Organizational Behaviour Canadian Edition Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Prepared by: Joan Condie

Chapter 6 Motivation and Reinforcement

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Questions  What is motivation to work?  How are reinforcement theories linked to motivation?  What do the content theories suggest about individual needs and motivation?  What do the process theories suggest about individual motivation?  How can satisfaction and its connection to performance help bring together the insights of the motivational theories, leading to an integrated motivational model?

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. What Is Motivation?  Motivation = the forces inside an individual that lead to the level, direction, and persistence of effort he or she makes at work  Where level = amount of effort (great or small) direction = choice as to where to direct effort when given alternatives persistence = time spent continuing to try in an action

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Three Categories of Motivational Theories A.Reinforcement theories Emphasize controlling an individual’s behaviour through manipulating its consequencesEmphasize controlling an individual’s behaviour through manipulating its consequences B.Content theories Identify the needs that motivate individual behaviour, i.e., the physiological and psychological deficiencies we feel compelled to reduceIdentify the needs that motivate individual behaviour, i.e., the physiological and psychological deficiencies we feel compelled to reduce C.Process theories Seek to understand the thought processes that determine behaviour, why a person acts in a certain way given available rewards and work opportunitiesSeek to understand the thought processes that determine behaviour, why a person acts in a certain way given available rewards and work opportunities

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Reinforcement Approach to Motivation Reinforcement = the administration of a consequence as a result of behaviour Theoretical background:  Classical conditioning: learning through association  Operant conditioning: the process of controlling behaviour by manipulating consequences  Law of effect states behaviour resulting in pleasing outcomes is likely to be repeated & behaviour resulting in unpleasant outcomes is not likely to be repeated

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Reinforcement Strategies  To increase a behaviour: Positive reinforcement Positive reinforcement Negative reinforcement Negative reinforcement  To decrease a behaviour: Punishment Punishment Extinction Extinction

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Increasing Behaviour: Positive Reinforcement Positive reinforcement = the administration of positive consequences that tend to increase the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated in similar settings Positive reinforcement = the administration of positive consequences that tend to increase the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated in similar settings  Rewards are positive reinforcers if they have the impact of increasing future behaviour  The reward must be contingent on the desired behaviour (law of contingent reinforcement) and should be given as soon as possible after the desired behaviour (law of immediate reinforcement)

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Positive Reinforcement  Shaping is the gradual building of a behaviour by rewarding successive approximations leading to the desired behaviour  Scheduling of reinforcement is either:  Continuous reinforcement (desired behaviour is rewarded every time it occurs) or  Intermittent reinforcement (desired behaviour is rewarded only periodically)

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Scheduling of Reinforcement  Continuous reinforcement  Leads to quick acquisition of the desired behaviour therefore effective in training but  Costly and less resistant to extinction  Therefore, after a behaviour is acquired, the reinforcement schedule changes from continuous to intermittent in order to maintain it

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Scheduling of Reinforcement  Intermittent reinforcement can be given in one of four ways:  Fixed ratio – reward a specific number of behaviours  Fixed interval – reward the first behaviour after specific time has elapsed  Variable ratio – reward a random number of occurrences of the behaviour  Variable interval – reward at random times Note that variable schedules lead to more consistent patterns of behaviour Note that variable schedules lead to more consistent patterns of behaviour

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Increasing Behaviour: Negative Reinforcement Negative reinforcement (or avoidance) = the withdrawal of negative consequences, which leads to the likelihood of desirable behaviour being repeated in a similar setting (i.e., reward by taking away something bad) Negative reinforcement (or avoidance) = the withdrawal of negative consequences, which leads to the likelihood of desirable behaviour being repeated in a similar setting (i.e., reward by taking away something bad)  E.g., more likely to keep work area tidy if it means supervisor no longer nags

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Decreasing Behaviour: Punishment Punishment = the administration of negative consequences that tend to reduce the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated in similar settings Punishment = the administration of negative consequences that tend to reduce the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated in similar settings  Evidence that well handled punishment for poor performance can improve performance while maintaining satisfaction, but punishment seen as arbitrary or erratic can harm both satisfaction and performance

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Decreasing Behaviour: Extinction Extinction = the withdrawal of the reinforcing consequences for a particular behaviour  E.g., not responding to someone’s complaints and whining may lead them to stop doing it in front of you as they do not receive the attention they seek

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Issues in Using Reinforcement Strategies  Are observed improvements in performance due to reinforcement or the goal-setting involved (that holds people accountable for specific accomplishments)?  Ethics – use of reinforcement can lead to demeaning view of people and lead managers to abuse their power through control over behaviour  Counterclaim is that control is inevitable part of manager’s job, and OK if done ethically, fairly and constructively

