MCom I Semester Reinforcement Theory Study Material Notes

MCom I Semester Reinforcement Theory Study Material Notes : job design theory reinforcement theory Social information processing model Expectancy Theory Do Not Forget Ability and Opportunity Integrating Contemporary Theories of Motivations Caveat Emptor Motivation Theories are Culture bound Summary and Implication for Mangers :

BBA I Semester Managerial Economics Pricing Under Oligopoly Study Material Notes

Reinforcement Theory

A counterpoint to goal-setting theory is reinforcement theory. The former is a cognitive approach proposing that an individual’s purposes direct his or her action. In reinforcement theory, we have a behavioristic approach, which argues that reinforcement conditions behavior. The two are clearly at odds philosophically. Reinforcement theorists see behavior as being environmentally caused. You need not be concerned, they would argue, with internal cognitive events: what controls behavior are reinforcers-any consequence that, when immediately following a response, increases the probability that the behavior will be repeated.

Reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens to a person when he or she takes some action. Because it does not concern itself with what initiates behavior, it is not strictly speaking, a theory of motivation. But it does provide a powerful means of analysis of what controls behavior, and it is for this reason that it is typically considered in discussions of motivation.”

We discussed the reinforcement process in detail in Chapter 2. We showed how using reinforcers to condition behavior gives us considerable insight into how people learn. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that reinforcement has a wide following as a motivational device. In its pure form, however, reinforcement theory ignores feelings, attitudes, expectations, and other cognitive variables that are known to have an impact on behavior. In fact, some researchers look at the same experiments that reinforcement theorists use to support their position and interpret the findings in a cognitive frame. work. 46

Reinforcement is undoubtedly an important influence on behavior, but few scholars are prepared to argue that it is the only influence. The behaviors vou engage in at work and the amount of effort you allocate to each task are affected by the consequences that follow from your behavior. For instance, if you’re consistently reprimanded for outproducing your colleagues, you’ll likely reduce your productivity. But your lower productivity may also be explained in terms of goals, inequity, or expectancies

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

Job Design Theory

The writings of Maslow, McGregor, and Herzberg all touched on the importance of looking at the work itself as a possible source of motivation. Recent research in job design provides stronger evidence that the way the elements in a job are organized can act to increase or decrease effort. This research also offers detailed insights into just what those elements are. The Job Characteristics Model The job characteristics model (JCM) proposes that any job can be described in terms of five core job dimensions:

1 Skill variety: The degree to which the job requires a variety of different activities so the worker can use a number of different skills and talent. For instance, an example of a job scoring high on skill variety would be the owner-operator of a garage who does electrical repairs, rebuilds engines, does bodywork, and interacts with customers. A job scoring low on this dimension would be a body shop worker who sprays paint eight hours a day.

2. Task identifies The degree to which the job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work. An example of a job scoring high on identity would be a cabinetmaker who designs a piece of furniture, selects the wood, builds the object, and finishes it to perfection. A job scoring low on this dimension would be a worker in a furniture factory who operates a lathe solely to make table legs.

3 Task significance: The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other people. An example of a job scoring high on significance would be a nurse handling the diverse needs of patients in a hospital intensive care unit. A job scoring low on this dimension would be a janitor sweeping floors in the same hospital.

4 Autonomy: The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out. An example of a job scoring high on autonomy is a salesperson who schedules his or her own work each day and decides on the most effective sales approach for each customer, without supervision. A job scoring low on this dimension would be a salesperson who is given a set of leads each day and is required to follow a standardized sales script with each potential customer.

5. Feedback: The degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the individual obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance. An example of a job with high feedback is a factory worker who assembles iPods and then tests them to see if they operate properly. A job scoring low on feedback would be that same factory worker who, after assembling the iPod, is required to route it to a quality control inspector who tests it for proper operation and makes needed adjustments.

