Organizational Behavior ? Week #4 Assignment 1 Whole Foods Case Study (Part 2) Review the Whole Foods Case Study (pp. 1-6) and

182 Chapter 6 Work Motivation need for achievement The need to perform well against a standard of excellence. needs. Understanding this is important for managers because it may provide them with the reasons for a person’s behavior. ERG theory has more research support than Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. For example, some research has found evidence for the meaningfulness of the three categories of needs.11 Support has also been found for several of Alderfer’s basic propositions, such as the concept that a satisfied need may remain a motivator.12 Indeed, relatedness and growth needs have been found to increase as they are satisfied. In other words, the more they are satisfied, the more they are desired. However, more research on ERG theory is necessary to test its useful- ness under different conditions. In general, ERG theory may be viewed as a refinement of the needs hierarchy theory.13 Theory of Achievement, Affiliation, and Power A third theory, largely developed by David McClelland, also uses need classifications and focuses on the needs for achievement, affiliation, and power. Some have referred to these as learned needs because they are influenced by cultural background and can be acquired over time.14 The three needs are also viewed as independent, meaning a person can be high or low on any one or all three needs. Although all three needs are important, the need for achievement has received the most attention from researchers because of its prominent organizational effects.15 Need for Achievement Need for achievement, first discussed in Chapter 5, was originally defined by McClelland and his colleagues as a “desire to perform well against a standard of excellence.”16 People with a high need for achievement feel good about themselves when surpassing a standard that is meaning- ful to them. Furthermore, people with a high need for achievement prefer to set their own goals rather than to have no goals or to accept the goals set for them by others. Specifically: • They tend to set goals of moderately strong difficulty that are achievable. • They like to solve problems rather than leave the results to chance. They are more interested in achieving the goal than in the formal rewards they may receive, although they recognize the value of their inputs and tend to earn good incomes. • They prefer situations in which they receive regular, concrete feedback on their performance.17 • They are positive thinkers who find workable solutions to life’s hurdles and challenges.18 • They assume strong personal responsibility for their work. Some consider the achievement motive to be a component of self-actualization.19 Con- sistent with this belief, people high on need for achievement tend to do well in challenging jobs but do less well in boring or routine jobs. In a study of sales and sales support person- nel, individuals with high achievement needs had positive outcomes only when occupying more demanding, technically oriented roles.20 Related to this finding, people who aspire to be entrepreneurs frequently have a high need for achievement.21 Also, managers who have high achievement needs tend to manage differently relative to those who have lower achievement needs.22 More specifically, they tend to be more goal directed, work with others to attain goals, and instill in others strong motivation for important tasks.23 Although need for achievement is thought to be a relatively stable characteristic in adults, it is possible to coach adults to increase their need for achievement. This coaching includes the following steps:24 1. Teach people how to think like persons with a high need for achievement. This includes teaching people how to imagine the achievement of desired goals and mentally rehearse the steps necessary to reach those goals. Teach and encourage people to set challenging but realistic work-related goals. This includes sharing specific examples of challenging goals, as well as examples of successful attainment of such goals. 3. Give people concrete feedback about themselves and their performance. Ensure that people are knowledgeable about their behavior and its outcomes. 4. Create esprit de corps to support the above steps. In organizations such as W.L. Gore & Associates, people with high achievement needs generally do well. Such people, however, can react negatively to the ambiguity found in these organizations. Without reasonably clear pathways to success, high achievement needs can go unmet in any given time period. Need for Affiliation People with a high need for affiliation have a strong desire to be liked and to stay on good terms with most other people. Affiliative people tend not to make good managers. They are more concerned with initiating and maintaining personal relationships than with focusing on the task at hand. In one study, managers of product development units were assessed. Those with high needs for affiliation were seen as less influential and as having less-influential units. They also had units with weaker innovation profiles.25 Need for affiliation is a particularly important consideration in today’s world, where work- ing from home as remote contributors is common. About 10 percent of the U.S. workforce is now classified as remote, with the number of companies offering virtual working arrangements having increased from 34 percent in 2005 to 63 percent in 2012 according to the Society for Human Resources Management.26 Significant percentages of people work virtually at Oracle, Optum, Convergys, and many other companies. Without daily contact with other associates or managers, individuals with strong affilia- tion needs might have difficulty developing strong relations and assessing how well they are liked. They may be particularly prone to feelings of isolation and dissatisfaction. To combat these and other issues, companies that rely heavily on virtual contributors have introduced a host of technologies and practices. To ensure satisfied and productive workers, they gener- ally