2010 Cengage Learning!

Employee Motivation

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Exercise 9.1
Describe a job in which you were motivated to
perform well. Why do you think you were so
motivated?
Describe a job in which you were not very
motivated? Why the lack of motivation?
2

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Individual Differences in
Motivation
Self-esteem
Chronic
Situational
Socially influenced

Need for achievement

Intrinsic motivation

 2010 Cengage Learning!

What is Your Level of Self-Esteem?

Exercise 9.2

 2010 Cengage Learning!

What is Your Level of Intrinsic Motivation?

Exercise 9.3

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Increasing Self-Esteem
Self-esteem workshops
Experience with success
self-fulfilling prophecy
trying new experiences and taking little steps

Supervisor behavior
Pygmalion effect
Golem effect

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Need for Achievement

McClelland (1961)
Three needs
Need for achievement
Need for affiliation
Need for power

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Employee Values and Expectations

Have the employee s expectations
been met?
Realistic job previews (RJPs)
Job descriptions

Have the employee s needs, values

and wants been met?
Maslow s Needs Hierarchy
ERG Theory
Two-factor Theory
8

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Maslow s Need Hierarchy

Self-Actualization
Needs
Ego Needs
Social Needs
Safety Needs
Basic Biological Needs

 2010 Cengage Learning!

ERG Theory
Growth
Relatedness
Existence

10

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Two-Factor Theory
Motivators
Responsibility
Growth
Challenge
Job control

Hygiene factors
Pay
Benefits
Coworkers
Security

11

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Comparison of Needs Theories

Maslow

ERG

Two-Factor

Growth

Motivators

Self-actualization
Ego
Social

Relatedness

Safety
Physical

Existence

Hygiene Factors

12

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Job Characteristics Theory

Employees desire jobs that are
Meaningful
Allow autonomy
Provide them with feedback

Jobs will have motivating potential if they have

Skill variety
Task identification
Task significance
13

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Job Characteristics and Work Behavior

Fried and Ferris (1987) meta-analysis
Correlation with Work Behavior
Job characteristic

Satisfaction

Performance

Absenteeism

Skill variety

.45

.09

-.24

Task identity

.26

.13

-.15

Task significance

.35

.14

.14

Autonomy

.48

.18

-.29

Job feedback

.43

.22

-.19

Motivating potential score

.63

.22

-.32
14

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Setting Goals

Specific
Measurable
Difficult but attainable
Relevant
Time bound
Employee participation

15

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Exercise 9.4
Setting Goals

16

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Providing Feedback
Positive Feedback
should be specific
should be sincere
should be timely

Negative Feedback
should be constructive
concentrate on behaviors
always give in private

Self-Regulation Theory
17

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Office Space (DVD Segment 13)

18

 2010 Cengage Learning!

9 to 5 (DVD Segment 5: The Xerox Room)

19

 2010 Cengage Learning!

What was wrong with the feedback in the

video clips?
20

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Rewarding Excellent
Performance
Timing of the reward
Contingency of the
reward
Type of reward

21

 2010 Cengage Learning!

The Premack Principle

Different things reinforce different people
We can get people to engage in behaviors they
don t like (e.g., studying) by reinforcing them
with the opportunity to engage in behaviors they
like better (e.g., taking out the trash)

22

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Sample Reinforcement Hierarchy

Most Desired
- Money
- Time off from work
- Lunch time
- Working next to Wanda
- Supervisor praise
- Running the press
- Getting printing plates
- Throwing out oily rags
- Typesetting
- Cleaning the press
Least Desired

23

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Your Own Reinforcement Hierarchy

Exercise 9.5

24

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Financial Incentive Plans

Individual Incentive Plans
pay for performance
merit pay

Organizational Incentive Plans

profit sharing
gainsharing
stock options

25

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Variable Pay
Individual (tenure, performance, skill and knowledge)
Organizational (gainsharing, profit sharing, stock options)
_______________________________________________
Adjustments
Location (COLAs)
Shift
________________________________________________
Base Pay
Market value
Job evaluation
Benefits
26

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Punishing Poor Performance

27

 2010 Cengage Learning!

What are the merits of rewarding good

performance versus punishing bad
performance?
28

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Treating Employees Fairly

Equity and Keeping Promises

29

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Are Rewards And Resources

Given Equitably?
Equity Theory
Components
inputs
outputs
input/output ratio

Possible Situations
underpayment
overpayment
equal payment
30

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Equity Theory
Underpayment
Work less hard
Become more selfish
Lower job satisfaction

Overpayment
No guilt feelings
Work harder
Become more team
oriented

31

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Exercise 9.6
Using Equity Theory

32

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Expectancy Theory
Expectancy
Instrumentality
Valence

33

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Motivation Level of Other Employees

Social Learning

34

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Applied I/O Psych Segment 1

35

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Exercise 9.7: Case Study

36

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Exercise 9.8: Your Own Theory

37

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Applied Case Study: Taco Bueno Restaurants

38

 2010 Cengage Learning!

Focus on Ethics
Motivation Strategies
39

 2010 Cengage Learning!

What Do You Think?

Although there were some legal ramifications for
what Hooter s did, do you think what they did to
the waitress was also unethical?
Do you think that the waitresses were lied to? If
so, do you think lying to employees is unethical?
What do you think about the motivating strategy
of allowing employees to rip off the shirts of other
employees? Is humiliating employees ethical?
40

 2010 Cengage Learning!

What Do You Think?

Is it ethical to promise money or other monetary
compensation to students for studying hard? What
if the losing students actually studied harder then
the winner, but the winner only did well because
he/she just happened to be brighter? Would giving
that student the money be fair to the students who
studied hard?
Does the fact that these motivation techniques had
the desired result by increasing sales or decreasing
the use of paper outweigh any negative
consequences of such motivators?
41