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

Exhibit 6-6 presents the job characteristics model. Note how the first three dimensions-skill variety, task identity, and task significance-combine to create meaningful work. That is, if these three characteristics exist in a job, the model predicts that the incumbent will view the job as being important, valuable, and worthwhile. Note, too, that jobs that possess autonomy give job incumbents a feel ing of personal responsibility for the results and that, if a job provides feedback, employees will know how effectively they are performing. From a motivational standpoint, the JCM says that internal rewards are obtained by individuals when they learn (knowledge of results) that they personally (experienced responsibility) have performed well on a task that they care about (experienced meaningfulness). The more these three psychological states are present, the greater will be employees’ motivation, performance, and satisfaction, and the lower their absenteeism and likeli organization. As Exhibit 6-6 shows, the links between the job dimensions and the outcomes are moderated or adjusted by the strength of the individual’s growth need; that is, by the employee’s desire for self-esteem and self-actualization. This means that individuals with a high growth need are more likely to experience the psychological states when their jobs are enriched than are their counterparts with a low growth need. Moreover, they will respond more positively to the psychological states when they are present than will individuals with a low growth need.

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

Jobs that are high on motivating potential must be high on at least one of the three factors that lead to experienced meaningfulness, and they must be high on both autonomy and feedback. Ir jobs score high on motivating potential, the model predicts that motivation, performance, and satisfaction will be positively affected, whereas the likelihood of absence and turnover will be lessened

The JCM has been well researched. And most of the evidence supports the general framework of the theory that is, there is a multiple set of job characteristics and these characteristics have an impact on behavioral outcomes. But there is still debate around the model, especially the validity of growth-need strength as a moderating variable. Other variables, such as the presence or absence of social cues, perceived equity with comparison groups, and propensity to assimilate work experience, maybe more valid in moderating the job characteristics-outcome relationship. Given the current state of research on moderating variables, one should be cautious in unequivocally accepting growth-need strength as originally included in the ICM.

Social Information Processing Model The job characteristics model deals with objective measures of the job. But as we learned in Chapter 5, people behave in response to their perceptions, not real ity. People can look at the same job and evaluate it differently. The fact that people respond to their jobs as they perceive them rather than to the objective jobs themselves is the central thesis of the social information processing (SIP) model.

The SIP model argues that employees adopt attitudes and behaviors in response to the social cues provided by others with whom they have contact. These others can be coworkers, supervisors. friends, family members, or customers. For instance, Chapel, a multimedia graduate gained employment as a creative artist in a publishing house. Multimedia is in great demand and there are not many experts in this field. The chapel was offered a good package and initially, he was highly motivated and excited about this new job. Two weeks later his motivation was quite low. His co-workers consistently bad-mouthed the management for lack of appreciation for their jobs. They did not understand how important flexibility is for creativity. The non-creative colleagues did not recognize the worth of their work. The objective characteristics of Chapal’s job had not changed in the two-week period; rather, Chapel had reconstructed reality based on messages he had received from others.

A number of studies generally confirm the validity of the SIP model. For instance, it has been shown that employee motivation and satisfaction can be manipulated by subtle actions such as a coworker or boss commenting on the existence or absence of job features such as difficulty, challenge, and autonomy. So, following this theory, managers should give as much (or more) attention to employees’ perceptions of their jobs as to the actual characteristics of those jobs. For instance, they might spend more time telling employees how interesting and important their jobs are. And managers should also not be surprised that newly hired emplovees and people transferred or promoted to a new position are more likely to be receptive to social information than are those with greater seniority

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

Equity Theory

Last year Suyash graduated from a national level engineering institute in Bachelor in Technology After interviews with a number of organizations on campus, he accepted a position with a U.K.-based multinational and was assigned to their Delhi office. Suyash was very pleased with the offer he received: challenging work with a prestigious firm an excellent opportunity to gain valuable expence, and the highest salary any technocrat at the institute was offered last year R$ 9.6 lacs perm. bu Suyash was the top student in his class; he was articulate and mature and fully expected to receive a commensurate salary.