have provided key technologies that help people stay connected, such as laptops, tablets, smart phones, and Internet access. Many companies also provide sophisticated collaboration software. Companies such as Oracle, Ernst & Young, and Deloitte & Touche designate office and conference space for associates who occasionally stop in. Also, some managers insist on face-to-face team meetings every now and then.27 Need for Power The need for power can be defined as the desire to influence people and events. According to McClelland, there are two types of need for power: one that is directed toward the good of the organization (institutional power) and one that is directed toward the self (personal power).28 People high in the need for institutional power want to influence others for altru- istic reasons—they are concerned about the functioning of the organization and have a desire to serve others. They are also more controlled in their exercise of power. In contrast, those high in the need for personal power desire to influence others for their own personal gain. They are more impulsive in exercising power, show little concern for other people, and are focused on obtaining symbols of prestige and status (such as big offices). Manag- ers with high needs for personal power create a great deal of dissatisfaction and turnover among associates.29 Research has shown that a high need for institutional power is critical for high-performing managers. People with a high need for institutional power are particularly good at increasing

morale, creating clear expectations, and influencing others to work for the good of the organi- zation. Need for institutional power seems to be more important than need for achievement in creating managerial success,30 although blending both is perhaps better than having one or the other. As discussed in the Managerial Advice feature, the Hay Group has conducted a great deal of research on managers’ needs. Its consultants apply this work in the firm’s well-regarded global consulting practice. Importantly, Hay research shows that a strong need for achievement can create problems. Such problems, however, are less likely to occur when a strong achieve- ment need is blended and balanced with a significant need for institutional power and perhaps also with some level of need for affiliation. Two-Factor Theory The two-factor theory (sometimes called the dual-factor theory) is based on the work of Frederick Herzberg.31 It has some similarities to the other need theories, but it focuses more on the rewards or outcomes of performance that satisfy individuals’ needs. The two-factor theory emphasizes two sets of rewards or outcomes—those related to job satisfaction and those related to job dissatisfaction. This theory of motivation suggests that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite ends of the same continuum but are independent states. In other words, the opposite of high job satisfaction is not high job dissatisfaction; rather, it is low job satisfaction. Likewise, the opposite of high dissatisfaction is low dissatisfaction. It fol- lows that the job factors leading to satisfaction are different from those leading to dissatisfac- tion, and vice versa. Furthermore, receiving excess quantities of a factor thought to decrease dissatisfaction will not produce satisfaction, nor will increasing satisfaction factors overcome dissatisfaction. The factors related to job satisfaction have been called satisfiers, or motivators. These are factors that, when increased, will lead to greater levels of satisfaction. They include: • Achievement • Recognition • Responsibility • Opportunity for advancement or promotion • Challengingwork • Potential for personal growth The factors related to dissatisfaction have been called dissatisfiers, or hygienes. When these factors are deficient, dissatisfaction will increase. However, providing greater amounts of these factors will not lead to satisfaction—only to less dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors include: • Pay • Technicalsupervision • Workingconditions • Company policies, administration, and procedures • Interpersonal relationships with peers, supervisors, and subordinates • Status • Security Research has not generally supported Herzberg’s two-factor theory.32 One criticism is that the theory is method-bound—meaning that support can be found for the theory only when Herzberg’s particular methodology is used. Researchers using different methodologies to test the theory have not found support. A second criticism is that the theory confuses job satisfac- tion and motivation. As discussed in Chapter 5, job satisfaction does not always lead to strong motivation. Happy associates are not always motivated associates. The causal path can also go he other way—with motivation, and consequently performance, influencing satisfaction—or there may be no relationship at all in some situations. A third criticism is that motivators and hygienes may not be uniquely different. For example, some factors, such as pay, can affect both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Pay can help satisfy basic food and shelter needs (hygiene), but it can also provide recognition (motivator). Despite the criticisms of two-factor theory, managers tend to find it appealing. Indeed, Herzberg’s 1965 Harvard Business Review article on this theory was reprinted in a more recent Harvard Business Review volume indicating that these ideas continue to be popular with man- agers. At a practical level, the theory is easy to understand and apply. To motivate associates, managers should provide jobs that include potential for achievement and responsibility. They should also try to maintain the hygiene factors at an appropriate level to prevent dissatisfac- tion. Thus, managers can motivate associates by manipulating job-content factors and can prevent associate dissatisfaction by manipulating the job context or environment. Perhaps the most important managerial conclusion is that organizations should not expect high productivity in jobs that are weak in motivators, no matter how much they invest in