Case study 5.1 predicting harry's work effort

chapter5

Foundations of Employee Motivation

learning objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

5-1 Define employee engagement.

5-2 Explain how drives and emotions influence employee motivation.

5-3 Summarize Maslow’s needs hierarchy, and discuss the employee motivation implications of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, learned needs theory, and four-drive theory.

5-4 Discuss the expectancy theory model, including its practical implications.

5-5 Outline organizational behavior modification (OB Mod) and social cognitive theory, and explain their relevance to employee motivation.

5-6 Describe the characteristics of effective goal setting and feedback.

5-7 Summarize equity theory and describe ways to improve procedural justice.

Frucor Beverages is the market leader of energy drinks in New Zealand and Australia. It is also one of the most energized companies in the region. “Our people are highly engaged, but they are also hungry for more success, and to be better,” says Mark Callaghan, CEO of the company’s New Zealand operations where most production occurs.

Frucor’s 1,000 employees say the company provides plenty of learning and autonomy, which motivates them to develop their potential. “The environment is great to develop skills you would normally obtain by working at a number of different companies,” says Ted Audain, a Frucor plant maintenance engineer and parts purchaser. “We are committed to providing our people with the freedom to create, push the boundaries, and ‘to go for it’” says Callaghan. “From a business perspective, factors such as improved productivity, low consumer complaints, low absenteeism, and return on investment to our shareholders are by-products of an everyday fun and self-actualizing environment.”

Job-relevant, challenging goals linked to the company’s overall objectives is another source of employee motivation at Frucor. “It’s about having a clear strategy, objectives and goals with each person’s objectives related to the company’s goals, which are clearly articulated,” says Callaghan. Frucor balances thosePage 121 challenges by ensuring that employees are valued and appreciated for their contribution. “When you value your staff as people, they value you,” Callaghan explains. “Everyone takes responsibility for valuing each other—we get higher engagement from staff.”

Overall, Frucor sets a high bar for employee performance, but also offers plenty of training, recognition, and support to achieve those goals. “We back people to take a risk in a highly supportive environment,” Callaghan explains. “I like to think we’re like a Viking but with a mother’s heart.” 1

Frucor Beverages has a highly engaged workforce through goal setting, meaningful work, enriched jobs, and recognition of their value to the organization. These practices generate high levels of employee motivation. Motivation refers to the forces within a person that affect the direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary behavior. 2 Motivated employees are willing to exert a particular level of effort (intensity), for a certain amount of time (persistence), toward a particular goal (direction). Motivation is one of the four essential drivers of individual behavior and performance (see Chapter 2).

The theme of this chapter is employee motivation. We begin by discussing employee engagement, an increasingly popular concept associated with motivation. Next, we explain how drives and emotions are the prime movers of employee motivation, and review associated needs-based theories. Our attention then turns to expectancy theory, a popular cognitive decision model of employee motivation. Organizational behavior modification and social cognitive theory are then introduced and linked to expectancy theory. The latter sections of this chapter outline the key components of goal setting and feedback, and organizational justice.

© Frucor

Frucor beverages has a highly engaged workforce through goal setting, meaningful work, enriched jobs, and recognition of their value to the organization.

Page 122

global connections 5.1

DHL Express Employees Get Engaged

Employee engagement is a key driver of business success at DHL Express, the global courier division of Germany’s Deutsche Post. “We definitely see the value in having emotionally engaged and motivated employees,” says Hennie Heymans, managing director of DHL Express Sub-Saharan Africa. “Engaged employees mean better revenue, profit, customer engagement, and safety.”

As one of Africa’s top-rated employers, DHL Express builds an engaged workforce through continuous development, such as online learning available to all staff and the Made in Africa initiative to train and mentor future leaders. “Employees should be encouraged to grow—both personally and professionally—and should be continuously motivated to broaden their horizons and fulfill their potential,” says Lebo Tseladimitlwa, vice president of human resources at DHL Express Sub-Saharan Africa. The company also has employee recognition awards, competitive pay, and a Certified International Specialist (CIS) program, in which all DHL employees learn how the company operates and the importance of everyone’s role in the business. “CIS is not a traditional training platform,” says DHL Express Global CEO Ken Allen. “It was designed first and foremost as an engagement tool.” 3

Peter Gudella/Shutterstock

Employee Engagement

5-1

When executives at Frucor Beverages and other companies discuss employee motivation these days, they are just as likely to use the phrase employee engagement . Although its definition is still being debated,4 we define employee engagement as an individual’s emotional and cognitive (logical) motivation, particularly a focused, intense, persistent, and purposive effort toward work-related goals. It is an emotional involvement in, commitment to, and satisfaction with the work. Employee engagement also includes a high level of absorption in the work—the experience of focusing intensely on the task with limited awareness of events beyond that work. Finally, employee engagement is often described in terms of self-efficacy—the belief that you have the ability, role clarity, and resources to get the job done (see Chapter 3).