Twelve months have passed since Suyash joined his employer. The work has proved to be as challenging and satisfying as he had hoped. His emplover is extremely pleased with his performance; in fact, he recently received a raise of Rs 10,000 per month. However, Suyash’s motivational level has dropped dramatically in the past few weeks. Why? His employer has just hired a fresh college graduate out of the institute, who lacks the one year experience Suvash has gained, for Rs 11.25 lacs per annum-Rs 25,000 more than Suyash now makes! It would be an understatement to describe Suyash in any other terms than irate. Suyash is even talking about looking for another job.

Suyash’s situation illustrates the role that equity plays in motivation. Employees make comparisons of their job inputs (i.e. effort, experience, education, competence) and outcomes (i.e., salary levels, raises, recognition) relative to those of others. We perceive what we get from a job situation (outcomes) in relation to what we put into it (inputs). and then we compare our outcome input ratio with the outcome-input ratio of relevant others. This is shown in Exhibit 6-7. If we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others with whom we compare ourselves, a state of equity is said to exist. We perceive our situation as fair-that justice prevails. When we see the ratio as unequal, we experience equity tension. When we see ourselves as under rewarded, the tension creates anger; when overrewarded, the tension creates guilt. J. Stacy Adams has proposed that this negative tension state provides the motivation to do something to correct it.54

The referent that an employee selects adds to the complexity of equity theory.55 There are four referent comparisons that an employee can use:

1 Self-inside: An employee’s experiences in a different position inside his or her current organization

2. Self-outside: An employee’s experiences in a situation or position outside his or her current organization

3. Other-inside: Another individual or group of individuals inside the employee’s organization

4. Other-outside: Another individual or group of individuals outside the employee’s organization

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

Employees might compare themselves to friends, neighbors, coworkers, or colleagues in other organizations or compare their present job with past jobs they themselves have had. Which referent an employee chooses will be influenced by the information the employee holds about referents as well as by the attractiveness of the referent. This has led to focusing on four moderating variables gender, length of tenure, level in the organization, and amount of education or professionalism.56 Research shows that both men and women prefer same-sex comparisons. The research also demonstrates that women are typically paid less than men in comparable jobs and have lower pay expectations than men for the same work. So a woman who uses another woman as a referent tends to calculate a lower comparative standard. This leads us to conclude that employees in jobs that are not sex-segregated will make more cross-sex comparisons than those in jobs that are either male or female-dominated. This also suggests that if women are tolerant of lower pay, it may be because of the comparative standard they use.

Employees with short tenure in their current organizations tend to have little information about others inside the organization, so they rely on their own personal experiences. On the other hand, employees with long tenure rely more heavily on coworkers for comparison. Upper-level employees those in the professional ranks, and those with higher amounts of education tend to have better information about people in other organizations. Therefore, these types of employees will make more other outside comparisons.

Based on equity theory, when employees perceive an inequity, they can be predicted to make one of six choices.67

1 Change their inputs (for example, don’t exert as much effort)

2. Change their outcomes (for example, individuals paid on a piece-rate basis can increase their pay by producing a higher quantity of units of lower quality)

3. Distort perceptions of self (for example, “I used to think I worked at a moderate pace but now I realize that I work a lot harder than everyone else.”)

4. Distort perceptions of others (for example, “Mike’s job isn’t as desirable as I previously thought it was.”)

5. Choose a different referent (for example, “I may not make as much as my brother-in-law, but I’m doing a lot better than my Dad did when he was my age.”)

6. Leave the field (for example, quit the job)

The theory establishes the following propositions relating to inequitable pay:

1 Given payment by time, overworked employees will produce more than will equitably paid employees. Hourly and salaried employees will generate high quantity or quality of production in order to increase the input side of the ratio and bring about equity.

2. Given payment by quantity of production, over rewarded employees will produce fewer, but higher quality, units than will equitably paid employees. Individuals paid on a piece-rate basis will increase their effort to achieve equity, which can result in greater quality or quantity. However, increases in quantity will only increase inequity, since every unit produced results in further overpayment.

Therefore, the effort is directed toward increasing quality rather than increasing quantity.

1 Given payment by time, under-rewarded employees till produce less or poorer quality of output. The effort will be decreased, which will bring about lower productivity or poorer quality output than equitably paid subjects.

