You are on page 1of 35

2) Jeremy Benthams The Carrot and the Stick Approach : Possibly the essence of the traditional view of people

at work can be best appreciated by a brief look at the work of this English philosopher, whose ideas were also developed in the early years of the Industrial Revolution, around 1800. Benthams view was that all people are self-interested and are motivated by the desire to avoid pain and find pleasure. Any worker will work only if the reward is big enough, or the punishment sufficiently unpleasant. This view - the carrot and stick approach - was built into the philosophies of the age and is still to be found, especially in the older, more traditional sectors of industry. The various leading theories of motivation and motivators seldom make reference to the carrot and the stick. This metaphor relates, of course, to the use of rewards and penalties in order to induce desired behavior. It comes from the old story that to make a donkey move, one must put a carrot in front of him or dab him with a stick from behind. Despite all the research on the theories of motivation, reward and punishment are still considered strong motivators. For centuries, however, they were too often thought of as the only forces that could motivate people. At the same time, in all theories of motivation, the inducements of some kind of carrot are recognized. Often this is money in the form of pay or bonuses. Even though money is not the only motivating force, it has been and will continue to be an important one. The trouble with the money carrot approach is that too often everyone gets a carrot, regardless of performance through such practices as salary increase and promotion by seniority, automatic merit increases, and executive bonuses not based on individual manager performance. It is as simple as this : If a person put a donkey in a pen full of carrots and then stood outside with a carrot, would the donkey be encouraged to come out of the pen ? The stick, in the form of fearfear of loss of job, loss of income, reduction of bonus, demotion, or some other penaltyhas been and continues to be a strong motivator. Yet it is admittedly not the best kind. It often gives rise to defensive or retaliatory behavior, such as union organization, poor-quality work, executive indifference, failure of a manager to take any risks in decision making or even dishonesty. But fear of penalty cannot be overlooked. Whether managers are first-level supervisors or chief executives, the power of their position to give or with hold rewards or impose penalties of various kinds gives them an ability to control, to a very great extent, the economic and social well-being of their subordinates. 3) Abraham Maslows Need Hierarchy Theory : One of the most widely mentioned theories of motivation is the hierarchy of needs theory put forth by psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow saw human needs in the form of a hierarchy, ascending from the lowest to the highest, and he concluded that when one set of needs is satisfied, this kind of need ceases to be a motivator. As per his theory this needs are : (i) Physiological needs :

These are important needs for sustaining the human life. Food, water, warmth, shelter, sleep, medicine and education are the basic physiological needs which fall in the primary list of need satisfaction. Maslow was of an opinion that until these needs were satisfied to a degree to maintain life, no other motivating factors can work. (ii) Security or Safety needs : These are the needs to be free of physical danger and of the fear of losing a job, property, food or shelter. It also includes protection against any emotional harm. (iii) Social needs : Since people are social beings, they need to belong and be accepted by others. People try to satisfy their need for affection, acceptance and friendship. (iv) Esteem needs : According to Maslow, once people begin to satisfy their need to belong, they tend to want to be held in esteem both by themselves and by others. This kind of need produces such satisfaction as power, prestige status and self-confidence. It includes both internal esteem factors like selfrespect, autonomy and achievements and external esteem factors such as states, recognition and attention. (v) Need for self-actualization : Maslow regards this as the highest need in his hierarchy. It is the drive to become what one is capable of becoming, it includes growth, achieving ones potential and self-fulfillment. It is to maximize ones potential and to accomplish something.

As each of these needs are substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. From the standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although no need is ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. So if you want to motivate someone, you need

to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is on and focus on satisfying those needs or needs above that level. Maslows need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. This can be attributed to the theorys intuitive logic and ease of understanding. However, research does not validate these theory. Maslow provided no empirical evidence and other several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it. TOP 4) Theory X and Theory Y of Douglas McGregor : McGregor, in his book The Human side of Enterprise states that people inside the organization can be managed in two ways. The first is basically negative, which falls under the category X and the other is basically positive, which falls under the category Y. After viewing the way in which the manager dealt with employees, McGregor concluded that a managers view of the nature of human beings is based on a certain grouping of assumptions and that he or she tends to mold his or her behavior towards subordinates according to these assumptions. Under the assumptions of theory X :

Employees inherently do not like work and whenever possible, will attempt to avoid it. Because employees dislike work, they have to be forced, coerced or threatened with punishment to achieve goals. Employees avoid responsibilities and do not work fill formal directions are issued. Most workers place a greater importance on security over all other factors and display little ambition.

In contrast under the assumptions of theory Y :


Physical and mental effort at work is as natural as rest or play. People do exercise self-control and self-direction and if they are committed to those goals. Average human beings are willing to take responsibility and exercise imagination, ingenuity and creativity in solving the problems of the organization. That the way the things are organized, the average human beings brainpower is only partly used.

On analysis of the assumptions it can be detected that theory X assumes that lower-order needs dominate individuals and theory Y assumes that higher-order needs dominate individuals. An organization that is run on Theory X lines tends to be authoritarian in nature, the word authoritarian suggests such ideas as the power to enforce obedience and the right to command. In contrast Theory Y organizations can be described as participative, where the aims of the organization and of the individuals in it are integrated; individuals can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts towards the success of the organization.

However, this theory has been criticized widely for generalization of work and human behavior. 5) Contribution of Rensis Likert : Likert developed a refined classification, breaking down organizations into four management systems. 1st System Primitive authoritarian 2nd System Benevolent authoritarian 3rd System Consultative 4th System Participative As per the opinion of Likert, the 4th system is the best, not only for profit organizations, but also for non-profit firms. 6) Frederick Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory : Frederick has tried to modify Maslows need Hierarchy theory. His theory is also known as twofactor theory or Hygiene theory. He stated that there are certain satisfiers and dissatisfiers for employees at work. In- trinsic factors are related to job satisfaction, while extrinsic factors are associated with dissatisfaction. He devised his theory on the question : What do people want from their jobs ? He asked people to describe in detail, such situations when they felt exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. From the responses that he received, he concluded that opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. He states that presence of certain factors in the organization is natural and the presence of the same does not lead to motivation. However, their nonpresence leads to demotivation. In similar manner there are certain factors, the absence of which causes no dissatisfaction, but their presence has motivational impact.

Examples of Hygiene factors are : Security, status, relationship with subordinates, personal life, salary, work conditions, relationship with supervisor and company policy and administration. Examples of Motivational factors are : Growth prospectus job advancement, responsibility, challenges, recognition and achievements. TOP 7) Contributions of Elton Mayo : The work of Elton Mayo is famously known as Hawthorne Experiments. He conducted behavioral experiments at the Hawthorne Works of the American Western Electric Company in Chicago. He made some illumination experiments, introduced breaks in between the work performance and also introduced refreshments during the pauses. On the basis of this he drew the conclusions that motivation was a very complex subject. It was not only about pay, work condition and morale but also included psychological and social factors. Although this research has been criticized from many angles, the central conclusions drawn were :

People are motivated by more than pay and conditions.

The need for recognition and a sense of belonging are very important. Attitudes towards work are strongly influenced by the group.