Employee engagement is on the minds of many business leaders because of evidence that it predicts employee and work unit performance. For example, Standard Chartered Bank found that branches with higher employee engagement provide significantly higher-quality customer service, have 46 percent lower employee turnover, and produce 16 percent higher profit margin growth than branches with lower employee engagement. Another company recently reported that highly engaged teams have much more loyal customers (35 percent above average) compared to moderately engaged teams (6 percent above average loyalty). It isn’t always clear from these studies whether employee engagement makes companies more successful, or whether the company’s success makes employees more engaged. However, longitudinal evidence suggests that employee engagement causes the company outcomes more than vice versa. 5

The challenge facing organizational leaders is that most employees aren’t very engaged. 6 The numbers vary across studies, but recent results from a widely recognized survey estimate that only 32 percent of employees in the United States are engaged, 51 percent are not engaged, and 17 percent are actively disengaged. Actively disengaged employees tend to be disruptive at work, not just disconnected from work. 7 These numbers are better than in most countries; only 13 percent of employees globally are engaged. Employees in several Asian countries (notably Japan, China, and South Korea) and a few European countries (notably Italy, Netherlands, and France) have the lowest levels of employee engagement, whereas the highest scores are usually found in the United States, Brazil, and India.

This leads to the question: What are the drivers of employee engagement? Goal setting, employee involvement, organizational justice, organizational comprehension (knowing what’s going on in the company), employee development opportunities, sufficient resources, and an appealing company vision are some of the more commonly mentioned influences. 8 In other words, building an engaged workforce calls on most topics in this book, such as the MARS model (Chapter 2), building affective commitment (Chapter 4), motivation practices (Chapter 5), organizational-level communication (Chapter 9), and leadership (Chapter 12).

Employee Drives and Needs

5-2

To build a more engaged and motivated workforce, we first need to understand where motivation begins, that is, the motivational “forces” or “prime movers” of employee behavior. 9 Our starting point is drives (also called primary needs), which we define as hardwired characteristics of the brain that attempt to keep us in balance by correcting deficiencies. Recent neuroscience (brain) research has highlighted the central role of emotions in this process. Specifically, drives produce emotions that energize us to act on our environment. 10 There is no agreed-upon list of human drives, but research has consistently identified several, such as the drive for social interaction, for competence, to comprehend our surroundings, and to defend ourselves against physiological and psychological harm. 11

Drives are innate and universal, which means that everyone has them and they exist from birth. Drives are the starting point of motivation because they generate emotions, which put people in a state of readiness to act on their environment. Cognition (logical thinking) plays an important role in motivation, but emotions are the real sources of energy in human behavior. 12 In fact, both words (emotion and motivation) originate from the same Latin word, movere, which means “to move.”

Exhibit 5.1 illustrates how drives and emotions translate into felt needs and behavior. Drives, and the emotions generated by these drives, form human needs. We define needs as goal-directed forces that people experience. They are the motivational forces of emotions channeled toward particular goals to correct deficiencies or imbalances. As one leading neuroscientist explains: “drives express themselves directly in background emotions and we eventually become aware of their existence by means of background feelings.” 13 In other words, needs are the emotions we eventually become consciously aware of.

EXHIBIT 5.1 Drives, Needs, and Behavior

Consider the following example: You arrive at work to discover a stranger sitting at your desk. Seeing this situation produces emotions (worry, curiosity) that motivate you to act. These emotions are generatedPage 124 from drives, such as the drive to defend and drive to comprehend. When strong enough, these emotions motivate you to do something about this situation, such as finding out who that person is and possibly seeking reassurance from coworkers that your job is still safe. In this case, you have a need to make sense of what is going on, to feel secure, and possibly to correct a sense of personal violation. Notice that your emotional reactions to seeing the stranger sitting at your desk represent the forces that move you, and that your logical thinking plays an active role in channeling those emotions toward specific goals.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NEEDS

Everyone has the same drives; they are hardwired in us through evolution. However, people develop different intensities of needs in a particular situation. Exhibit 5.1 explains why this difference occurs. The left side of the model shows that the individual’s self-concept (as well as personality and values), social norms, and past experience amplify or suppress emotions, thereby resulting in stronger or weaker needs. 14 People who define themselves as very sociable typically experience a stronger need for social interaction if alone for a while, whereas people who view themselves as less sociable would experience a less intense need to be with others over that time. These individual differences also explain why needs can be “learned” to some extent. Socialization and reinforcement may increase or decrease a person’s need for social interaction, achievement, and so on. We will discuss learned needs later in this section of the chapter.

Individual differences—including self-concept, social norms, and past experience—influence the motivation process in a second way. They regulate a person’s motivated decisions and behavior, as the right side of Exhibit 5.1 illustrates. Consider the earlier example of the stranger sitting at your desk. You probably wouldn’t walk up to the person and demand that he or she leave; such blunt behavior is contrary to social norms in most cultures. Employees who view themselves as forthright might approach the stranger directly, whereas those who have a different personality and self-view are more likely to first gather information from coworkers before approaching the intruder. In short, your drives (drive to comprehend, to defend, to socialize with others, etc.) and resulting emotions energize you to act, and your self-concept, social norms, and past experience direct that energy toward goal-directed behavior.

