0. Management, Organizational Policies & Practices
Dr. Amna Yousaf
PhD (HRM)
University of Twente, the Netherlands
Lecture 10

1. Recap Lecture 9 Funcations of communication
Communication process and model
Downward, upward, lateral communication
Verbal, written, non verbal communication
Formal communication networks
Grapevine
Choice of channels and channel richness
Common barriers to effextive communication
Cluture as effective communication barrier

2. CHAPTER THREE
Managing Motivation
Lecture 10

3. Outline What is motivation Motivation theories
Maslow’s Need Theory
ERG Theory
Theory X and Theory Y
Two-factor Theory
McClelland’s Theory of Needs
Cognitive Evaluations Theory
Goal Setting Theory
MBO as application of Goal Setting
Self-efficacy Theory
Implications for Managers
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

4. What Is Motivation? Direction Intensity Persistence
Motivation is the process that accounts for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward the attainment of a goal. Intensity is concerned with how hard a person tries. This is the element most of us focus on when we discuss the topic of motivation. However, unless effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organization, high intensity is no guarantee of favorable job-performance outcomes. Quality of effort, therefore, is just as important as intensity of effort. Finally, persistence (how long a person can maintain effort) is important. A motivated person stays with a task long enough to achieve his or her goal.
Intensity
Persistence
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

5. What is Motivation? Motivation
The processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.
Key Elements
Intensity: how hard a person tries
Direction: toward beneficial goal
Persistence: how long a person tries
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

6. Hierarchy of Needs Theory (Maslow)
There is a hierarchy of five needs—physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization; as each need is substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant.
Self-Actualization
The drive to become what one is capable of becoming.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

7. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Lower-Order Needs Needs that are satisfied externally; physiological and safety needs.
Higher-Order Needs Needs that are satisfied internally; social, esteem, and self-actualization needs.
Self
Esteem
Social
Safety
Physiological
E X H I B I T 6–1
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

8. Maslow’s Need Theory-concepts
Physiological – hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs
Safety – security and protection from physical or emotional harm
Social – affection, belongingness, acceptance & friendship
Esteem – internal factors such as self-respect, autonomy and achievement and external factors such as status, recognition and attention
Self-actualization – drive to become what one is capable of becoming, achieving one’s potential and self fulfillment
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

9. Assumptions of Maslow’s Hierarchy
Movement up the Pyramid
Individuals cannot move to the next higher level until all needs at the current (lower) level are satisfied.
Maslow Application:
A homeless person
will not be motivated to
meditate!
Individuals therefore must move up the hierarchy in order
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

10. Alderfer’s ERG Theory
Existence similar to Maslow’s physiological and safety needs
Relatedness related to social and status needs
Growth similar to esteem and self-actualization needs
Unlike Maslow’s theory, individuals can be at all categories simultaneously
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

11. Theory X Theory Y Managers See Workers As…
Disliking Work
Avoiding Responsibility
Having Little Ambition
Theory Y
Managers See Workers As…
Enjoying Work
Accepting Responsibility
Self-Directed
Douglas McGregor said that managers hold one of two sets of assumptions about human nature: either Theory X or Theory Y. Seeing people as irresponsible and lazy, managers who follow Theory X assume the following:
1. Employees inherently dislike work and will try to avoid it.
2. Since employees dislike work, they must be coerced, controlled, or threatened to achieve goals.
3. Employees avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction, if possible.
4. Most workers place security above all other work-related factors and will display little ambition.
Since they see people as responsible and conscientious, managers who follow Theory Y assume the following:
1. Employees can view work as being as natural as rest or play.
2. When committed to their objectives, people will exercise self-direction and self-control
3. The average person can learn to accept, even seek, responsibility.
4. Many workers besides managers have innovative decision-making skills.
No hard evidence confirms that either set of assumptions is universally true. It is more likely that the assumptions of Theory X or Theory Y may or may not be appropriate, depending on the situation at hand.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

12. Theory X and Theory Y
McGreoger believes theory Y assumptions more valid so managers should encourage participative decision making, responsible and challenging jobs and good group relations
No evidence indicating which assumptions are true or that theory Y environment will lead to more motivated workers
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

13. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Bottom Line: Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction are not Opposite Ends of the Same Thing!
Hygiene Factors:
Salary
Work Conditions
Company Policies
Motivators:
Achievement
Responsibility
Growth
Separate constructs
Hygiene Factors---Extrinsic & Related to Dissatisfaction
Motivation Factors---Intrinsic and Related to Satisfaction
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

14. Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers
Factors characterizing events on the job that led to extreme job dissatisfaction
Factors characterizing events on the job that led to extreme job satisfaction
Source: Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review. An exhibit from One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? by Frederick Herzberg, September–October Copyright © 1987 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College: All rights reserved.
E X H I B I T 6–2
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

15. Contrasting Views of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction
E X H I B I T 6–3
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