8) Vrooms Valence x Expectancy theory : The most widely accepted explanations of motivation has been propounded by Victor Vroom. His theory is commonly known as expectancy theory. The theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a specific 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 to make this simple, expectancy theory says that an employee can be motivated to perform better when their is a belief that the better performance will lead to good performance appraisal and that this shall result into realization of personal goal in form of some reward. Therefore an employee is : Motivation = Valence x Expectancy. The theory focuses on three things :

Efforts and performance relationship Performance and reward relationship Rewards and personal goal relationship

This leads us to a conclusion that :

9) The Porter and Lawler Model : Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler developed a more complete version of motivation depending upon expectancy theory.

Actual performance in a job is primarily determined by the effort spent. But it is also affected by the persons ability to do the job and also by individuals perception of what the required task is. So performance is the responsible factor that leads to intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards. These rewards, along with the equity of individual leads to satisfaction. Hence, satisfaction of the individual depends upon the fairness of the reward. 10) Clayton Alderfers ERG Theory : Alderfer has tried to rebuild the hierarchy of needs of Maslow into another model named ERG i.e. Existence Relatedness Growth. According to him there are 3 groups of core needs as mentioned above. The existence group is concerned mainly with providing basic material existence. The second group is the individuals need to maintain interpersonal relationship with other members in the group. The final group is the intrinsic desire to grow and develop personally. The major conclusions of this theory are : 1. In an individual, more than one need may be operative at the same time. 2. If a higher need goes unsatisfied than the desire to satisfy a lower need intensifies. 3. It also contains the frustration-regression dimension. 11) McClellands Theory of Needs : David McClelland has developed a theory on three types of motivating needs : 1. Need for Power 2. Need for Affiliation 3. Need for Achievement Basically people for high need for power are inclined towards influence and control. They like to be at the center and are good orators. They are demanding in nature, forceful in manners and

ambitious in life. They can be motivated to perform if they are given key positions or power positions. In the second category are the people who are social in nature. They try to affiliate themselves with individuals and groups. They are driven by love and faith. They like to build a friendly environment around themselves. Social recognition and affiliation with others provides them motivation. People in the third area are driven by the challenge of success and the fear of failure. Their need for achievement is moderate and they set for themselves moderately difficult tasks. They are analytical in nature and take calculated risks. Such people are motivated to perform when they see atleast some chances of success. McClelland observed that with the advancement in hierarchy the need for power and achievement increased rather than Affiliation. He also observed that people who were at the top, later ceased to be motivated by this drives. 12 ) Equity Theory : As per the equity theory of J. Stacey Adams, people are motivated by their beliefs about the reward structure as being fair or unfair, relative to the inputs. People have a tendency to use subjective judgment to balance the outcomes and inputs in the relationship for comparisons between different individuals. Accordingly :

If people feel that they are not equally rewarded they either reduce the quantity or quality of work or migrate to some other organization. However, if people perceive that they are rewarded higher, they may be motivated to work harder. 13) Reinforcement Theory : B.F. Skinner, who propounded the reinforcement theory, holds that by designing the environment properly, individuals can be motivated. Instead of considering internal factors like impressions, feelings, attitudes and other cognitive behavior, individuals are directed by what happens in the environment external to them. Skinner states that work environment should be made suitable to the individuals and that punishments actually leads to frustration and demotivation. Hence, the only way to motivate is to keep on making positive changes in the external environment of the organization. 14) Goal Setting Theory of Edwin Locke : Instead of giving vague tasks to people, specific and pronounced objectives, help in achieving them faster. As the clearity is high, a goal orientation also avoids any misunderstandings in the

work of the employees. The goal setting theory states that when the goals to be achieved are set at a higher standard than in that case employees are motivated to perform better and put in maximum effort. It revolves around the concept of Self-efficacy i.e. individuals belief that he or she is capable of performing a hard task. 15) Cognitive Evaluation Theory : As per these theory a shift from external rewards to internal rewards results into motivation. It believes that even after the stoppage of external stimulus, internal stimulus survives. It relates to the pay structure in the organization. Instead of treating external factors like pay, incentives, promotion etc and internal factors like interests, drives, responsibility etc, separately, they should be treated as contemporary to each other. The cognition is to be such that even when external motivators are not there the internal motivation continues. However, practically extrinsic rewards are given much more weightage.

This theory is also known as the social comparison theory or inequity theory. It is based on the assumption that individuals are motivated by their desire to be equitably treated in their work relationships. When employees work for an organization they basically exchange their services for pay and other benefits. The equity theory proposes that individuals attempt to reduce any inequity they may feel as a result of this exchange relationship. Four terms are important in this theory: Person: The individual for whom equity or inequity exists. Comparison to Others: Any group or individual used by a person as a referent regarding inputs or outcomes. Inputs: Characteristics which individuals bring with them to the job, i.e. education; skills; experience etc. Outcomes: Pay, promotions and fringe benefits received from a job. The theory proposes that the motivation to act develops after the person compares inputs/outputs with the identical ratios of the comparison of other. Inequity is defined as the perception that persons job input/outcomes ratio is not equal to the inputs/outcome ratio of other comparison person. The basic equity proposal assumes that, upon feeling inequity, the person is motivated to reduce it. The equity theory may be summarized as:

Individual rewards Individual inputs

Compared Others reward <-> with Others inputs

When attempting to reduce inequity, the person may try a number of alternatives, some of them are: Person altering his inputs. Person altering his outcomes. Person distorting his inputs and outcomes cognitively. Person leaving the field. Person changing the comparison with other. It is not that the person feeling inequity alone gets motivated to restore equity. The person with a feeling of equity also gets motivated but to maintain the current situation. The advantages of this theory are: This theory has generated extensive research, with many of the results being supportive; it also recognizes the influence of social comparison processes on motivation and lastly, this theory adopts a realistic approach to motivation. This theory also has its share of criticism. The central theme of the model is the judgment of fair treatment. The difficulty is that not everyone equally appreciates the concepts of fairness.

Equity Theory And Employee Motivation


Is there a relationship between how hard an employee works and how fairly they have been treated? Some noted economists believe that there is, so think before you berate your staff! In business, the Equity Theory of employee motivation describes the relationship between how fairly an employee perceives he is treated and how hard he is motivated to work. Peter Drucker, an author who specialized in economics, first proposed the link between Equity Theory and employee motivation. The basic idea behind the Equity Theory is that workers, in an attempt to balance what they put in to their jobs and what they get from them, will unconsciously assign values to each of his various contributions. In addition to their time, workers contribute their experience, their qualifications, and their capability in addition to their personal strengths such as acumen and ambition. Money, of course, is the primary motivating outcome for an employee, but it is not the only, and in some cases not even the most important, factor. Power and status are also prime motivators, as are flexibility, perquisites and variety. According to the Equity Theory, the most highly motivated employee is the one who perceives his rewards are equal to his contributions. If he feels that he is working and being rewarded at

about the same rate as his peers, then he will judge that he is being treated fairly. This doesnt mean that every manager should treat every employee identically, because every worker does not measure his contributions in the same way. For example, flexible working hours might motivate a working mother even more than a pay raise. Conversely, though an across-theboard wage increase may delight most employees, the highest producers may become less motivated if they perceive that they are not being rewarded for their ambition. Research on Equity Theory and employee motivation has shown that, in general, over-rewarded employees will produce more and of a higher quality than will under-rewarded, less motivated employees.