Exhibit 5.1 provides a useful template for understanding how drives and emotions are the prime sources of employee motivation and how individual characteristics (self-concept, experience, values) influence goal-directed behavior. You will see pieces of this theory when we discuss four-drive theory, expectancy theory, equity theory, and other concepts in this chapter. The remainder of this section describes theories that try to explain the dynamics of drives and needs.

MASLOW’S NEEDS HIERARCHY THEORY

5-3

The most widely known theory of human motivation is Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory , which was developed by psychologist Abraham Maslow in the 1940s (see Exhibit 5.2 ). This model condenses the long list of previously studied drives into five basic categories (which Maslow called primary needs). Maslow organized these categories into a hierarchy that, from lowest to highest, are 15 physiological (need for food, air, water, shelter, etc.), safety (need for security and stability), belongingness/love (need for interaction with and affection from others), esteem (need for self-esteem and social esteem/status), and self-actualization (need for self-fulfillment, realization of one’s potential). Along with these five categories, Maslow identified the desire to know and the desire for aesthetic beauty as two innate drives that do not fit within the hierarchy.

EXHIBIT 5.2 Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy Source: Based on information in A.H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review 50 (1943): 370–96.

Maslow proposed that human beings are motivated by several primary needs (drives) at the same time, but the strongest source of motivation is the lowest unsatisfied need. As the person satisfies a lower-level need, the next higher need in the hierarchy becomes the strongest motivator and remainsPage 125 so even if never satisfied. The exception to this need fulfillment process is self-actualization. People have an ongoing need for self-actualization; it is never really fulfilled. Thus, while the bottom four groups are deficiency needs because they become activated when unfulfilled, self-actualization is known as a growth need because it continues to develop even when temporarily satiated.

In spite of its popularity, Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory has been dismissed by most motivation experts. 16 Other needs hierarchy models have also failed to adequately depict human motivation. Maslow assumed that need fulfillment occurs in the order of the hierarchy, yet some people fulfill their esteem needs before their safety needs, for example. He also assumed that a person’s needs are fulfilled for a long time, whereas need fulfillment actually seems to last for a briefer period of time.

The main problem with needs hierarchy models is that people have different needs hierarchies. Some people place social status at the top of their personal hierarchy; others view personal development and growth above social relations or status. Employee needs are strongly influenced by self-concept, personal values, and personality. 17 People have different hierarchies of values (their values system—see Chapter 2), so they also have parallel differences in their needs hierarchies. If your most important values lean toward stimulation and self-direction, you probably pay more attention to self-actualization needs. 18

Although needs hierarchy theory has failed the reality test, Maslow transformed how we think about human motivation. 19 First, Maslow emphasized that needs should be studied together (holistically) because human behavior is typically initiated by more than one need at the same time. Previously, motivation experts had studied separately each of the dozens of needs and their underlying drives. 20 Second, Maslow recognized that motivation can be shaped by human thoughts (including self-concept, social norms, past experience), whereas earlier motivation experts focused mainly on how instincts motivated behavior. 21 Third, Maslow popularized the concept of self-actualization, suggesting that people are naturally motivated to reach their potential. 22 This positive view of motivation contrasted with previous motivation theories, which focused on need deficiencies such as hunger. By emphasizing motivation through growth and personal development rather than deficiencies, Maslow is considered a pioneer in positive organizational behavior (see Chapter 3).

SELF-ASSESSMENT 5.1: How Strong Are Your Growth Needs?

Many human needs are called “deficiency” needs because they become active only when unfilled. However, Abraham Maslow popularized the idea that people also have “growth needs,” which continue to motivate even when temporarily satiated. Growth needs are associated with self-actualization and intrinsic motivation. People vary in their growth need strength, which is evident from the type of work they prefer. You can discover your growth need strength by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.

INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION

By extolling the importance of self-actualization, Maslow launched an entirely new way of thinking about human motivation. People experience self-actualization by applying their skills and knowledge, observing how their talents achieve meaningful results, and experiencing personal growth through learning. These are the conditions for intrinsic motivation, which refers to motivation controlled by the individual and experienced from the activity itself. 23 Intrinsic motivation occurs when people seek need fulfillment from doing the activity itself, not as a means to some other outcome. They enjoy applying their talents toward a meaningful task and experiencing progress or success in that task.

Behavior is intrinsically motivated when it is anchored in the innate drives for competence and autonomy. 24 People feel competent when applying their skills and observing positive, meaningful outcomes from those talents. People feel autonomous when their motivation is self-initiated rather than controlled from an external source. The effect of intrinsic motivation and, in particular, the drives for competence and autonomy are apparent at Frucor Beverages. As the opening case study to this chapter described, the New Zealand drinks company encourages staff to try out new ideas and to further develop their potential through new work assignments and other forms of learning.

Intrinsic motivation contrasts with extrinsic motivation, which occurs when people are motivated to receive something that is beyond their personal control for instrumental reasons. In other words, they direct their effort toward a reward controlled by others that indirectly fulfills a need. ExtrinsicPage 127 sources of motivation exist throughout organizations, such as performance bonuses, recognition awards, and frequent reminders from the boss about work deadlines. These are extrinsic motivators because the outcomes (bonus, award, happy boss) are controlled by others and are not need fulfillment in themselves. The recognition award is a means to satisfy status needs, for example.