hygienes. Simply providing good working conditions and pay may not result in consistently high performance. Thus, managers now give much more attention to how jobs are designed. Indeed, Herzberg’s work helped launch the current focus on enriched jobs that emphasize responsibility, variety, and autonomy. This focus is consistent with high-involvement manage- ment, a key theme of our book. Conclusions Regarding Content Theories The four content theories we have just discussed address the factors that affect motivation. These factors include associates’ needs and the various job and contextual attributes that might help them meet these needs. All four theories are popular among managers because each has an intuitive logic and is easy to understand. Although research support for the theories has not been strong overall, the theories have been useful for developing specific managerial practices that increase motivation and performance. Further, these theories can be integrated with pro- cess theories, discussed next. Process Theories of Motivation Whereas content theories emphasize the factors that motivate, process theories are concerned with the process by which such factors interact to produce motivation. One of the weaknesses of content theories is the assumption that motivation can be explained by only one or two factors, such as a given need or the content of a job. As we have seen, human motivation is much more complex than that. In most cases, several conditions interact to produce motivated behavior. Process theories take this complexity into account. Process theories generally focus on the cog- nitive processes in which people engage to influence the direction, intensity, and persistence of their behavior. Three important process theories of motivation are expectancy theory, equity theory, and goal-setting theory. Expectancy Theory The first process theory to recognize the effects of multiple, complex sources of motivation was Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory.33 Expectancy theory suggests that managers and associates consider three factors in deciding whether to exert effort. First, they consider the probability that a given amount of effort will lead to a particular level of performance. For example, an associate might consider the probability that working

on a report for an extra four hours will lead to a significant improvement in that report. This probability is referred to as an expectancy. The second factor individuals consider is the perceived connection between a particular level of performance and important outcomes. For example, the associate cited above would consider the potential outcomes of a better report. She may believe there is a strong positive connection between a better report and (1) praise from her supervisor and (2) interesting future assignments. In other words, she may perceive that good performance makes these outcomes very likely. She may also believe that there is a weak positive connection between a better report and an increase in pay, meaning she believes that good performance makes this outcome only slightly more likely to occur. Overall, she is interested in the effects of good performance on three outcomes. Each perceived connection between performance and an out- come is referred to as an instrumentality. The third factor is the importance of each anticipated outcome. In our example, the asso- ciate may believe that more praise from her boss, better assignments, and an increase in pay would bring her a great deal of gratification. As a result, these outcomes have high valence. Valence is defined as the value placed on an outcome. In essence, expectancy theory suggests that people are rational when deciding whether to expend a given level of effort. The following equation formally states how people implement expectancy theory: MF=E×Σ(I ×V) where: MF = Motivational force. E = Expectancy, or the subjective probability that a given level of effort will lead to a particular level of performance. It can range from 0 to +1. Further, the expectancy of interest usually corresponds to the probability that strong effort will result in good performance.34 Thus, an expectancy of zero means that an individual thinks there is no chance that strong effort will lead to good performance. An expectancy of one means that an individual thinks it is certain that strong effort will lead to good performance. For a given person in a given situation, self-esteem, previous experience with the task, and availability of help from a manager can influence this subjective probability.35 I = Instrumentality, or the perceived connection between a particular level of performance and an outcome. Instrumentality can range from –1 to +1, because it is possible for a performance level to make an outcome less likely as well as make an outcome more likely. For example, an instrumentality of –.8 indicates that an individual expects that performing at a particular level would make an outcome very unlikely (e.g., praise from co-workers might be unlikely because of jealousy). V = Valence, or the value associated with an outcome. Valence can be negative or positive, because some outcomes may be undesirable while others are desirable. Exhibit 6-2 illustrates the expectancy theory process. As an example, consider a car salesman who is contemplating the possibility of selling 15 automobiles next month. Would he attempt to sell that many cars? Assume that our salesman believes there is a .7 probability that strong effort would result in the desired performance. Also, assume that he perceives the following connections between performance and four key outcomes: +.9 for a $1,000 bonus, +.8 for strong praise from his managers, +.9 for high intrin- sic satisfaction, and –.7 for meaningful praise from co-workers.36 Finally, assume valences for these outcomes of 5, 3, 4, and 1 (on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means valued very little and 5 means highly valued). Based on these beliefs and perceptions, our salesman probably would be motivated to attempt to sell the automobiles. He believes there is a good chance that his

