wsj.com
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into groups of three to five students each.
2. Ask the groups to discuss whether it is ethical for employers to track their
employees.
3. Then, ask students how they would feel if they learned that their activities had
been tracked.
4. Finally, ask each group to develop a list of “acceptable” actions by companies and
a list of “unacceptable” actions.
5. Each group should present their results to the class. Were the lists similar across
groups? What does this tell students about the ethics of employee tracking by
employers?
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
Personal Inventory Assessments
Work Motivation Indicator
Do you find that some jobs motivate you more than others? Take this PIA to determine
your work motivation.
Point/Counterpoint
Goals Get You to Where You Want to Be
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objectives: Describe the three key elements of motivation; Demonstrate the differences among
self-efficacy theory, reinforcement theory, equity theory, and expectancy theory
Learning Outcome: Describe the major theories of motivation and relate them to organizational
performance
AACSB: Reflective thinking
Point
Of course this is a true statement. Goal-setting theory is one of the best-supported
theories in all the motivation literature. Study after study has consistently shown the
benefits of goals. Want to excel on a test, lose a certain amount of weight, obtain a job
with a particular income level, or improve your golf game? If you want to be a high
performer, merely set a specific, difficult goal and let nature take its course. That goal
will dominate your attention, cause you to focus, and make you try harder.
All too often, people are told by others to simply “do their best.” Could anything be more
vague? What does “do your best” actually mean? Maybe you feel that your “best” on one
day is to muster a grade of 50 percent on an exam, while your “best” on another day is an
80. But if you were given a more difficult goal—say, to score a 95 on the exam—and you
were committed to that goal, you would ultimately perform better.
Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, the researchers best known for goal-setting theory, put it
best when they said, “The effects of goal-setting are very reliable.” In short, goal-setting
theory is among the most valid and practical theories of motivation in organizational
psychology.
Counterpoint
Sure, a lot of research has shown the benefits of goal-setting, but those studies ignore the
harm that’s often done. For one, how often have you set a “stretch” goal, only to see
yourself later fail? Goals create anxiety and worry about reaching them, and they often
create unrealistic expectations as well. Imagine those who had set a goal to earn a
promotion in a certain period of time (a specific, difficult goal), only to find themselves
laid off once the recession hit. Or how about those who envisioned a retirement of leisure
yet were forced to take on a part-time job or delay retirement altogether in order to
continue to make ends meet. When too many things are out of our control, our difficult
goals become impossible.
Or, consider this: goals can lead to unethical behavior and poorer performance. How
many reports have you heard over the years about teachers who “fudged” students’ test
scores in order to achieve educational standards? Another example: when Ken O’Brian, a
professional quarterback for the New York Jets, was penalized for every interception he
threw, he achieved his goal of fewer interceptions quite easily—by refusing to throw the
ball even when he should have.
In addition to this anecdotal evidence, research has directly linked goal-setting to
cheating. We should heed the warning of Professor Maurice E. Schweitzer— that
“Goal-setting is like a powerful medication”—before blindly accepting that specific,
difficult goal.
Sources: E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham, “Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation,” American Psychologist 57
(2002), pp. 705–771; A. Tugend, “Expert’s Advice to the Goal-Oriented: Don’t Overdo It,” The New York Times (October 6, 2012), p. B5; and C.
Richards, “Letting Go of Long-Term Goals,” The New York Times (August 4, 2012).
Class Exercise
In most universities, professors use fear to motivate students to performance. They are
likely to say something like, “Study hard to make a good grade on the test. If you don’t,
you’ll fail the class!” This has led to an emphasis on students’ parts to make a grade
rather that learn the information.
1. Divide the class into groups of three to five students each.
2. Ask students to discuss what their goals are in the class.
3. Students should identify their first objective. Is it to make a grade? Or is it to learn
the topic? Ask them to be honest. Most often, the former is most students’ primary
objective.
4. Ask the groups to compare this finding against goal-setting theory and
expectation theory.
5. Discuss whether or not these theories would make a difference in a professor’s
approach to the motivation of students. Do the students believe their performance
would be affected by different motivational approaches?
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.