Process theories of motivation


Process theories of motivation are about a cognitive rational process and concentrate on the psychological and behavioural processes that motivate an individual. Put simply, this is all about how people's needs influence and drive their behaviour. People need to see what is in it for them and to sense that "fair play" is being exercised to all concerned. Clearly a basic understanding of this is foundational to the psychological underpinning of successful change management and the strategies for managing change that will deliver that. These theories also totally support and underpin the findings and practical observations of Goleman, Katzenbach, Pearson, Axelrod and others referred to in Inspirational Motivation and the research and thought leadership highlighted in Leading Change. The two main process theories of motivation are Expectancy Theory and Equity Theory. The term "employee motivation techniques" is in my view a little mis-leading as it implies a tactical "quick fix" approach. Whereas to achieve a peak performance from your people and in so doing, to create a genuine source of competitive advantage demands a strategic approach that embraces leadership style, corporate cultures and the supporting business and management processes. At root this is all about the emotional dimension - specifically the emotional commitment of your employees and achieving an alignment and maintaining:

The balance between corporate performance and individual employee fulfilment

In practise this means establishing what is important to your people, communicating to them what is important to you and the organisation, and finding ways of meeting both their and your goals. This is what lies at the heart of employee motivation techniques. There are 4 factors that underpin employee motivation techniques in a change management context: (1) Clarity in all areas - especially of the business need for the change, of the specifics of the change, the benefits of the change, and most importantly the impacts of the change. Also, at an individual level ensuring that people know precisely what is expected of them - i.e. you translate the vision into actionable steps. (2) Communication - constant communication; two-way communication; communication that explains clearly what is happening or not happening and why, that listens actively and demonstrates to people that you have thought through the impacts of the change on them, and that you are prepared to work with them to achieve their buy-in and commitment to the change. (3) Consistency - in all aspects of the way in which you lead the change; manage the delivery; handle the communication; and ensure the realisation of the benefits. (4) Capability - constant attention to the management of the projects and initiatives that are delivering the capabilities into your organisation that will deliver the benefits.

Theories of Motivation
Overview

At a simple level, it seems obvious that people do things, such as go to work, in order to get stuff they want and to avoid stuff they don't want. Why exactly they want what they do and don't want what they don't is still something a mystery. It's a black box and it hasn't been fully penetrated. Overall, the basic perspective on motivation looks something like this:

In other words, you have certain needs or wants (these terms will be used interchangeably), and this causes you to do certain things (behavior), which satisfy those needs (satisfaction), and this can then change which needs/wants are primary (either intensifying certain ones, or allowing you to move on to other ones). A variation on this model, particularly appropriate from an experimenter's or manager's point of view, would be to add a box labeled "reward" between "behavior" and "satisfaction". So that subjects (or employees), who have certain needs do certain things (behavior), which then get them rewards set up by the experimenter or manager (such as raises or bonuses), which satisfy the needs, and so on.
Classifying Needs

People seem to have different wants. This is fortunate, because in markets this creates the very desirable situation where, because you value stuff that I have but you don't, and I value stuff that you have that I don't, we can trade in such a way that we are both happier as a result. But it also means we need to try to get a handle on the whole variety of needs and who has them in order to begin to understand how to design organizations that maximize productivity.

Part of what a theory of motivation tries to do is explain and predict who has which wants. This turns out to be exceedingly difficult. Many theories posit a hierarchy of needs, in which the needs at the bottom are the most urgent and need to be satisfied before attention can be paid to the others.
Maslow

Maslow's hierarchy of need categories is the most famous example:


self-actualization esteem belongingness safety physiological

Specific examples of these types are given below, in both the work and home context. (Some of the instances, like "education" are actually satisfiers of the need.)
Need selfactualization Home education, religion, hobbies, personal growth approval of family, friends, community Job

training, advancement, growth, creativity

esteem

recognition, high status, responsibilities

belongingness

family, friends, clubs

teams, depts, coworkers, clients, supervisors, subordinates work safety, job security, health insurance Heat, air, base salary

safety physiological

freedom from war, poison, violence food water sex

According to Maslow, lower needs take priority. They must be fulfilled before the others are activated. There is some basic common sense here -- it's pointless to worry about whether a given color looks good on you when you are dying of starvation, or being threatened with your life. There are some basic things that take precedence over all else. Or at least logically should, if people were rational. But is that a safe assumption? According to the theory, if you are hungry and have inadequate shelter, you won't go to church. Can't do the higher things until you have the lower things. But the poor tend to be more religious than the rich. Both within a given culture, and across nations. So the theory makes the wrong prediction here. Or take education: how often do you hear "I can't go to class today, I haven't had sex in three days!"? Do all physiological needs including sex have to be satisfied before "higher" needs? (Besides, wouldn't the authors of the Kama Sutra argue that sex was a kind of selfexpression more like art than a physiological need? that would put it in the self-actualization box). Again, the theory doesn't seem to predict correctly. Cultural critique: Does Maslow's classification really reflect the order in which needs are satisfied, or is it more about classifying needs from a kind of "tastefulness" perspective, with lofty goals like personal growth and creativity at the top, and "base" instincts like sex and hunger at the bottom? And is self-actualization actually a fundamental need? Or just something that can be done if you have the leisure time?
Alderfer's ERG theory

Alderfer classifies needs into three categories, also ordered hierarchically:


growth needs (development of competence and realization of potential) relatedness needs (satisfactory relations with others) existence needs (physical well-being)

This is very similar to Maslow -- can be seen as just collapsing into three tiers. But maybe a bit more rational. For example, in Alderfer's model, sex does not need to be in the bottom category as it is in Maslow's model, since it is not crucial to (the individual's) existence. (Remember, this about individual motivation, not species' survival.) So by moving sex, this theory does not predict that people have to have sex before they can think about going to school, like Maslow's theory does. Alderfer believed that as you start satisfying higher needs, they become more intense (e.g., the power you get the more you want power), like an addiction. Do any of these theories have anything useful to say for managing businesses? Well, if true, they suggest that

Not everyone is motivated by the same things. It depends where you are in the hierarchy (think of it as a kind of personal development scale)

The needs hierarchy probably mirrors the organizational hierarchy to a certain extent: top managers are more likely to motivated by self-actualization/growth needs than existence needs. (but try telling Bill Clinton that top executives are not motivated by sex and cheeseburgers...)

Acquired Needs Theory (mcclellan)

Some needs are acquired as a result of life experiences


need for achievement, accomplish something difficult. as kids encouraged to do things for themselves. need for affiliation, form close personal relationships. as kids rewarded for making friends. need for power, control others. as kids, able to get what they want through controlling others.

Again similar to maslow and alderfer. These needs can be measured using the TAT (thematic apperception test), which is a projectionstyle test based on interpreting stories that people tell about a set of pictures.
Cognitive Evaluation Theory

This theory suggests that there are actually two motivation systems: intrinsic and extrinsic that correspond to two kinds of motivators:

intrinsic motivators: Achievement, responsibility and competence. motivators that come from the actual performance of the task or job -- the intrinsic interest of the work. extrinsic: pay, promotion, feedback, working conditions -- things that come from a person's environment, controlled by others.