2. Gan payment by the quantity of production, under-rewarded employees will produce a large number of low-quality units in comparison with equitably paid employees. Employees on piece-rate pay plans can bring about equity because trading off quality of output for quantity will result in an increase in rewards with little or no increase in contributions

These propositions have generally been supported, with a few minor qualifications.58 First, inequities created by overpayment do not seem to have a very significant impact on behavior in most work situations. Apparently, people have a great deal more tolerance of overpayment inequities than of underpayment inequities or are better able to rationalize them. Second, not all people are equity sensitive. For example, there is a small part of the working population who actually prefer that their outcome input ratio be less than the referent comparison. Predictions from equity theory are not likely to be very accurate with these “benevolent types.”

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

It’s also important to note that while most research on equity theory has focused on pay, employees seem to look for equity in the distribution of other organizational rewards. For instance, it has been shown that the use of high-status job titles, as well as large and lavishly furnished offices, may function as outcomes for some employees in their equity equation.60

Finally, recent research has been directed at expanding what is meant by equity or fairness 61 His torically, equity theory focused on distributive justice or the perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among individuals. But equity should also consider procedural justice-the per cerved fairness of the process used to determine the distribution of rewards. The evidence indicates that distributive justice has a greater influence on employee satisfaction than procedural justice while procedural justice tends to affect an employee’s organizational commitment, trust in huis or her boss, and intention to quit. As a result, managers should consider openly sharing to on how allocation decisions are made, following consistent and unbiased procedures, and enga in similar practices to increase the perception of procedural justice. By increasing the perception of procedural fairness, employees are likely to view their bosses and the organization as positive even if they are dissatisfied with pay, promotions, and other personal outcomes. Moreover, as noted in Chapter 3, organizational citizenship behavior is significantly influenced by perceptions of fairness Specifically, evidence indicates that although distributive justice issues such as pay are important perceptions of procedural justice are particularly relevant to OCB. So another plus from employ ces perceptions of fair treatment is that they will be more satisfied and reciprocate by volunteering for extra job activities, helping others, and engaging in similar positive behaviors.

In conclusion, equity theory demonstrates that, for most employees, motivation is influenced significantly by relative rewards as well as by absolute rewards. But some key issues are still unclear. For instance, how do employees handle conflicting equity signals, such as when unions point to other employee groups who are substantially better off, while management argues how much things have improved? How do employees define inputs and outcomes? How do they combine and weigh their inputs and outcomes to arrive at totals? And when and how do the factors change over time?

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

Expectancy Theory

Currently, one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation is Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory. 68 Although it has its critics, most of the evidence is supportive of the theory.

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. In more practical terms, expectancy theory says that an employee will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when he or she believes that effort will lead to a good performance appraisal: that a good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards such as a bonus Salary increase or a promotion; and that the rewards will satisfy the employee’s personal goals. The theory, therefore, focuses on three relationships (see Exhibit 6-8).

1 Effort-performance relationship. The probability perceived by the individual that exerting a given amount of effort will lead to performance.

2. Performance-reward relationship. The degree to which the individual believes that performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of the desired outcome.

3. 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.67

Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers aren’t motivated on their jobs and do only the minimum necessary to get by. This is evident when we look at the theory’s three relationships in a little more detail. We present them as questions employees need to answer in the affirmative if their motivation is to be maximized

First, if I give a maximum effort, will it be recognized in my performance appraisal? For a lot of employces, the answer is No. Why? Their skill level may be deficient, which means that no matter how hard they try, they’re not likely to be a high performer. The organization’s performance appraisal system may be designed to assess nonperformance factors such as loyalty, initiative, or courage, which means more effort won’t necessarily result in a mgher evaluation. Still another possibility is that the employee, rightly or wrongly perceives that her boss doesn’t like her. As a result, she expects to get a poor appraisal regardless of her level of effort. These examples suggest that one possible source of low employee motivation is the belief by the employee that no matter how hard she works, the like lihood of getting a good performance appraisal is low.