Exhibit 6-2 Expectancy Theory strong effort would result in success (expectancy of .7), and he perceives strong positive con- nections between performance and three valued outcomes (instrumentalities of .9, .8, and .9) while perceiving a strong negative connection to a trivial outcome (–.7) (he perceives that success probably would yield no praise, and perhaps even scorn, from co-workers, but he does not care). Another example of expectancy theory in action comes from a study of over 400 police officers’ productivity in terms of drug arrests.37 This study found that officers who made the most arrests were more likely to have: (1) received specialized training in drug interdiction, and perceived that they had sufficient time in their shift to properly investigate suspected drug offenses (high expectancies); (2) perceived that drug arrests were rewarded by their agency (high instrumentalities); and (3) valued available rewards (high valence). Research has generally been supportive of expectancy theory, including research on entre- preneurship.38 Criticisms, however, have been expressed concerning how the components of expectancy theory are measured, how they should be combined, and the impact of individual differences. For example, it has been shown that all three components of expectancy theory predict motivation better when they are considered together than when any one component is examined alone. However, the three components do not appear to have equal strength in affecting motivation. That is, the desirability of outcomes may be the most important element in the equation. Not surprisingly, valence seems to be most important.39 Another issue results from consideration of individual differences. For example, people who have high consideration of others are less likely to engage in the rational, outcome-maximizing decision-making pro- cesses underlying expectancy theory.40 Although subsequent research has led to revised versions of Vroom’s original model, the basic components remain the same.41 Expectancy theory has clear implications for managers. In order to increase motivation, managers can do one or more of the following: Heighten expectancy by increasing associates’ beliefs that strong effort will lead to higher levels of performance. Increase instrumentalities by clearly linking high performance to outcomes

Increase valence by providing outcomes that are highly valued. We discuss specific procedures later in this chapter. Equity Theory The notion of fairness and justice has been of concern to human beings throughout written history and undoubtedly before that as well. Thus, it should not be surprising that people’s erception of how fairly they are being treated influences their motivation to perform tasks. The study of organizational justice has been popular in recent years,42 and its popularity is likely to continue given the high rate of corporate scandals (such as those involving Enron, J.P. Morgan, and Capitol One) and discrimination lawsuits.43 Further, the concept of equity has taken on added importance with the demands by minority groups and women for equitable treatment on the job.44 The basic model for using the fairness concept to explain human motivation comes from J. Stacey Adams’s equity theory.45 According to this theory, motivation is based on a person’s assessment of the ratio of outcomes she receives (e.g., pay, status) for inputs on the job (e.g., effort, ability) compared with the same ratio for a comparison other, frequently a co-worker. Thus, in assessing equity, the person makes the following comparison:

After making the comparison, the person forms equity perceptions. Based on the percep- tions of equity or the lack of it, people make choices about the action to take (e.g., how much effort to exert in the future). Equity exists when the person’s ratio of outcomes to inputs is equal to that of the other person, and inequity exists when the ratios are not equal. Inequity may result, for example, when one person is paid less than the other for the same inputs or when one person provides more input for the same pay. It may also result when one person is paid more than the other for the same inputs or when one person provides less input for the same pay. Note that an individual may compare his outcome/input ratio to the average ratio of several other people, but often the comparison is to one other person who is highly visible in the work unit. When individuals perceive inequity, they can reduce it in several ways. Consider the fol- lowing tactics (pay is the focus here, but other inputs can affect perceptions of inequity): • Increasing or decreasing inputs. Underpaid associates could decrease their efforts, whereas overpaid associates could increase their efforts to resolve inequity. These reactions to inequity demonstrate how equity perceptions can influence motivation. • Changing their outcomes. If underpaid associates convince their supervisor to increase their pay, inequity is resolved. It is less likely, but possible, that overpaid workers would seek a salary reduction. However, they may seek to reduce or give up other outcomes, such as not taking the best assignments or taking a less desirable office. • Distorting perceptions of their inputs and/or outcomes. If it is not possible to actually change inputs or outcomes, inequitably paid associates may distort their perceptions of the situation. One common erroneous perception by underpaid workers is that their jobs offer many psychological benefits. Overpaid workers often believe they are working much harder than they actually are. • Distorting perceptions of the inputs and/or outcomes of the referent other. This is similar to distorting perceptions of one’s own inputs and outcomes to resolve inequity. For example, if an associate feels she is underpaid compared to her co-worker, she can reason that the co-worker really does stay late more often or has a degree from a better school and therefore the co-worker has higher inputs. • Changing the referent other. If an associate perceives inequity in comparison to one co- worker, it may be easiest to find a co-worker