One or the other of these may be a more powerful motivator for a given individual. Intrinsically motivated individuals perform for their own achievement and satisfaction. If they come to believe that they are doing some job because of the pay or the working conditions or some other extrinsic reason, they begin to lose motivation. The belief is that the presence of powerful extrinsic motivators can actually reduce a person's intrinsic motivation, particularly if the extrinsic motivators are perceived by the person to be controlled by people. In other words, a boss who is always dangling this reward or that stick will turn off the intrinsically motivated people. Note that the intrinsic motivators tend to be higher on the Maslow hierarchy.
Two Factor theory (Herzberg)

According to Herzberg, two kinds of factors affect motivation, and they do it in different ways:

hygiene factors. These are factors whose absence motivates, but whose presence has no perceived effect. They are things that when you take them away, people become dissatisfied and act to get them back. A very good example is heroin to a heroin addict. Long term addicts do not shoot up to get high; they shoot up to stop being sick -- to get normal. Other examples include decent working conditions, security, pay, benefits (like health insurance), company policies, interpersonal relationships. In general, these are extrinsic items low in the Maslow/Alderfer hierarchy. motivators. These are factors whose presence motivates. Their absence does not cause any particular dissatisfaction, it just fails to motivate. Examples are all the things at the top of the Maslow hierarchy, and the intrinsic motivators.

So hygiene factors determine dissatisfaction, and motivators determine satisfaction. The two scales are independent, and you can be high on both.
If you think back to the class discussion on power, we talked about a baseline point on the well-being scale. Power involved a threat to reduce your well-being, causing dissatisfaction. Hence, power basically works by threatening to withhold hygiene factors. Influence was said to fundamentally be about promising improvements in well-being -- when you are influenced to do something, it is because you want to, not because you were threatened. Influence basically works by offering to provide motivators (in Herzberg's terms). Equity Theory

Suppose employee A gets a 20% raise and employee B gets a 10% raise. Will both be motivated as a result? Will A be twice as motivated? Will be B be negatively motivated? Equity theory says that it is not the actual reward that motivates, but the perception, and the perception is based not on the reward in isolation, but in comparison with the efforts that went into getting it, and the rewards and efforts of others. If everyone got a 5% raise, B is likely to feel quite pleased with her raise, even if she worked harder than everyone else. But if A got an even higher raise, B perceives that she worked just as hard as A, she will be unhappy. In other words, people's motivation results from a ratio of ratios: a person compares the ratio of reward to effort with the comparable ratio of reward to effort that they think others are getting. Of course, in terms of actually predicting how a person will react to a given motivator, this will get pretty complicated:
1. People do not have complete information about how others are rewarded. So they are going on perceptions, rumors, inferences. 2. Some people are more sensitive to equity issues than others 3. Some people are willing to ignore short-term inequities as long as they expect things to work out in the long-term.

Reinforcement Theory

Operant Conditioning is the term used by B.F. Skinner to describe the effects of the consequences of a particular behavior on the future occurrence of that behavior. There are four types of Operant Conditioning: Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Punishment, and Extinction. Both Positive and Negative Reinforcement strengthen behavior while both Punishment and Extinction weaken behavior.

Positive reinforcement. Strengthening a behavior. This is the process of getting goodies as a consequence of a behavior. You make a sale, you get a commission. You do a good job, you get a bonus & a promotion. Negative reinforcement. Strengthening a behavior. This is the process of having a stressor taken away as a consequence of a behavior. Long-term sanctions are removed from countries when their human rights records improve. (you see how successful that is!). Low status as geek at Salomon Brothers is removed when you make first big sale. Extinction. Weakening a behavior. This is the process of getting no goodies when do a behavior. So if person does extra effort, but gets no thanks for it, they stop doing it. Punishment. Weakening a behavior. This is the process of getting a punishment as a consequence of a behavior. Example: having your pay docked for lateness. Apply positive reinforcement Reward (raise above baseline) punishment (bring Stressor down below baseline) Withhold negative reinforcement (raise up to baseline)

extinction (stay at baseline)

Reinforcement schedules. The traditional reinforcement schedule is called a continuous reinforcement schedule. Each time the correct behavior is performed it gets reinforced. Then there is what we call an intermittent reinforcement schedule. There are fixed and variable categories. The Fixed Interval Schedule is where reinforcement is only given after a certain amount of time has elapsed. So, if you decided on a 5 second interval then each reinforcement would occur at the fixed time of every 5 seconds.

The Fixed Ratio Schedule is where the reinforcement is given only after a predetermined number of responses. This is often seen in behavior chains where a number of behaviors have to occur for reinforcement to occur. The Variable Interval Schedule is where the reinforcement is given after varying amounts of time between each reinforcement. The Variable Ratio Schedule is where the reinforcement is given after a varying number of correct responses. Fluctuating combinations of primary and secondary reinforcers fall under other terms in the variable ratio schedule; For example, Reinforcers delivered Intermittently in a Randomized Order (RIR) or Variable Ratio with Reinforcement Variety (VRRV).

Fixed

Variable give reward after a certain amt of time w/ the amt changing before the next reward

give reward after first proper response following a specified time Interval period

(yearly raise) [short term]

(unexpected bonus based on merit) [medium term]


give reward after a number of responses, w/ that no. changing before the next reward

punishment (subtract from baseline) Ratio

(commissions or piecework pay) [medium term]

(team-based bonus) [long term]

Expectancy Theory (Vroom)

This theory is meant to bring together many of the elements of previous theories. It combines the perceptual aspects of equity theory with the behavioral aspects of the other theories. Basically, it comes down to this "equation": M = E*I*V or motivation = expectancy * instrumentality * valence M (motivation) is the amount a person will be motivated by the situation they find themselves in. It is a function of the following. E (expectancy) = The person's perception that effort will result in performance. In other words, the person's assessment of the degree to which effort actually correlates with performance. I (instrumentality) = The person's perception that performance will be rewarded/punished. I.e., the person's assessment of how well the amount of reward correlates with the quality of performance. (Note here that the model is phrased in terms of extrinsic motivation, in that it asks 'what are the chances I'm going to get rewarded if I do good job?'. But for intrinsic situations, we can think of this as asking 'how good will I feel if I can pull this off?'). V(valence) = The perceived strength of the reward or punishment that will result from the performance. If the reward is small, the motivation will be small, even if expectancy and instrumentality are both perfect (high).

Equity Theory of Motivation Part 2

Written by Dave Gannaway

The equity theory of motivation is another case of establishment justifying itself by stating or formulating the obvious. Or as Shakespeare wrote, Much Ado About Nothing a comedy! The Adams equity theory states that when people feel they are treated well and fairly they are more likely to be motivated; and when they are treated badly they will feel dissatisfied and demotivated. Duh! In the work place I think it would be healthier if everyone concerned adopted the stance that no one has any rights, whether employee or employer. When an employee takes a job he is selling his labor /expertises by the hour or by the month. A good days work for a good days pay. Under that agreement the employee is obligated to give it his best shot to give the employer good value for money. If the employee demonstrates that and honors the agreement everyone is satisfied and he keeps his job. What now, if he can add value to his agreement by going the extra mile or any other constructive way. He can then, as the equity motivation theory states, feel justified in expecting greater rewards. But will he get it? Just placing a modicum of reality on that situation begs to understand human reality. An employee who goes the extra mile and does more than is asked of him, truly is worth greater consideration. However few employers will recognize the extra effort in terms of warranting reward. They would more likely be pleased with their judgment and that this is an exceptional employee. To think the employer would give an individual any extra benefits over his workmates is nave. True, a good employer should recognize such good value, but how often do they? The reality, from the employers point of view, is that if one employee is given extra benefits then the remaining employees, although not demonstrating extra initiative, could be de-motivated by what they would see as preferential treatment. Naturally the employer wants to see the greatest productivity possible for his dollars. The equity motivation theory states that if the employer treats his employees well and fairly they will in turn be motivated to work hard and provide value for money. For an employer to reward individuals he should, sensibly, set up some form of initiative scheme that availed the opportunity to all. This would make it clear to others the reason for individual benefits. An employee who wishes to progress, has constructive ideas, or thinks he/she is worthy of greater rewards should negotiate directly with his employer. If he is going the extra mile or creating greater benefits most often the employer would be very aware of it and so be anxious to maintain that individuals motivation but if nothing is said the employers attitude may well be if it aint broke dont try to fix it! Dr. Edwin Locke was a pioneer in the study and research of the connection between setting goals and motivation. He formed the basic goal setting theory when he reached the conclusion that clear goals and subsequent feedback could motivate the employees greatly. They were enthused by the idea of collectively working towards the achievement of goals and it went a long way to improve their performance too. He also discovered that people were more ignited by goals that were challenging and specific as compared to goals that were easy and vague.