At Airbnb, the San Francisco–based online vacation accommodation company, employees say they feel intrinsically motivated through autonomy and personal growth. “I feel realized, motivated, welcomed every single day,” exudes an Airbnb employee in Sao Paulo, Brazil. “Lot of autonomy and a great company to work for,” says an employee in the Netherlands. “Fundamentally we believe that engineers having more control over what they work on is more motivating and leads to higher-quality results,” explains Mike Curtis (right in photo), Airbnb’s vice president of engineering. 25 © ReadWrite

Bonuses, awards, and micromanaging bosses are clearly “external” sources, but extrinsic motivation also occurs when employees create their own internal pressure to act in association with external factors. For instance, we often experience an extrinsic motivation to complete our part of a team project because we worry how team members will react if we complete the work poorly or behind schedule. Extrinsic motivation even occurs when employees internalize the value of the external control source. As an example, you might be motivated to provide exemplary customer service because you believe in the company’s customer-friendly values. This motivation is extrinsic because it is controlled by the company’s values, not from the experience of satisfying customers.

Does Extrinsic Motivation Undermine Intrinsic Motivation? There are two contrasting hypotheses about how extrinsic and intrinsic motivation work together. 26 The additive view suggests that someone performing an intrinsically motivating job becomes even more motivated by also receiving an extrinsic source of motivation for that work. The extrinsic motivator energizes the employee more than the intrinsic motivator alone. The contrasting hypothesis is that introducing extrinsic sources of motivation will reduce intrinsic motivation. For example, employees who were energized from the work itself will experience less of that intrinsic motivation when they receive extrinsic rewards such as a performance bonus. The explanation is that introducing extrinsic motivators diminishes the employee’s feeling of autonomy, which is a key source of intrinsic motivation.

Which hypothesis is correct? So far, the research evidence is mixed. 27 Extrinsic motivators may reduce existing intrinsic motivation to some extent and under some conditions, but the effect is often minimal. Extrinsic rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation when they are unexpected, such as a surprise bonus, when they have low value relative to the intrinsic motivator, and when they are not contingent on specific behavior (such as receiving a fixed salary). But when employees are engaged in intrinsically motivating work, employers should be careful about the potential unintended effect of undermining that motivation with performance bonuses and other sources of extrinsic motivation. 28

LEARNED NEEDS THEORY

Earlier in this chapter, we noted that needs are shaped, amplified, or suppressed through self-concept, social norms, and past experience. Maslow observed that individual characteristics influence the strength of higher-order needs, such as the need to belong. Psychologist David McClelland further investigated the idea that need strength can be altered through social influences. In particular, he recognized that a person’s needs can be strengthened or weakened through reinforcement, learning, and social conditions. McClelland examined three “learned” needs: achievement, affiliation, and power. 29

Need for Achievement People with a strong need for achievement (nAch) want to accomplish reasonably challenging goals through their own effort. They prefer working alone rather than in teams, and they choose moderately challenging tasks (i.e., neither too easy nor impossible to complete). People with high nAch desire unambiguous feedback and recognition for their success. Money is a weak motivator, except when it provides feedback and recognition. 30 In contrast, employees with low nAch perform better when money is used as an incentive. Successful entrepreneurs tend to have high nAch, possibly because they establish challenging goals for themselves and thrive on competition. 31

Page 128

Need for Affiliation Need for affiliation (nAff) refers to a desire to seek approval from others, conform to their wishes and expectations, and avoid conflict and confrontation. People with strong nAff try to project a favorable image of themselves. They tend to actively support others and try to smooth out workplace conflicts. High-nAff employees generally work well in coordinating roles to mediate conflicts and in sales positions where the main task is cultivating long-term relations. However, they tend to be less effective at allocating scarce resources and making other decisions that potentially generate conflict. Leaders and others in decision-making positions require a relatively low need for affiliation so their choices and actions are not biased by a personal need for approval. 33

Need for Power People with a high need for power (nPow) want to exercise control over others and are concerned about maintaining their leadership position. They frequently rely on persuasive communication, make more suggestions in meetings, and tend to publicly evaluate situations more frequently. McClelland pointed out that there are two types of nPow. Individuals who enjoy their power for its own sake, use it to advance personal interests, and wear their power as a status symbol have personalized power. Others mainly have a high need for socialized power because they desire power as a means to help others. 34 McClelland argues that effective leaders should have a high need for socialized rather than personalized power. They must have a high degree of altruism and social responsibility and be concerned about the consequences of their own actions on others.

Soon after his arrival as CEO, Dolf van den Brink (in photo) discovered one reason why Heineken USA had been losing market share: Heineken’s staff had low achievement motivation. In response, van den Brink developed a new set of risk-oriented, entrepreneurial values and introduced them at an all-employee pirate-themed event. “We need to be a nimble, humble, agile and an entrepreneurial company again,” explained van den Brink, who is now CEO of Heineken in Mexico. Van den Brink is also a role model for high achievement motivation. He had spent the previous four years doubling Heineken’s market share in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in spite of militant uprisings. Heineken USA’s market share has since increased and employees say they are much more risk-oriented. 32 © Ivan Stephens/Newscom

SELF-ASSESSMENT 5.2: How Strong Are Your Learned Needs?