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Content Theories of Motivation 1.Hierarchy of Needs Theory 2.ERG Theory 3.Acquired Needs Theory 4.Two-Factor Theory  Identify the needs that motivate individual behaviour, i.e., the physiological and psychological deficiencies we feel compelled to reduce

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Hierarchy of Needs Theory  Maslow’s pyramid of needs: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization needs  Those lower on the pyramid claim greater priority  Research does not support the five levels  Instead suggests that they more likely operate in a flexible hierarchy and the importance of each varies with culture  Appears that higher order needs (esteem and self- actualization) become more important than lower order needs (physiological, safety, social) as one moves up corporate ladder

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. ERG Theory  Compressed Maslow’s five need categories to three: existence, relatedness, growth (ERG)  Offers frustration-regression hypothesis: when a higher-level need cannot be satisfied (is frustrated), a lower level need can become reactivated  E.g., in a dead-end job where one’s growth needs are frustrated, relatedness can become a key motivator  Claims more than one need can be activated at the same time

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Acquired Needs Theory  Emphasizes importance of three needs acquired through experiences:  Need for achievement (nAch)  Need for power (nPower)  Need for affiliation (nAff)  Research measures these through use of TAT projective test; McClelland encourages managers to identify the presence of these needs through observation and create appropriate work environments

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Acquired Needs Theory  Needs are associated with work preferences  High nAch: individual responsibilities, challenging goals, performance feedback  High nAff: interpersonal relationships, opportunities for communication  High nPower: attention, recognition, opportunity for influence over others  Senior executive success associated with high need for power and low need for affiliation

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Two-factor Theory (or Motivation-Hygiene Theory)  Herzberg:  Job context is source of dissatisfaction Problems with hygiene factors (e.g., pay, working conditions) lead to dissatisfaction; lack of problems means lack of dissatisfaction Problems with hygiene factors (e.g., pay, working conditions) lead to dissatisfaction; lack of problems means lack of dissatisfaction  Job content is the source of job satisfaction Motivator factors (e.g., achievement, responsibility) link with job performance; if high, satisfaction high and performance strong Motivator factors (e.g., achievement, responsibility) link with job performance; if high, satisfaction high and performance strong

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Two-factor Theory (or Motivation-Hygiene Theory)  Validity unconfirmed – not replicated using different methods  Still does not explain individual differences, professional or cultural differences

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Equity Theory  Adams: we will act to eliminate any unfairness that we see in the rewards we receive for our work compared to what others receive

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Equity Theory  Suggests person feeling under rewarded or overrewarded will do one of following to restore equity:  Change own work inputs (e.g., effort)  Change own outcomes received (e.g., ask for raise)  Leave situation  Change comparison person  Psychologically distort the comparisons  Act to change the inputs or outcomes of comparison person

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Equity Theory  Suggests that the ways in which any reward is received will be affected by equity comparisons; it is the receiver’s perception that counts, not the reward giver’s intentions  Research suggests people who feel underpaid do reduce the quantity or quality of their work but those who feel overpaid not as likely to improve their work as overpayment is not as uncomfortable as underpayment  Different results in other cultures; concern over equality more an issue than equity in collectivistic cultures

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Expectancy Theory  Vroom argues that work motivation is determined by individual beliefs about effort-performance relationships and work outcomes  In deciding whether to do something, a person assesses:  Expectancy – Can I do it? How hard must I work?  Instrumentality – What will happen as a result of my success?  Valence – How much do I care about those outcomes?

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Expectancy Theory  Claims M = E x I x V where  M is motivation  E is expectancy  I is instrumentality  V is valence  The multiplier effect means that all must be high for high motivation, yet even one low one can destroy motivation  Generally strong research support

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction = how positively or negatively individuals feel about their jobs  Observable informally through observation and interpretation of behaviour and words  Measured formally in questionnaires  E.g., Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire  E.g., Job Descriptive Index

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Effects of Job Satisfaction  Link to absenteeism  Satisfied have lower absenteeism  Link to turnover  Dissatisfied more likely to quit  Link to performance complex  Satisfaction is NOT good predictor of individual performance  Successful performance does seem to lead to greater satisfaction  Proper allocation of rewards can increase both performance and satisfaction

Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, Currie Organizational Behaviour, Canadian Edition Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Satisfaction Amount and schedule of contingent extrinsic rewards Net amount of valent intrinsic rewards Equity comparison Performance Motivation Work effort needed Individualattributes Organizational support An Integrated Model of Individual Motivation to Work

Copyright Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of this work beyond that permitted by Access Copyright (The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency) is unlawful. Requests for further information should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. The purchaser may make back-up copies for his or her own use only and not for distribution or resale. The author and the publisher assume no responsibility for errors, omissions, or damages caused by the use of these programs or from the use of the information contained herein.