Dr. Edwin Locke, in the later stages, worked with Dr. Gary Latham, who had done independent studies to corroborate Locke's findings. In the late 20th Century, they identified the five main characteristics that were essential to the success of goal setting. In random order these characteristics are clarity, commitment, feedback, challenge and task complexity. Clarity & Challenge An important characteristic of the goal setting theory is that the best goals are those that are productive, clear-cut, and measurable. Once the goal is explicit and a clear deadline has been set, there is less misunderstanding on what is expected of the employees. A vague goal has very little motivational value. At the same time, the goal has to pose sufficient challenge to the employees. If the difficulty level is too less, your employee may end up feeling like his potential isn't being exploited well enough by the company. Commitment If the employees are to see the goals through, commitment to it is extremely important. Employees are committed to the goal if they feel they have been active participants in its creation. Most companies encourage participative management which believes in involving the employees in the process of goal setting and decision making. Another factor that makes employees more committed towards attaining the goal is its difficulty level. If the goal is harder and more challenging, employees gain drive and inspiration from it, and show more commitment towards achieving it. Feedback The feedback process is crucial to goal setting. At regular intervals, you need to get together with your team and check on their progress. What have they achieved? Are they on the right direction? Did they face any problems? If yes, how did they solve them? Do they need any clarifications or additional resources to complete their goals? These are important questions that need to be answered every now and then. This activity will not only help you see where your team stands, but they will also be able to evaluate their own position. Task Complexity Task Complexity is that last characteristic in the goal setting theory. If your goals are extremely complex, you need to make sure that your employees aren't feeling too overwhelmed. If the task becomes too overwhelming for them, there are chances that your employees may feel a little bewildered or demoralized. Once that happens, the goal may seem frustrating and they may develop resistance towards attaining it. To avoid this, ensure that your team or employee is given a reasonable amount of time to achieve the target. It would also be a good idea to arrange for trainings or learning sessions where you can equip the employee with necessary skills and knowledge to tackle the task at hand.
A vision is a picture one wishes to see happening in the future. However, this vision cannot be brought into fulfillment by woolgathering. To achieve that vision one needs to tread a path called mission. In

simple terms, mission is the route you take to bring that vision into practicality. The mission involves setting of certain goals that will help achieve the vision. This setting of goals method has been used in the form of goal setting theory to achieve results in the sports and business industry. Coaches and managers use the goal setting theory of motivation to motivate their sportsmen or employees. Today, goal setting theory is one of the most popular theories adopted in organizational psychology. So what's this goal setting theory all about? What is Goal Setting Theory? In the later 1960s, Dr Edwin Locke's article on "Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives", stated that clear goals and appropriate feedback motivates employees. He also went on to say that when employees worked towards a goal, it spearheaded a major source of motivation within the employees to actually reach the goal. As a result, the final performance of the employee improves. Locke's study also threw light on the relationship between goals and performance. According to his study, specific and difficult goals conduced to better results and performance as compared to vague, randomly set or easy to do goals. After a few years, another researcher, Dr Gary Latham also started conducting research in the same field and in 1990, both Locke and Latham published their combined work in a book, which reinforced the need to specify goals correctly in order to achieve better results. In simple terms what they were trying to say in the book is that if you tell yourself, 'I want to lose 50lbs of fat by New Years', you have greater chances of losing significant amount of fat rather than what you would have done if your goal was 'I will try to lose as much of fat as I can by New Years'. Goal setting theory in business also runs on the same lines. There is an invisible cord attaching goal setting and workplace performance. Managers provide their employees with achievable, specific and clear targets to motivate employees to shell out their best performance. Principles of Goal Setting To prepare a delicious meal, you need to put in the right ingredients. This is not rocket science, we all know this! In the same way, setting the right goals, there needs to be the right combination of certain factors. Let's have a look at these important factors of goal setting theory in management. Clarity Vague, unambiguous goal spun in thin air will only build a house on the sand. Such random goals leaves lots of room for misconceptions and will never give desired results. When the manager says, 'Do how much you can', the employee gets a vague idea of what is expected of him and does not strive to perform better. The result is at the time of evaluation, there is a lot of confusion. The manager is not happy with the employees low performance, while the employee cannot understand why the manager is pouting. Crisp, clear, measurable, specific goals have to be set and communicated to the employee in the simplest way possible. No room for assumptions in goal setting.

Challenging Besides being clear and specific, the goal set should be challenging. Easy to achieve goals fail to keep the employee excited, however, since people are often motivated by the feeling of achievement, setting challenging goals helps motivate the employee to do his best. Another factor that has to be noted here is the fact of recognition. When an employee knows his efforts will not go unnoticed, he will want to stretch himself. Financial or any other kind of remunerations will help motivate the employee to reach his goal. As the intensity of rewards increase with the difficulty of the task, employees are willing to take up more challenging tasks to achieve that high compensation. Read more on employee motivation. Achievable We just saw how important it is for an employee to know what his manager expects out of him to perform better. However, if the goal by his manager is something really steep, it will do more damage instead of good. Blowing a balloon to its fullest capacity brings about beauty, however, blowing a little more bursts the balloon. There is only a hairline difference between the fullest capacity and the amount that can burst it. Same is the case with an employee. Easy goals don't seem to challenge an employee, however, in the eagerness to set challenging goals, if the goal is tad on the unattainable side, the employee can get demotivated, instead of motivated. The idea is to challenge the employee to give his best performance without frustrating him. Read more on employee motivation strategies. Commitment If goals are to see fruition, they need to be comprehended and agreed upon by both the management and the employees. The theory of participative management rests on the basis of allowing employees to have a role in setting goals and making decisions. If employees feel they were part of creating the goal, they are more likely to try their level best to achieve the goal. Simply barging into the meeting room and dictating the set of goals the employee has to attain, without considering whether he can or cannot attain it, will not lead to frustration and suffocation at work. This is why most of the voluntary resignations at workplaces come about. This does not imply that goals are to be negotiated with and approved by employees? No, absolutely not! We cannot afford to swing to either side of the pendulum. What this simply means is that goals set have to be in line with the goals of the organization and at the same time take into consideration the abilities of the employees. Setting goals by involving employees will increase the employees level of commitment to the job. Read more on lack of motivation at work. Feedback Often managers stop at setting goals and communicating them, all the while forgetting that feedback is a very necessary step. For any goal setting program to be effective it has to include feedback. Feedback is the tool which helps clear issues between management and employees regarding goal complexity, expectations clarifications, rewards, etc. Informal as well as formal feedback sessions help get rid of

minor splinters that can hamper the process of achieving the vision.