who compares more favorably. • Leaving the organization. In cases where inequity is resistant to other forms of resolution, associates may be motivated to resign from the organization and seek a more equitable situation elsewhere. Research generally suggests that inequity is an important concept.46 For example, some individuals have been found to respond to overpayment by increasing their effort and performance.47 When these individuals believe they are being paid more than they deserve, they increase their inputs to bring them into balance with outcomes. In general, different individuals have been found to react differently to inequity. Sensitives are individuals who pay a great deal of attention to outcome/input ratios and are motivated to resolve any inequity, whether the ineq- uity is favorable or unfavorable to them. Benevolents are tolerant of inequity that is unfavorable but are not comfortable with inequity that favors them. Entitleds do not tolerate unfavorable inequity but are comfortable with inequity that favors them.48 In the overall population, many people exhibit behavior that seems consistent with the entitleds. Interestingly, those who possess a strong exchange ideology based on the norm of reciprocity sometimes resemble entitleds. In fact, the degree to which this ideology is held can be even more predictive of negative responses to unfavorable inequity than simple membership in the entitleds category.49 Professional athletes provide interesting case studies for the inequity concept, as indicated by frequent headlines telling us that some “star” is upset about his compensation. These star athletes evidently feel that their outcome/input ratios—their salaries compared with their con- tributions to their teams—do not measure up to those of similar athletes in the same sport. In 2001, Alex Rodriguez, a young and talented professional baseball player, agreed to a 10-year, $252 million contract to play for the Texas Rangers. This amount was well above other com- pensation levels at the time and was generally perceived as outrageous. The contract provided Rodriguez, known as A-Rod to his fans, $25.2 million annually. However, that was not all. If by chance anyone in professional baseball negotiated a higher salary in the 10 years of his con- tract, A-Rod would be given that figure plus $1. In other words, his contract guaranteed that he would be the highest-paid professional baseball player for a decade.50 Yet, partly because of this very high compensation level, he was traded to the New York Yankees, where he has had both good times and bad.51 His 2014 suspension as part of a scandal involving performance enhancing drugs fits into the bad category. Perceptions of inequity have several important effects in the workplace.52 For example, research has found that feelings of inequity can lead to negative employee behaviors such as theft and revenge.53 On the positive side, feelings of equity frequently lead to outcome satisfaction and job satisfaction,54 organizational commitment,55 and organizational citizenship behaviors.56 Organizational citizenship behavior refers to an associate’s willingness to engage in organization- ally important behaviors that go beyond prescribed job duties, such as helping co-workers with their work or expending extra effort to bring positive publicity to the organization.57 Finally, new research suggests that perceptions of equity affect contributions to innovation in crowdsourcing situations. Individuals external to the firm who contribute to the firm’s innovation are very con- cerned with the fairness of distributions not just the absolute amount of those distributions. A deal that offers a strong absolute amount is not enough. This is important new knowledge because using the general public for creative ideas has become quite important for many companies. 58 As highlighted by equity theory, perceptions of inequity often are defined in terms of distributive justice, a form of justice that relates to perceptions of fairness in outcomes. Other types of justice are also important, however. Procedural justice, the degree to which procedures used to determine outcomes seem fair, is the most important of these.59 Research shows that when outcomes are unfavorable, people are likely to be concerned with the fairness used in determining those outcomes.60 People will be less likely to have negative reactions to unfavor- able or questionable outcomes when they perceive that procedures used to arrive at the out- comes are fair. From work assignments to layoffs to mergers and acquisitions, procedural justice has been shown to be very important for the acceptance of decisions that have been made.61 Procedures based on the following rules are more likely to be perceived as fair:62 • People should feel that they have a voice in the decision process. For example, good performance-appraisal systems allow associates to provide inputs into the evaluation process.

• Procedures should be applied consistently. For example, the same criteria should be used to decide on everyone’s pay increase. • Procedures should be free from bias. • Procedures should be based on accurate information. • A mechanism should be in place for correcting faulty outcome decisions. Such mechanisms sometimes involve formal grievance procedures. • Procedures should conform to the prevailing ethical code. • People should be treated with respect. • People should be given reasons for the decisions. For example, survivors of a layoff are much more likely to remain motivated if the reasons for the layoff are explained.63 Overall, equity and procedural-justice concepts can help managers understand associates’ reactions to decisions about rewards. As discussed earlier, individuals at W.L. Gore & Associ- ates have already mastered the use of equity and procedural justice. Goal-Setting Theory Goal-setting theory, developed by Edwin Locke, posits that goals enhance human perfor- mance because they direct attention and affect effort and persistence.64 Given the nature of human beings, individuals are likely to

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.