2 Factor Theory - Hygiene Factors + Dissatisfaction Satisfaction - Motivator Factors + F. Herzberg
2 Factor Theory % Negative% Positive - 8 ACHIEVEMENT +43 -15 RECOGNITION +35 -12 WORK ITSELF +28 - 8 RESPONSIBILITY+25 -11ADVANCEMENT +21 -37 COMPANY POLICY + 5 & ADMIN -21 SUPERVISION + 5 -19 SALARY +17 -17 INTERPERSONAL REL. + 4 -13 WORKING COND. + 3 F. Herzberg
Acquired Needs Theory Learn Needs Childhood literature Role models Experiences McClelland
Need for Achievement (nach) Drive to excel Prefer challenging but achievable goals Too challenging = won’t succeed Not challenging = no sense of achievement
(nach) Achievers prefer jobs that offer Personal responsibility Feedback Moderate risk
Need for power (npow) Control environment Influence people Prefer - being in charge - competition - status oriented situations
Need for affiliation (naff) Friendly, close relationships Prefer situations - cooperative - mutual understanding
Goal Setting as Motivator Specific, not general Difficult, high - coaching - encourage - support Set by manager - accepted? ------- And nach? 10-20% people in U.S. are high nach
Expectancy Theory Effort Performance Abilities Role Perceptions Intrinsic Rewards Extrinsic Rewards Value of Rewards Satisfaction Perceived Equity Perceived Effort - Reward Probability Adapted from L. Porter & E. Lawler (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance, Irwin, p. 165.
Equity Theory A’s perceptions of: Outcomes A=Outcomes B Inputs A Inputs B
If Inequity Perceived: 1. Change real inputs, outcomes (I, O). 2. Change perception of I, O. 3. Change others’ I, O. 4. Change perception of others’ I, O. 5. Change referent(s). 6. Leave situation.
Studies - inequitable pay: (Compared to equitably paid employees) PERCEPTION = OVER-REWARDED Time based pay: produce more (quantity and quality) Quantity based pay: reduce quantity*, increase quality *Assumption: trade-off between quantity and quality
Studies - inequitable pay: (Compared to equitably paid employees) PERCEPTION - UNDER-REWARDED Time based pay: produce less or poorer quality Quantity based pay: increase quantity, reduce quality *Assumption: trade-off between quantity and quality
Reinforcement Theory Stimulus Response Consequence (need) Learn from consequence to repeat or not repeat the behavior
Reinforcement Theory Law of Effect: The greater the satisfaction, or dissatisfaction, with consequence, the stronger the stimulus to behavior link (stronger learning).
Reinforcement Theory Law of Contiguity: Tie consequence directly to behavior. Law of Immediacy: Administer consequence immediately.
Reinforcement Theory Positive Reinforcement: Positive consequences following behavior (reward) Negative Reinforcement (Avoidance Learning): Remove negative consequence following behavior (don’t get stopped if don’t speed) Punishment: Negative consequence following behavior Extinction: Withhold positive consequence after behavior (fail to meet goal, no reward)
Schedules of Reinforcement Schedule Form of Influence If Withdrawn Example
Reinforcement Theory Shaping Behavior: Teaching new behavior Reward “successive approximations” - reward “attempts” early stages - reward often, early stages ------------ Same as: Coaching, modeling, teaching….
Guides for Positive Reinforcement 1. Clearly describe goal, target behavior. 2. If overall is complex chain of behaviors, divide into observable, measurable sequence of steps. 3. Make sure person has skill, ability to accomplish behavior. 4. Select rewards based on person’s needs. 5. Arrange setting to encourage desired behavior. 6. Reward close approximations, in shaping stage. 7. Reward desired behavior immediately.
Guides for Punishment 1. Tell person what is wrong. 2. Tell person what correct behavior is. 3. Follow laws of contingent, immediate reinforcement. Punish only improper behavior immediately. 4. Make punishment match behavior. Magnitude of punishment = to degree of undesirable behavior. 5. Punish in private.
Possible Negative Side-effects of Punishment 1. If administered poorly, may cause frustration, humiliation, alienation… 2. Threat of punishment may highlight what not to do. 3. Does stop unwanted behavior. By itself, does not provide corrections. 4. Vulnerable to error of over-generalization. 5. Does not encourage internalized behavior; i.e. Threat must always be present. 6. May encourage people to respond in kind.
SHOULD PUNISHMENT BE USED AT ALL? DOES (CAN) STOP UNWANTED BEHAVIOR. IF UNWANTED BEHAVIOR IS INTENTIONAL KNEW IT WAS WRONG DID IT ANYWAY PUNISH UNINTENTIONAL BEHAVIOR? FRUSTRATION NEGATIVE STRESS
COMPETITION as Motivator High interdependent tasks, compete for rewards: productivity decreases Low interdependent tasks, compete for rewards: slight increase in productivity (Miller & Hamblin (1971). “Interdependence, differential rewarding, and productivity” in B. Hinton & J. Reitz Groups and Organizations.)
JOB ENRICHMENT as Motivator EVERYONE WANT MORE AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITY? SAME AS EMPOWERMENT?