Reinforcement theory of motivation was proposed by BF Skinner and his associates. It states that individuals behaviour is a function of its consequences. It is based on law of effect, i.e, individuals behaviour with positive consequences tends to be repeated, but individuals behaviour with negative consequences tends not to be repeated. Reinforcement theory of motivation overlooks the internal state of individual, i.e., the inner feelings and drives of individuals are ignored by Skinner. This theory focuses totally on what happens to an individual when he takes some action. Thus, according to Skinner, the external environment of the organization must be designed effectively and positively so as to motivate the employee. This theory is a strong tool for analyzing controlling mechanism for individuals behaviour. However, it does not focus on the causes of individuals behaviour.
The managers use the following methods for controlling the behaviour of the employees: Positive Reinforcement- This implies giving a positive response when an individual shows positive and required behaviour. For example - Immediately praising an employee for coming early for job. This will increase probability of outstanding behaviour occurring again. Reward is a positive reinforce, but not necessarily. If and only if the employees behaviour improves, reward can said to be a positive reinforcer. Positive reinforcement stimulates occurrence of a behaviour. It must be noted that more spontaneous is the giving of reward, the greater reinforcement value it has. Negative Reinforcement- This implies rewarding an employee by removing negative / undesirable consequences. Both positive and negative reinforcement can be used for increasing desirable / required behaviour.

Punishment- It implies removing positive consequences so as to lower the probability of repeating undesirable behaviour in future. In other words, punishment means applying undesirable consequence for showing undesirable behaviour. For instance - Suspending an employee for breaking the organizational rules. Punishment can be equalized by positive reinforcement from alternative source. Extinction- It implies absence of reinforcements. In other words, extinction implies lowering the probability of undesired behaviour by removing reward for that kind of behaviour. For instance - if an employee no longer receives praise and admiration for his good work, he may feel that his behaviour is generating no fruitful consequence. Extinction may unintentionally lower desirable behaviour.

Implications of Reinforcement Theory

Reinforcement theory explains in detail how an individual learns behaviour. Managers who are making attempt to motivate the employees must ensure that they do not reward all employees simultaneously. They must tell the employees what they are not doing correct. They must tell the employees how they can achieve positive reinforcement.

REINFORCEMENT THEORY
The one theory of influence almost everyone knows about is this one. And if you know only one approach, this can be good candidate. It works in a variety of situations, it can be simply applied, and it has just a few basic ideas. In fact, reinforcement theory boils down to a Main Point: Consequences influence behavior.

Think about that for a moment. Consequences influence behavior. It means that people do things because they know other things will follow. Thus, depending upon the type of consequence that follows, people will produce some behaviors and avoid others. Pretty simple. Pretty realistic, too. Reinforcement theory (consequences influence behavior) makes sense.
PRINCIPLES OF REINFORCEMENT There are three basic principles of this theory. These are the Rules of Consequences. The three Rules describe the logical outcomes which typically occur after consequences. 1. Consequences which give Rewards increase a behavior. 2. Consequences which give Punishments decrease a behavior. 3. Consequences which give neither Rewards nor Punishments extinguish a behavior. These Rules provide an excellent blueprint for influence. If you want to increase a behavior (make it more frequent, more intense, more likely), then when the behavior is shown, provide a Consequence of Reward. If you want to decrease a behavior (make it less frequent, less intense, less likely), then when the behavior is shown, provide a Consequence of Punishment. Finally, if you want a behavior to

extinguish (disappear, fall out of the behavioral repertoire), then when the behavior is shown, then provide no Consequence (ignore the behavior).

Now, the Big Question becomes, "What is a reward?" or "What is a punishment?" The answer is easy. What is a reward? Anything that increases the behavior. What is a punisher? Anything that decreases the behavior. Yipes, is this circular reasoning or what? Rewards increase a behavior and anything that increases a behavior is a reward. What is going on here? What's going on is this: Reinforcement theory is a functional theory. That means all of its components are defined by their function (how they work) rather than by their structure (how they look). Thus, there is no Consequences Cookbook where a teacher can look in the chapter, "Rewards for Fifth Grade Boys," and find a long list of things to use as rewarding consequences. Think about this a minute. Many kids find candy to be rewarding. If they sit quietly in their chairs for five minutes and you give them each a sweet, those kids will learn to sit quietly. The candy (Consequence of Reward) is used to increase the behavior of sitting quietly. So, we have discovered a Reward and can put it in the Consequences Cookbook, right? And then the next time your spouse spends the afternoon cleaning up some grubby corner of the basement all you have to do is give them a candy bar and next week you'll find 'em in the bathroom scrubbing out the tub, right? Of course not. Candy functions as a reward in some circumstances, but candy has no effect in others. (If there was a Consequences Cookbook, don't you think the School Board would pay teachers with Smiley Face stickers instead of money?) The functional nature of reinforcement theory is important to understand. It explains why the theory sometimes appears to be incorrect. An example: when Sally Goodchild interrupts the class, Mrs. Reinforcer stops the class, tells Sally she's a naughty girl who broke Rule 24 and now must leave the classroom and go to the principle's office. Ouch! That really hurt Sally Goodchild. And Mrs. Reinforcer knows that when Sally returns, she will not interrupt. Mrs. Reinforcer then goes to the teacher's lounge and sings the praises of this really great theory. Well, don't you know that the other kids in the class watched this event with great interest. And when Bad Bill interrupts the class, Mrs. Reinforcer stops the class, tells Bad Bill he's a naughty boy who broke Rule 24 and now must leave the classroom and go to the principle's office. Ouch! That really hurt Bad Bill. And Mrs. Reinforcer knows when Bad Bill comes back to class, he will not interrupt, because he will want to avoid that wicked punisher.

Well, we all know what happens next. Bad Bill comes back to class, immediately interrupts the lesson, Mrs. Reinforcer whacks him with the Consequence of Punishment, and Bad Bill keeps on interrupting, so he gets out of class. Mrs. Reinforcer is totally confused at this point and she goes back to the teacher's lounge complaining about this stupid reinforcement theory. To understand if you have a Reward, you must observe its effect. If the Consequence increases the behavior you want to increase, viola, you have a Reward. If the Consequence decreases the behavior you want to decrease, then you have a Punishment. Most teachers have had the unfortunate experience of Mrs. Reinforcer. They have persisted in giving a Consequence of Punishment and lo and behold, the kid keeps doing the bad thing. If the behavior does not increase or decrease the way you want it to, then you need to rethink your rewards and punishments. In summary, the main point of this theory is that consequences influence behavior. Rewarding consequences increase behavior. Punishing consequences decrease behavior. No consequences extinguish a behavior. Finally, a consequence is known by its function (how it operates). In the next section we consider how to put the Rules into effect. Here we learn how to apply the Rules.
THE PROCESS OF REINFORCEMENT The Rules of Consequence are used in a three step sequence that defines the process of reinforcement. We can call these steps, When-Do-Get.