Second, if I get a good performance appraisal, will it lead to organizational rewards? Many employees see the performance-reward relationship in their job as weak. The reason, as we elaborate on in the next chapter, is that organizations reward a lot of things other than just performance. For example, when pay is allocated to employees based on factors such as seniority, being cooperative, or for “kissing up to the boss, employees are likely to see the performance-reward relationship as being weak and demotivating.

Finally, if I’m runde, me the rewards ones that I find personally attractive? The employee works hard in hope of getting a promotion but gets a pay raise instead. Or the employee wants a more interesting and challenging job but receives only a few words of praise. Or the employee puts in extra effort to be relocated to the company’s Paris office but instead is transferred to Singapore. These examples illustrate the importance of the rewards being tailored to individual employee needs. Unfortunately, many managers are limited in the rewards they can distribute, which makes it difficult to individualize rewards. Moreover, some managers incorrectly assume that all employees want the same thing. thus overlooking the motivational effects of differentiating rewards. In either case, employee motivation is submaximized.

In summary, the key to expectancy theory is the understanding of an individual’s goals and the link age between effort and performance, between performance and rewards, and finally, between the rewards and individual goal satisfaction. As a contingency model, expectancy theory recognizes that there is no universal principle for explaining everyone’s motivations. In addition, just because we understand what needs a person seeks to satisfy does not ensure that the individual perceives high perfor mance as necessarily leading to the satisfaction of these needs.

Does expectancy theory work? Attempts to validate the theory have been complicated by method ological, criterion, and measurement problems. As a result, many published studies that purport to support or negate the theory must be viewed with caution. Importantly, most studies have failed to replicate the methodology as it was originally proposed. For example, the theory proposes to explain different levels of effort from the same person under different circumstances, but almost all replication studies have looked at different people. Correcting for this flaw has greatly improved support for the validity of expectancy theory. Some critics suggest that the theory has only limited use, arguing that it tends to be more valid for predicting in situations in which effort-performance and performance-reward linkages are clearly perceived by the individual. Because few individuals per ceive a high correlation between performance and rewards in their jobs, the theory tends to be idealistic. If organizations actually rewarded individuals for performance rather than according to criteria such as seniority, effort, skill level, and job difficulty, then the theory’s validity might be considerably greater. However, rather than invalidating expectancy theory, this criticism can be used in support of the theory, because it explains why a significant segment of the workforce exerts low levels of effort in carrying out job responsibilities.

Don’t Forget Ability and Opportunity

Mareena and Deepa both graduated from college a couple of years ago with their degrees in elementary education. They each took jobs as first-grade teachers, but in different school districts. Mareena immediately confronted a number of obstacles on the job: a large class (42 students), a small and dingy classroom, and inadequate supplies. Deepa’s situation couldn’t have been more different. She had only 15 students in her class, plus a teaching aide for 15 hours each week, a modern and well-lighted room, a well-stocked supply cabinet, an iMac computer for every student, and a highly supportive principal. Not surprisingly at the end of their first school year, Deepa had been considerably more effective as a teacher than had Mareena.

The preceding episode illustrates an obvious but often overlooked fact. Success on a job is facilitated or hindered by the existence or absence of support resources.

A popular, although arguably simplistic, way of thinking about employee performance is as a function of the interaction of ability (A)and motivation (M): that is, performance (A x M). If either is inadequate, performance will be negatively affected. This helps to explain, for instance, the hardworking athlete or student with modest abilities who consistently outperforms his or her more gifted, but lazy, rival. So, as we noted in Chapter 2. an individual’s intelligence and skills (subsumed under the label ability) must be considered in addition to motivation if we are to be able to accurately explain and predict employee performance. But a piece of the puzzle is still missing. We need to add opportunity to perform (O) to our equation: performance = f(AXMX 0). Even though an individual may be willing and able, there may be obstacles that constrain performance. This is shown in Exhibit 6-9.