Everyone has the same innate drives, but these drives produce different need strengths due to each person’s socialization and personality. David McClelland particularly examined three learned needs, two of which are measured in this self-assessment. You can discover the strength of these learned needs in you by locating this self-assessment in Connect if it is assigned by your instructor.

Changing (Learning) Need Strength Individual needs can be strengthened or weakened (learned), and McClelland developed training programs to change need strength. One program increased achievement motivation by having participants write achievement-oriented stories, practice achievement-oriented behaviors in business games, and meet frequently with a reference group with other trainees to maintain their newfound achievement motivation. 35 These training programs increased achievement motivation by altering participants’ self-concept and reinforcing their achievement experiences. When writing an achievement plan, for example, participants were encouraged (and supported by other participants) to experience the anticipated thrill of succeeding.

FOUR-DRIVE THEORY

One of the central messages of this chapter is that drives generate emotions, which represent the prime movers or sources of motivation for individual behavior. Most organizational behavior theories focus on the cognitive aspects of human motivation. In contrast, four-drive theory states that emotions are the source of human motivation and that these emotions are generated through four innate and universal drives. 36 These drives are hardwired in our brains and exist in all human beings. They are also independent of one another; there is no hierarchy of drives. Three drives are proactive—they are regularly activated by our perceptions to seek fulfillment. Only one drive (defend) is reactive—it is triggered by threat.

Four-drive theory includes four fundamental drives identified from earlier psychological, sociological, and anthropological research. These drives are:

· Drive to acquire. This is the drive to seek out, take, control, and retain objects and personal experiences. It is a variation of the need for achievement, competence, status and self-esteem, and to some extent self-actualization. 37 The drive to acquire also motivates competition.

· Drive to bond. This drive is a variation of the need for belonging and affiliation described by Maslow and McClelland. It explains why our self-concept is partly defined by associations with social groups (see Chapter 3). It may also explain why people who lack social contact are more prone to serious health problems. 38 The drive to bond motivates people to cooperate and, consequently, is essential for organizations and societies.

· Drive to comprehend. This is similar to Maslow’s primary need to know. People are inherently curious and need to make sense of their environment and themselves. 39 They are motivated to discover answers to unknown as well as conflicting ideas. To some degree, the drive to comprehend is related to self-actualization.

· Drive to defend. This is the drive to protect ourselves physically, psychologically, and socially. Probably the first drive to develop, it creates a fight-or-flight response in the face of threat to our physical safety, our possessions, our self-concept, our values, and the well-being of others.

How Drives Influence Motivation and Behavior Recall from Chapter 3 that the stimuli received through our senses are quickly and nonconsciously tagged with emotional markers. 40 According to four-drive theory, the four drives determine which emotions are tagged to incoming stimuli. Most of the time, we aren’t aware of our emotional experiences because they are subtle and fleeting. However, emotions do become conscious experiences when they are sufficiently strong or when they significantly conflict with one another.

Four-drive theory applies the model described at the beginning of this section. It states that our social norms, past experience, and personal values direct the motivational force of our emotions to decisions and behavior that potentially reduce that tension (see Exhibit 5.3 ). In other words, this “mental skill set” develops behavioral intentions that are acceptable to society, consistent with our own moral compass, and have a high probability of achieving the goal of fulfilling those felt needs. 41

EXHIBIT 5.3 Four-Drive Theory of MotivationSource: Based on information in P.R. Lawrence and N. Nohria, Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002).

Practical Implications of Four-Drive Theory The main recommendation from four-drive theory is that jobs and workplaces should provide a balanced opportunity to fulfill the four drives. 42 There are really two recommendations here. The first is that the best workplaces help employees fulfill all four drives. Employees continually seek fulfillment of their innate drives, so successful companies provide sufficient rewards, learning opportunities, social interaction, and so forth for all employees.

The second recommendation is that fulfillment of the four drives must be kept in balance; that is, organizations should avoid too much or too little opportunity to fulfill each drive. The reason for this advice is that the four drives counterbalance each other. The drive to bond, which motivates mutual support and cohesion, counterbalances the drive to acquire, which motivatesPage 130 competitiveness. Therefore, an organization that fuels the drive to acquire without the drive to bond may eventually suffer from organizational politics and dysfunctional conflict. The drive to defend, which motivates withdrawal from the unknown, counterbalances the drive to comprehend, which motivates investigation of the unknown. Change and novelty in the workplace will aid the drive to comprehend, but too much of it will trigger the drive to defend to such an extent that employees become territorial and resistant to change. Thus, the workplace should offer enough opportunity to keep all four drives in balance.

Four-drive theory is based on a deep foundation of neuroscientific, psychological, sociological, and anthropological research. The theory explains why needs vary from one person to the next, but avoids the assumption that everyone has the same needs hierarchy. It is holistic (it relates to all drives, not just one or two) and humanistic (it acknowledges the role of human thought and social influences, not just instinct). Even so, the theory is far from complete. Most experts would argue that one or two other drives exist that should be included. Furthermore, social norms, personal values, and past experience probably don’t represent the full set of individual characteristics that translate emotions into goal-directed effort. For example, personality and self-concept probably also moderate the effect of drives and needs on decisions and behavior.