Step 1: When in some situation, Step 2: Do some behavior, Step 3: Get some consequence. According to Reinforcement Theory, people learn several things during the process of reinforcement. First, they learn that certain behaviors (Step 2: Do) lead to consequences (Step 3: Get). This is the most obvious application of the Rules of Consequence. A student realizes that if she does well on an assignment (Do), then she will get a Rewarding Consequence of a pretty sticker (Get). Another student discovers that if he speaks out inappropriately (Do), then he will receive the Punishing Consequence of reduced recess time (Get). But second, and as important, people learn that the Do-Get only works in certain situations (Step 1: When). For example, a child may discover that when she is with her parents (When) and she throws a temper tantrum (Do), she embarrasses them and they give her Rewards such as attention, toys, candy, or whatever (Get). Now when this child hits school and tries this trick, she is cruelly disappointed when the teacher provides a Punishing Consequence rather than a Rewarding Consequence. She soon learns that Tantrum ---> Reward only works When she is with Mom and Dad. This is simple. When in some situation-Do some behavior-Get a consequence. And there are only three consequences, Rewarding, Punishing, and Ignoring. Let's look at some examples in action.

COMMON EXAMPLES OF REINFORCEMENT One of the best examples of reinforcement I've ever heard came from an assistant football coach at a college. A little background: Some football players have trouble getting to team meetings. When this happens the coaches want to Punish the players so they will be on time. What to do?

The standard answer is extra exercise. When the team is in a workout, at the end of the session the coaches identify the tardy players and make them run extra laps or do more pushups, right? (When on this team, Do miss a team meeting, Get extra laps). Well, this coach had a better idea. At the end of the workout he called everyone together, identified the tardy players who missed the team meeting. Then he made the rest of the team run extra laps while the tardy ones sat and watched. The coach claimed that this application had to be given only once a year. And I believe it.
A GREAT STORY One teacher developed an excellent and memorable system of reinforcement. During tests in her mathematics class, she would quietly patrol the room, carefully observing the children. If she saw that one was in trouble, she would ease over to the child and scan the test, looking for mistakes. When she found an error, she would quietly take her pencil, tap it beside the mistake, so that the child knew there was an error on the test and where the error was. Then the teacher would take the pencil and whack it on the kid's nose. (When you are taking a test, Do make a mistake, Get a rap on the nose).

Certainly an excellent application of the reinforcement paradigm and I would have to give it an "A" for correctness and an "F" for effectiveness.
THE LIMITATIONS OF REINFORCEMENT While Reinforcement Theory is a powerful influence tool, it does have several serious limitations. To use it effectively, you must be aware of these difficulties in application.

1. It is difficult to identify rewards and punishments. As noted earlier in this chapter, reinforcers are identified by their function. Thus, there is no cookbook list of Rewards and Punishments. Candy increases student cooperation, but has no value as payment to a factory worker. Thus, you have to observe your students very carefully to discover the things they find most rewarding or punishing. (See the coach example above.) And once you do find things that function effectively, you can be seriously disappointed to discover that they lose their value over time. As the students become accustomed to receiving some Reward (say candy or stickers), they may grow bored over time. This is perhaps the greatest challenge for any teacher. Finding good Rewards and Punishments requires a great deal of experience and insight. 2. You must control all sources of reinforcement. Teachers often must compete with the student's peer group. Peers provide an extremely important source of reinforcement, sometimes greater than any Reward or Punishment a teacher can give. The child's parents and family are another source of reinforcement. Teachers sometimes think their reinforcement applications are failing

because the teacher is not using the "right" Reward or Punishment. Instead the problem may be that the student wants or needs the reinforcers the peer group offers more than the ones the teacher gives. 3. Internal changes can be difficult to create. One side effect of reinforcement theory is that children learn to perform behaviors we want them to show only when the Get is available. If the Reward is not present, then the child will not show cooperation or good effort or attention or friendliness. The child becomes little more than a well-trained monkey who does a trick, then holds out a hand waiting for the banana. The child has not internalized the behavior but instead requires the full process (When-Do-Get). This means that the teacher must always be running around providing the correct consequences for the desired behaviors at the right time. In such an instance one wonders who is being trained, the teacher or the student. You should also realize that reinforcement works best with the heuristic thinker ("If I get a Reward, then the thing is good. If I get a Punishment, then the thing is bad."). It does not require systematic thinking. As we discovered in the Dual Process chapter, influence with heuristic thinkers is often short lived and usually situation dependent. The influence lasts only as long as the cue (in this case the Reward or the Punishment) is available. This simply means you need to maintain a steady diet of reinforcement cues to maintain the actions you desire. 4. Punishing is difficult to do well. Punishment is an extremely powerful consequence for all living things. Whether it is a monkey, a pigeon, a child, or an adult, punishing consequences can produce extremely rapid, strong, and memorable changes. The problem is that effective punishment demands certain requirements. The research clearly shows that effective punishment must be: 1) immediate (right now!), 2) intense (the biggest possible stick), 3) unavoidable (there is no escape), and 4) consistent (every time). If you cannot deliver punishment under these conditions, then the punishment is likely to fail. Thus, the best punishment would be something like this. A kid does the Bad Thing, then: the kid is instantly placed in a dark room filled with snakes and bugs and jungly vines while weird and frightening voices shriek, "Don't do the Bad Thing, Don't do the Bad Thing." And as soon as the kid stops doing the Bad Thing, bang, the kid is back in class, safe and sound. While this example is an exaggeration, you get the point. We know that most principals, almost all school boards, and all parents would be against this kind of punishment. Therefore, one of the most powerful aspects of reinforcement is effectively taken away from the teacher. Yet, some teachers persist in using weakened forms of punishment, often with unsuccessful and frustrating effects. 5. Students may come to hate teachers who use punishment. Punishment is, by definition, an aversive, painful consequence. People experience very negative emotional states when they get punished. And, as we learned in the Classical Conditioning chapter, it is very easy to condition emotions. Thus, when a teacher uses punishment, the students will probably feel angry or fearful or hopeless and they will then connect or associate these negative feelings with the source of the punishment, the teacher.

This is not a good state of affairs. As a teacher you want to use influence tools to accomplish important learning goals. If the influence tool produces negative affect for the teacher, the teacher is essentially shooting herself in the foot. Sure, the punishment helps accomplish one goal, but at the same time the punishment is making other goals more difficult to achieve. 6. It is easy to reinforce one pigeon, but a whole flock? Reinforcement theory has been most strongly tested with animals, particularly pigeons. And that research with pigeons has yielded outstanding results. The problem for teachers is this: The research used reinforcement principles on one pigeon at a time. Teachers teach a whole flock. The sheer size of a classroom brings a very difficult dimension into the proper application of reinforcement theory.
USING REINFORCEMENT TO BEST EFFECT This model is simple and widely applicable. It is also probably the one influence tool that almost every teacher knows. Given the discussion of the limitations of reinforcement theory, you should realize that it is not the Swiss Army Knife of persuasion that can be ingeniously applied anytime anywhere with anyone. In fact, I believe that it is used too often by teachers and typically under the wrong conditions. Please understand that reinforcement theory will work marvelously when it is properly employed. Under the correct conditions, monkeys and pigeons, boys and girls, and men and women will be strongly influenced through the skillful use of reinforcement principles.

What are those correct conditions? Here's the list: 1. The source is well-trained in the theory and practice of reinforcement. 2. The source has complete control of all significant reinforcers for all receivers. 3. The source has complete control of each receiver (i.e. what the receiver does, when the receiver does it, what other receivers are in the situation). 4. The source has a detailed and consistent plan of reinforcement. 5. The reinforcers are always delivered under the same conditions to each different receiver. To the extent that you deviate from these general rules, the application of reinforcement will be ineffective. It is also important to realize that these inefficiencies do not make the theory a failure, but rather these inefficiencies simply show it is difficult to implement the theory in the classroom. Motivation is generally defined as the driving force behind our actions, fueled by our desire for something. It is that internal strength that gets us to move, and take action, to whatever goal or end we desire or plan to achieve. There are several different types of motivation, based on the goal or end that motivates us. But in the broadest sense, motivation can be categorized into two different types:

In the First Type - Our motivation results from our desire for something that is internally driven; it is our intrinsic desire for something, and not related to anything outside of us. Say you love the job you are doing. You want to learn what there could be about it, just for the reason that you could be the best you can be in that job.