16. Critique on two-factor theory
Failure blamed to extrinsic factors; success to personal attributes
Ratings used to measure job satisfaction may be contaminated; people may be positive on one scale item but may treat a different response differently
No overall measure of satisfaction utilized; dissatisfaction on one facet but overall satisfaction
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

17. Critique on two-factor theory
Herzberg assumed relationship between satisfaction and productivity but no measure of productivity was employed. One needs to assume a strong relationship between the two.
No sufficient empirical backing for the theory as for the earlier ones
May sound well empirically
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

18. David McClelland’s Theory of Needs
Need for Achievement
The drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive to succeed.
Need for Affiliation
The desire for friendly and close personal relationships.
Bottom Line: Individuals have different levels of needs in each of these areas, and those levels will drive their behavior
Need for Power
The need to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

19. David McClelland’s Theory of Needs
Not much evidence for power and affiliation need
High achievers perform well when probability of success .5.
Not attribution to pure chance or least challenge
High achievers are successful entrepreneurs; no links to being effective managers
Effective managers may be linked to high power need and low affiliation need
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

20. Matching High Achievers and Jobs
E X H I B I T 6–4
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

21. Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Providing an extrinsic reward for behavior that had been previously only intrinsically rewarding tends to decrease the overall level of motivation.
The theory may only be relevant to jobs that are neither extremely dull nor extremely interesting.
Hint: For this theory, think about how fun it is to read in the summer, but once reading is assigned to you for a grade, you don’t want to do it!
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

22. Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are not mutually exclusive
Managerial implications: rewards contingent on performance?
Extrinsic rewards shift locus of control to external
Tangible rewards undermine performance while intangible rewards don’t.
Support from a number of studies
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

23. Self-concordance – extension of CET
Intrinsically motivated people are happy even when they cant reach goals as they find the process fun
Extrinsically motivated people don’t get that much happiness even after goal achievement as they don’t find goal satisfying
Implications
Choose jobs carefully
Managers should create work conditions that enhance intrinsic motivation and not only rely on rewards.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

24. What Would Herzberg Say? What Would Maslow Say?
E X H I B I T 6–5
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

25. Goal-Setting Theory (Edwin Locke)
Basic Premise: That specific and difficult goals, with self-generated feedback, lead to higher performance.
But, the relationship between goals and performance will depend on
goal commitment
“I want to do it & I can do it”
Increased through participatory goals, making them public, specific, top management involvement
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

26. Goal-Setting Theory (Edwin Locke)
task characteristics (simple versus complex, well-learned versus novel, independent versus interdependent)
national culture
Goal setting well aligned with north American cultures
Independent : not too high on power distance
Challenging goals: low in uncertainty avoidance
Performance is important: high in achievement
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

27. Goal Setting in Action: MBO Programs
Management By Objectives Programs
Company wide goals & objectives
Goals aligned at all levels
Based on Goal Setting Theory
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

28. What is MBO? Management by Objectives (MBO)
A program that encompasses specific goals, participatively set, for an explicit time period, with feedback on goal progress.
Key Elements
Goal specificity
Participative decision making
An explicit time period
Performance feedback
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

29. Cascading of Objectives
E X H I B I T 6–1
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

30. Linking MBO and Goal-Setting Theory
MBO Goal-Setting Theory
Goal Specificity Yes Yes
Goal Difficulty Yes Yes
Feedback Yes Yes
Participation Yes No (qualified)
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

31. MBO and Goal Setting MBO emphasizes on participative goal setting
In Goal Setting theory goals assigned as well as participatory can be equally effective
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

32. Why MBOs Fail Unrealistic expectations about MBO results
Lack of commitment by top management
Failure to allocate reward properly
Cultural incompatibilities
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

33. Enhances probability that goals will be achieved
Self-Efficacy
An individual’s feeling that s/he can complete a task (e.g. “I know I can!”)
Enhances probability that goals will be achieved
Not to be confused with:
Self Esteem, which is….
Individuals’ degree of liking or disliking themselves.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

34. Self-Efficacy and Goal Setting
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

35. Four Ways of Increasing Self Efficacy (Bandura)
Enactive Mastery
Vicarious Modeling
Verbal Persuasion
Arousal
Note: Basic Premise/Mechanism of Pygmalion and Galatea Effects
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

36. Self-Efficacy Mastery Orientation Vicarious modeling Verbal persuasion
If you have done a task in the past, your slef efficacy to perform will be higher
Vicarious modeling
Some one similar to you doing a task increases your confidence of doing it
some one else loosing weight
Some one of same handicap as you playing golf
Verbal persuasion
Some one convinces you that you have necessary skills to do some task. Motivational speakers use this tactic
Arousal
Energized state to do a task.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

37. Self-efficacy and Goal Setting
Self efficacy works together with goal setting
Self efficacious individuals more likely to work harder in response to negative feedback and vice versa
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.