When you attempt to assess why an employee may not be performing to the level that you believe he or she is capable of, take a look at the work environment to see if it’s supportive. Does the employee have adequate tools, equipment, materials, and supplies? Does the employee have favorable working conditions, helpful coworkers, supportive work rules and procedures, sufficient information to make job-related decisions, adequate time to do a good job, and the like? If not, performance will suffer

Integrating Contemporary Theories of Motivation

We’ve looked at a lot of motivation theories in this chapter. The fact that a number of these theories have been supported only complicates the matter. How simple it would have been if, after presenting half a dozen theories, only one was found valid. But the theories we presented are not all in competition with one another. Because one is valid doesn’t automatically make the others invalid. In fact, many of the theories presented in this chapter are complementary. The challenge is now to tie these theories together to help you understand their interrelationships.

Exhibit 6-10 presents a model that integrates much of what we know about motivation. Its basic foundation is the expectancy model shown in Exhibit 6-8. Let’s work through Exhibit 6-10.

We begin by explicitly recognizing that opportunities can aid or hinder the individual effort. The individual effort box also has another arrow leading into it. This arrow flows out of the person’s goals. Consistent with goal-setting theory, this goals-effort loop is meant to remind us that goals direct behavior.

Expectancy theory predicts that an employee will exert a high level of effort if he or she perceives that there is a strong relationship between effort and performance, performance and rewards, and rewards and satisfaction of personal goals. Each of these relationships, in turn, is influenced by certain factors. For the effort to lead to good performance, the individual must have the requisite ability to perform, and the performance appraisal system that measures the individual’s performance must be perceived as being fair and objective. The performance-reward relationship will be strong if the individual perceives that it is performance (rather than seniority, personal favorites, or other criteria that is rewarded. If cognitive evaluation theory were fully valid in the actual workplace, we would predict here that basing rewards on performance should decrease the individual’s intrinsic motivation. The final link in expectancy theory is the rewards-goals relationship. ERG theory would come into play at this point. Motivation would be high to the degree that the rewards an individual received for his or her high performance satisfied the dominant needs consistent with his or her individual goals

A closer look at Exhibit 6-10 will also reveal that the model considers the achievement need. job design, reinforcement, and equity theories. The high achiever is not motivated by the organization’s assessment of his or her performance or organizational rewards, hence, the jump from effort to per sonal goals for those with a high nAch. Remember, high achievers are internally driven as long as the jobs they are doing provide them with personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risks. They are not concerned with the effort-performance, performance-rewards, or rewards-goal linkages. Simi larly for employees with a strong need for meaningful and fulfilling work, jobs that score high on the ICM’s five job-design dimensions are likely to increase internal motivation. More importantly, given social information influences, it’s irrelevant whether jobs actually score high on these dimensions. The key is that employees perceive them as high.

Reinforcement theory enters our model by recognizing that the organization’s rewards reinforce the individual’s performance. If management has designed a reward system that is seen by employees as “paying off for good performance, the rewards will reinforce and encourage continued good performance. Rewards also play a key part in equity theory. Individuals will compare the rewards ou comes) they receive from the inputs they make with the outcome-input ratio of relevant others (0/1:0/10), and inequities may influence the effort expended.

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

Caveat Emptor: Motivation Theories Are Culture-Bound

In our discussion of goal setting, we said that care needs to be taken in applying this theory because it assumes cultural characteristics that are not universal. This is true for many of the theories presented in this chapter because most current motivation theories were developed in the United States by Americans and about Americans. For instance, both goal-setting and expectancy theories emphasize goal accomplishment as well as rational and individual thought characteristics consistent with American culture. Let’s take a look at several motivation theories and consider their cross-cultural transferability.

Maslow’s need hierarchy argues that people start at the physiological level and then move progressively up the hierarchy in this order: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. This hierarchy, if it has any application at all, aligns with American culture. In countries like Japan, Greece, and Mexico, where uncertainty avoidance characteristics are strong, security needs would be on top of the need hierarchy. Countries that score high on nurturing characteristics-Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Finland-would have social needs on top. We would predict, for instance, that group work will motivate employees more when the country’s culture scores high on the nurturing criterion.