The very thought of getting to work and doing what you love, is what gets out of the bed in the morning. That is internal motivation. More Examples of Intrinsic Motivation

In the Second Type - Our motivation has an external stimulus; it results from our desire for something outside of us. Relating back to the same job example we have used earlier - let's say, your management or boss has decided to select one best performing employee, for a week long, all-expense-paid cruise trip to the Caribbean. Now, you may still work to be the best you can be in your job; but this time, you do it for a different reason. You do it because you want to be that best performing employee, that earns that Caribbean pleasure cruise from your employer. Your source of motivation is something outside of you - the cruise trip in this case. That is extrinsic motivation. There are other categories or types of motivation as well, usually based on the specific end goal that we are interested in: For instance, if it is the pleasure of achievement that drives us, it is Achievement motivation; if it is the pressure of our society or peers that drives us, it is Social motivation; if it is an external reward that we want (as in the example above), it is Incentive motivation; if it is the fear or repercussion, it is Fear motivation, and so forth.
1. Recognition/Attention. When your employees accomplish something they have achieved something. Your recognition is appreciation for that achievement. I believe that most managers don't give enough recognition because they don't get enough. Therefore, it doesn't come natural to do it. If this applies to you, you need to drop this excuse like a bad habit! Become a giver! Look at the price. Recognition is free! 2. Applause. A form of recognition yes, but a very specific form. Physically applaud your people by giving them a round of applause for specific achievements. Where? When? The answer is wherever and whenever. At meetings or company-sponsored social gatherings, a luncheon, or in the office. At the end of a shift, before a shift, and whenever possible in the middle of a shift. Using plaques or trophies is another effective way of applauding your people. Although "wooden applause" is often successfully used in the form of Employee of the Month plaques, more creative ideas are sorely underutilized. Take the time to be creative, matching special accomplishments with unique awards.

3. One-on-One Coaching. Coaching is employee development. Your only cost is time. Time means you care. And remember your people don't care how much you know... until they know how much you care. Whenever the emphasis is on positive feedback, I make sure to do this coaching in "public." Whenever you recognize and encourage people in "public," it acts as a natural stimulant for others who are close enough to see or hear what's taking place. 4. Training. Is training ever finished? Can you possibly overtrain? NO and NO. For whatever reasons, too many people feel "My people have already been trained" or "I've got good people...they only need a little training." But training never ends. Schedule "tune- up" training sessions. These should be led by you or by a supervisor with help from specific employees who show a particular strength in the skills taught. I know this takes time, but these types of training sessions will continually enhance the performance of your people and the productivity of your business. 5. Career Path. Your employees need to know what is potentially ahead for them, what opportunities there are for growth. This issue is a sometimes forgotten ingredient as to the importance it plays in the overall motivation of people. Set career paths within your organization. Do you promote from within? I hope you can answer yes to that. Although specific circumstances require you to look for talent outside your company you should always first consider internal personnel. If you do this you are sending a very positive message to every one that there are indeed further career opportunities within your organization. 6. Job Titles. When you talk about job titles you are tapping the self-esteem of people. How someone feels about the way they are perceived in the workforce is a critical component to overall attitude and morale. Picture a social gathering that includes some of your staff. The subject of work inevitably comes up. Will your people be proud, or embarrassed, to share their title and workplace? The importance of feeling proud of who you are and what you do is monumental. Be creative as you think of possibilities for titles. Have your staff come up with ideas giving them input into the titles. Bottom line, you are dealing with pride...and pride enhances a positive attitude...and a positive attitude is the foundation for continuing success. 7. Good Work Environment. A recent industry study shows just how inaccurate your results can be. Employers were asked to rank what they thought motivated their people and then employees were asked to rank what really did motivate them. Employers felt "working conditions" was a nine (or next to last) in terms of importance. What did the employees say? Number two! Working conditions are very important to the way employees feel about where they work. Cosmetically, does your office look nice? Are there pictures on the walls, plants and fresh paint among other features that generally make people feel good about their environment? Does their work space have enough room or are they cramped in a "sardine can?" What about furniture? Is the desk the right size, chair comfortable? Is there file space and do they have the miscellaneous office supplies needed for maximum performance? Is the temperature regulated properly so they don't feel they're in the Amazon jungle one minute and the North Pole the next? 8. On-the-Spot Praise. This too is associated with recognition but the key here is timing. When there is a reason for praising someone don't put it off for any reason! Promptness equals effectiveness. Praise people when the achievement is fresh on everyone's mind. What is effective is for us to get off our keisters and go out and tell whoever it is what a great presentation it was or applaud them for the sale...praise them promptly for what they accomplished or achieved! Don't allow time to creep in and snatch away any ounce of the positive impact that praise can have when it is delivered promptly. 9. Leadership Roles. Give your people leadership roles to reward their performance and also to help you identify future promotable people. Most people are stimulated by leadership roles even in spot appearances. For example, when visitors come to your workplace use this opportunity to allow an employee to take the role of visitors guide.

A great place to hand out leadership roles is to allow your people to lead brief meetings. Utilize your employees' strengths and skills by setting up "tune up" training sessions and let one of your employees lead the training. The best time to do this is when new people start. Or, assign a meeting leader after someone has attended an outside seminar or workshop. Have them lead a post show, briefing the other employees regarding seminar content and highlights. Have your employees help you lead a project team to improve internal processes. 10. Team Spirit. Have a picture taken on your entire staff (including you!), have it enlarged and hang it in a visible spot. Most people like to physically see themselves as part of a group or team. When running contests in your area, try to create contests and affiliated activity that are team driven. People driving to reach goals together definitely enhance team spirit solely because they must lean upon others and be prepared to be leaned on. One very effective idea for me has been building a collage of creative ideas with the "Team" theme. All employees are responsible for submitting a phrase referring to TEAM on a weekly rotation. Each of these ideas (such as TEAM: Total Enthusiasm of All Members or There is no I in Team) is placed on a wall, creating a collage of Team-oriented phrases. Don't have one person responsible for this...do it as a team. 11. Executive Recognition. This is the secret weapon. And like any secret weapon, timing is most critical. If this is used too often the value is diminished. And if it is used only for special occasions and rare achievements the value is escalated. We talked earlier about general recognition and the positive impact that has on your people. That will go up a few notches when it comes from an executive. Some of the same vehicles can be used here such as memos and voice mail. To add yet another level of stimulation, have an executive either personally call to congratulate someone (or a group) or even show up in person to shake hands and express his or her appreciation. 12. Social Gatherings. Scheduled offsite events enhance bonding which in turn helps team spirit, which ultimately impacts your positive work environment. Halloween costume parties, picnics on July 4th, Memorial Day or Labor Day, and Christmas parties are only some of the ideas that successfully bring people together for an enjoyable time. Some others that I've used with equal success are softball games (against other companies or among employees, depending on staff size), groups going putt-putt golfing or movie madness.