Expectancy Theory of Motivation

5-4

The theories described so far mainly explain what motivates us—the prime movers of employee motivation—but they don’t tell us what we are motivated to do. Four-drive theory recognizes that social norms, personal values, and past experience direct our effort, but it doesn’t offer any detail about what goals we choose or where our effort is directed under various circumstances.

Expectancy theory offers more detail by predicting the goal-directed behavior where employees are most likely to direct their effort. Essentially, the theory states that work effort is directed toward performance that people believe has the overall highest probability of achieving the desired outcomes. This is the fundamental economic model of deciding which choice offers the highest expected payoff (see Chapter 7). 43 Expectancy theory is aligned more with extrinsic than intrinsic motivation because performance is usually describedPage 131 as instrumental to other outcomes beyond the employee’s control. As illustrated in Exhibit 5.4 , an individual’s effort level depends on three factors: effort-to-performance (E-to-P) expectancy, performance-to-outcome (P-to-O) expectancy, and outcome valences. Employee motivation is influenced by all three components of the expectancy theory model. If any component weakens, motivation weakens.

EXHIBIT 5.4 Expectancy Theory of Motivation

· E-to-P expectancy. This is the individual’s perception that his or her effort will result in a particular level of performance. In some situations, employees may believe that they can unquestionably accomplish the task (a probability of 1.0). In other situations, they expect that even their highest level of effort will not result in the desired performance level (a probability of 0.0). In most cases, the E-to-P expectancy falls somewhere between these two extremes.

· P-to-O expectancy. This is the perceived probability that a specific behavior or performance level will lead to a particular outcome. In extreme cases, employees may believe that accomplishing a particular task (performance) will definitely result in a particular outcome (a probability of 1.0), or they may believe that successful performance will have no effect on this outcome (a probability of 0.0). More often, the P-to-O expectancy falls somewhere between these two extremes.

· Outcome valences. A valence is the anticipated satisfaction or dissatisfaction that an individual feels toward an outcome. 44 It ranges from negative to positive. (The actual range doesn’t matter; it may be from −1 to +1 or from −100 to +100.) Outcomes have a positive valence when they are consistent with our values and satisfy our needs; they have a negative valence when they oppose our values and inhibit need fulfillment.

EXPECTANCY THEORY IN PRACTICE

One of the appealing characteristics of expectancy theory is that it provides clear guidelines for increasing employee motivation, at least extrinsic motivation. 46 Several practical applications of expectancy theory are listed in Exhibit 5.5 and described below.

EXHIBIT 5.5 Practical Applications of Expectancy Theory

Increasing E-to-P Expectancies E-to-P expectancies are influenced by the individual’s belief that he or she can successfully complete the task. Some companies increase this can-do attitude by assuring employees that they have the necessary skills and knowledge, clear role perceptions, and necessary resources to reach the desired levels of performance. An important part of this process involves matching employee abilities to job requirements and clearly communicating the tasks required for the job. Similarly, E-to-P expectancies are learned, so behavior modeling and supportive feedback typically strengthen the individual’s belief that he or she is able to perform the task.

Increasing P-to-O Expectancies The most obvious ways to improve P-to-O expectancies are to measure employee performance accurately and distribute more valued rewards to those with higher job performance. P-to-O expectancies are perceptions, so employees also need to believe that higher performance will result in higher rewards. Furthermore, they need to know how that connection occurs, so leaders should use examples, anecdotes, and public ceremonies to illustrate when behavior has been rewarded.

Increasing Outcome Valences One size does not fit all when motivating and rewarding people. The valence of a reward varies from one person to the next because they have different needs. One solution is to individualize rewards by allowing employees to choose the rewards of greatest value to them. When this isn’t possible, companies should ensure that everyone values the reward (i.e., positive valence). Consider the following story: Top-performing employees in one organization were rewarded with a one-week Caribbean cruise with the company’s executive team. Many were likely delighted, but at least one top performer was aghast at the thought of going on a cruise with senior management. “I don’t like schmoozing, I don’t like feeling trapped. Why couldn’t they just give me the money?,” she complained. The employee went on the cruise, but spent most of the time working in her stateroom. 47 Finally, we need to watch out for countervalent outcomes.Page 133 For example, if a company offers individual performance bonuses, it should beware of team norms that discourage employees from working above a minimum standard. These norms and associated peer pressure are countervalent outcomes to the bonus.

Overall, expectancy theory is a useful model that explains how people rationally figure out the best direction, intensity, and persistence of effort. Early studies had difficulty studying expectancy theory, but both logically and empirically the theory seems to predict employee motivation in a variety of situations and cultures. 48 One limitation with expectancy theory, however, is that it mainly explains extrinsic motivation; the model’s features do not fit easily with intrinsic motivation. Another concern is that the theory ignores emotions as a source of motivation. The valence element of expectancy theory captures some of this emotional process, but only peripherally. 49 A third issue is that expectancy theory outlines how expectancies (probability of outcomes) affect motivation, but it doesn’t explain how employees develop these expectancies. Two theories that provide this explanation are organizational behavior modification and social cognitive theory, which we describe next.