Another motivation concept that clearly has an American bias is the achievement need. The view that a high achievement need acts as an internal motivator presupposes two cultural characteristics a willingness to accept a moderate degree of risk (which excludes countries with strong uncertainty avoidance characteristics) and a concern with performance (which applies almost singularly to countries with strong achievement characteristics). This combination is found in Anglo-American countries like the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. On the other hand, these characteristics are virtually absent in countries such as Chile and Portugal.

Equity theory has gained a relatively strong following in the United States. That’s not surprising since U.S.-style reward systems are based on the assumption that workers are highly sensitive to equity in reward allocations. And in the United States, equity is meant to closely tie pay to performance. However, evidence suggests that in collectivist cultures, especially in the former socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, employees expect rewards to reflect their individual needs as well as their performance. Moreover, consistent with a legacy of communism and centrally planned economies, employees exhibited an entitlement attitude that is, they expected outcomes to be greater than their inputs. These findings suggest that U.S-style pay practices may need modification, especially in Russia and former communist countries, in order to be perceived as fair by employees.

But don’t assume there are no cross-cultural consistencies. For instance, the desire for interesting work seems important to almost all workers, regardless of their national culture. In a study of seven countries, employees in Belgium, Britain, Israel, and the United States ranked “interesting work” number one among 11 work goals. And this factor was ranked either second or third in Japan, the Netherlands, and Germany.

Similarly, in a study comparing job preference outcomes among graduate students in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Singapore, growth, achievement, and responsibility were rated the top three and had identical rankings. Both of these studies suggest some universality to the importance of intrinsic factors in the two-factor theory.

Summary and Implications for Managers

The theories we’ve discussed in this chapter address different outcome variables. Some, for instance, are directed at explaining turnover, while others emphasize productivity. The theories also differ in their predictive strength. In this section, we (1) review the most established motivation theories to determine their relevance in explaining our dependent variables, and (2) assess the predictive power of each.79

Need Theories

We introduced four theories that focused on needs. These were Maslow’s hierarchy, two-factor, ERG, and McClelland’s needs theories. The strongest of these is probably the last, particularly regarding the relationship between achievement and productivity. If the other three have any value at all, that value relates to explaining and predicting job satisfaction.

Goal-Setting

Theory There is little dispute that clear and difficult goals lead to higher levels of employee productivity. This evidence leads us to conclude that goal-setting theory provides one of the more powerful explanations of this dependent variable. The theory, however, does not address absenteeism, turnover, or satisfaction.

Reinforcement Theory Study Material

Reinforcement Theory

This theory has an impressive record for predicting factors like quality and quantity of work, the persistence of effort, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates. It does not offer much insight into employee satisfaction or the decision to quit.

Job Design Theory

This theory addresses productivity, satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover variables. But it may be limited to employees who place high importance on finding meaningfulness in their jobs and who seek control over the key elements in their work. So jobs that score high on skill variety, task identity and significance, autonomy, and feedback will help to satisfy the individual goal of employees who desire greater meaningfulness from, and control over their work. In addition, consistent with the social information processing model, the perception that job characteristics score high on the five JCM dimensions is probably more important in influencing employee motivation than the objective job characteristics themselves.

Equity Theory

Equity theory also deals with productivity, satisfaction, absence, and turnover variables. However, it is strongest when predicting absence and turnover behaviors and weak when predicting differences in employee productivity.

Expectancy Theory

Our final theory focused on performance variables. It has proved to offer a relatively powerful explanation of employee productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. But expectancy theory assumes that employees have few constraints on their decision discretion. It makes many of the same assumptions that the rational model makes about individual decision-making (see Chapter 5). This acts to restrict its applicability.

For major decisions, like accepting or resigning from a job, expectancy theory works well because people don’t rush into decisions of this nature. They’re more prone to take the time to carefully consider the costs and benefits of all the alternatives. However, expectancy theory is not a very good explanation for more typical types of work behavior, especially for individuals in lower-level jobs, because such jobs come with considerable limitations imposed by work methods, supervisors. and company policies. We would conclude, therefore, that expectancy theory’s power in explaining employee productivity increases when the jobs being performed are more complex and higher in the organization (where discretion is greater).