Performance-to-Outcome Expectancy: The Missing Link 47

Photo: © alxpin/iStock/Getty Images RF

Organizational Behavior Modification and Social Cognitive Theory

5-5

Expectancy theory states that motivation is determined by employee beliefs about expected performance and outcomes. But how do employees learn these expectancy beliefs? For example, how do they form the impression that a particular work activity is more likely to produce a pay increase or promotion whereas other activities have little effect on pay? Two theories—organizational behavior modification (OB Mod) and social cognitive theory—answer this question by explaining how people learn what to expect from their actions. As such, OB Mod and social cognitive theory supplement expectancy theory by explaining how people learn the expectancies that motivate people.

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION

For most of the first half of the 1900s, the dominant paradigm about managing individual behavior was behaviorism, which argues that a good theory should rely exclusively on behavior and the environment and ignore nonobservable cognitions and emotions. 50 Although behaviorists don’t deny the existence of human thoughts and attitudes, they are unobservable and, therefore, irrelevant to scientific study. A variation of this paradigm, called organizational behavior modification (OB Mod) , eventually entered organizational studies of motivation and learning. 51

A-B-Cs of OB Mod The core elements ofPage 134 OB Mod are depicted in the A-B-C model shown in Exhibit 5.6 . Essentially, OB Mod attempts to change behavior (B) by managing its antecedents (A) and consequences (C). 52 Consequences are events following a particular behavior that influence its future occurrence. Consequences include receiving words of thanks from coworkers after assisting them, preferred work schedules after being with the company longer than the average employee, and useful information on your smartphone after checking for new messages. Consequences also include no outcome at all, such as when your boss never says anything to you about how well you have been serving customers.

EXHIBIT 5.6 A-B-Cs of Organizational Behavior ModificationSources: Adapted from T.K. Connellan, How to Improve Human Performance (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 50; F. Luthans and R. Kreitner, Organizational Behavior Modification and Beyond (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1985), 85–88.

Antecedents are events preceding the behavior, informing employees that a particular action will produce specific consequences. An antecedent could be a sound from your smartphone signaling that a text message has arrived. Or it could be your supervisor’s request to complete a specific task by tomorrow. Notice that antecedents do not cause behavior. The sound from your smartphone doesn’t cause you to open the text message. Rather, the sound (antecedent) is a cue signaling that if you look at your phone messages (behavior), you will find a new message with potentially useful information (consequence).

Contingencies and Schedules of Reinforcement OB Mod identifies four types of consequences, called the contingencies of reinforcement. 53 Positive reinforcement occurs when the introduction of a consequence increases or maintains the frequency or future probability of a specific behavior. Receiving praise from coworkers is an example of positive reinforcement because the praise usually maintains or increases your likelihood of helping them in future. Punishment occurs when a consequence decreases the frequency or future probability of a specific behavior occurring. Most of us would consider being demoted or criticized by our coworkers as forms of punishment. A third type of consequence is extinction. Extinction consequence occurs when the target behavior decreases because no consequence follows it. For instance, research suggests that performance tends to decline when managers stop congratulating employees for their good work. 54

The fourth consequence in OB Mod, called negative reinforcement, is often confused with punishment. It’s actually the opposite; negative reinforcement occurs when the removal or avoidance of a consequence increases or maintains the frequency or future probability of a specific behavior. It is usually the removal of punishment. For example, managers apply negative reinforcement when they stop criticizing employees whose substandard performance has improved.

global connections 5.2

AirBaltic Motivates Employee Involvement and Learning with Gamification

AirBaltic recently experimented with gamification using an online platform that motivated employees to learn about current operational activities and provide opinions on those business decisions. The platform, called Forecaster, operated as a type of stock market whereby employees at the Latvian-based airline used virtual money to buy and sell virtual shares in specific “projects.”

Most projects were near-term forecasts or plans posted by the department responsible for those activities. For example, one project was the company’s estimated customer demand for the airline’s bus service next month. Another project tested employee opinions about the commercial success of a new flight destination. Players won virtual money by owning shares in projects that were accurate or otherwise successful. The top four winners each month received prizes. Stock markets reinforce and motivate behavior using organizational behavior modification principles.

Almost 30 percent (300 people) of AirBaltic’s staff voted (bought and sold virtual shares) and commented on more than 50 projects. The airline also launched an online game to recruit cabin crew and one that motivates customers to do physical exercise within 24 hours after a flight. “The most engaging setting is a game environment,” observes Daiga Ergle (shown in photo), the AirBaltic executive who is in charge of employee experiences at the airline. “People are the most engaged when feeling playful.” 55

© AirBaltic Corporation

Which of these four consequences works best? In most situations, positive reinforcement should follow desired behaviors, and extinction (do nothing) should follow undesirable behaviors. Positive reinforcement is preferred because it leverages the power of positive organizational behavior; focusing on the positive rather than negative aspects of life will improve organizational success and individual well-being (see Chapter 3). In contrast, punishment and negative reinforcement generate negative emotions and attitudes toward the punisher (e.g., supervisor) and organization. However, punishment (dismissal, suspension, demotion, etc.) may be necessary for extreme behaviors, such as deliberately hurting a coworker or stealing inventory. Indeed, research suggests that, under some conditions, punishment maintains a sense of fairness among those affected by or are aware of the employee’s indiscretion. 56

Along with the four consequences, OB Mod considers the frequency and timing of these reinforcers (called the schedules of reinforcement). 57 The most effective reinforcement schedule for learning new tasks is continuous reinforcement—providing positive reinforcement after every occurrence of the desired behavior. Aside from learning, the best schedule for motivating people is a variable ratio schedule in which employee behavior is reinforced after a variable number of times. Salespeople experience variable ratio reinforcement because they make a successful sale (the reinforcer) after a varying number of client calls. The variable ratio schedule makes behavior highly resistant to extinction because the reinforcer is never expected at a particular time or after a fixed number of accomplishments.

Evaluating OB Mod Everyone uses organizational behavior modification principles in one form or another to motivate others. We thank people for a job well done, are silent when displeased, and sometimes try to punish those who go against our wishes. OB Mod also occurs in various formal programs to reduce absenteeism, improve task performance, encourage safe work behaviors, and have a healthier lifestyle. An innovative and increasingly popularPage 136 behavior modification strategy relies on “gamification”—reinforcing behavior through online games in which employees earn “badges” and compete for top positions on leader boards. 58

In spite of its widespread use, organizational behavior modification has a number of limitations. One limitation is “reward inflation,” in which the reinforcer is eventually considered an entitlement. For this reason, most OB Mod programs must run infrequently and for a short duration. Another concern is that the variable ratio schedule of reinforcement tends to create a lottery-style reward system, which might be viewed as too erratic for formal rewards and is unpopular to people who dislike gambling. Probably the most significant problem is OB Mod’s radical view that behavior is learned only through personal interaction with the environment. 59 This view is no longer accepted; instead, experts recognize that people also learn and are motivated by observing others and inferring possible consequences of their actions. This learning process is explained by social cognitive theory.

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY

Social cognitive theory states that much learning occurs by observing and modeling others as well as by anticipating the consequences of our behavior. 60 There are several pieces to social cognitive theory, but the three most relevant to employee motivation are learning behavior consequences, behavior modeling, and self-regulation.

Learning Behavior Consequences People learn the consequences of behavior by observing or hearing about what happened to other people, not just by directly experiencing the consequences. 61 Hearing that a coworker was fired for being rude to a client increases your belief that rude behavior will result in being fired. In the language of expectancy theory, learning behavior consequences changes a person’s perceived P-to-O probability. Furthermore, people logically anticipate consequences in related situations. For instance, the story about the fired employee might also strengthen your P-to-O expectancy that being rude toward coworkers and suppliers (not just clients) will get you fired.

Behavior Modeling Along with observing others, people learn by imitating and practicing their behaviors. 62 Direct sensory experience helps us acquire tacit knowledge and skills, such as the subtle person–machine interaction while driving a vehicle. Behavior modeling also increases self-efficacy (see Chapter 3) because people gain more self-confidence after observing others and performing the task successfully themselves. Self-efficacy particularly improves when observers are similar to the model in age, experience, gender, and related features.

Self-Regulation An important feature of social cognitive theory is that human beings set goals and engage in other forms of intentional, purposive action. They establish their own short- and long-term objectives, choose their own standards of achievement, work out a plan of action, consider backup alternatives, and have the forethought to anticipate the consequences of their goal-directed behavior. Furthermore, people self-regulate by engaging in self-reinforcement ; they reward and punish themselves for exceeding or falling short of their self-set standards of excellence. 63 For example, you might have a goal of completing the rest of this chapter, after which you reward yourself by having a snack. Raiding the refrigerator is a form of self-induced positive reinforcement for completing this reading assignment.

OB Mod and social cognitive theory explain how people learn probabilities of successful performance (E-to-P expectancies) as well as probabilities of various outcomes from that performancePage 137 (P-to-O expectancies). As such, these theories explain motivation through their relationship with expectancy theory of motivation, described earlier. Elements of these theories also help us understand other motivation processes. For instance, self-regulation is the cornerstone of motivation through goal setting and feedback, which we discuss next.

Goal Setting and Feedback

5-6

CalPERS—the California Public Employees’ Retirement System—has challenging goals for staff at its customer contact center in Sacramento. 64 The organization aims to have 95 percent of client calls answered within 2.5 minutes. It also wants customers put on hold for less than 2.5 minutes. Another goal is that less than 5 percent of CalPERS clients hang up before the call is handled by someone at the contact center (called the abandonment rate). Along with these specific goals, the organization keeps track of how many calls are received (about 650,000 per year), how many callers are waiting, and how long each call takes (between 6 and 7 minutes, on average). CalPERS employees not only know these goals, they probably have some form of visual feedback. Many contact centers in other organizations have large electronic screens showing statistics for these key performance indicators.