This document discusses motivation and performance in the workplace. It examines the link between motivation, rewards and performance, as well as how job design influences motivation. It explores different types of rewards including intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as well as various pay for performance plans like merit pay, gain sharing and profit sharing. The document also discusses performance management, including performance measurement, appraisal and reducing errors. Finally, it analyzes how alternative work arrangements like compressed work weeks, flexible hours and telecommuting can impact motivation.
Figure 6.1
The figure outlines an integrated model of motivation, one that ties together the basic relationship of effort, performance, and rewards regarding the basic effort → performance → rewards relationship. Note that the figure shows job performance and satisfaction as separate but potentially interdependent work results.
A feeling of achievement after completing a particularly challenging task with a good person–job fit
is an example of an intrinsic reward.
Examples might include things like sincere praise for a job well done or symbolic tokens of accomplishment such as “employee-of-the-month” awards. Importantly too, anything dealing with compensation, or the pay and benefits one receives at work, are positively valued work outcomes that the individual receives directly as a result of task performance; they do not require the participation of another person or source.
Research generally concludes that pay only serves as a motivator when high levels of job performance are
viewed as the paths through which high pay can be achieved. This is the essence of performance-contingent pay or pay for performance. It basically means that you earn more when you produce more and earn less when you produce less.
A merit system should be based on realistic and accurate measures of individual work performance.
The merit system should be able to clearly discriminate between high and low performers in the amount of pay increases awarded. Finally, it is also important that any “merit” aspects of a pay increase are not confused with across-the-board “cost-of-living” adjustments.
A current challenges to the fair application of this system includes the prevalence of task interdependence in the workplace.
Gain sharing plans are supposed to create a greater sense of personal responsibility for organizational performance improvements and increase motivation to work hard. They are also supposed to encourage cooperation and teamwork to increase productivity.
Profit-sharing plans reward employees based on overall organizational profits: the more profits made, the more money that is available for distribution to the employees through profit sharing.
Poor organizational profits in a time period may, for example, reflect things such as general economic conditions, over which employees have no control.
The expectation is that employees with stock options will be highly motivated to do their best so that the firm performs well, because they gain financially as the stock price increases. However, as the recent economic downturn reminded us, the value of the options an employee holds can decline or even zero out when the stock price falls.
The incentive value of the stock awards or purchases is like the stock options. “Employee owners” should be motivated to work hard so that the organization will perform well, its stock price will rise, and as owners they will benefit from the gains.
Pay systems of this sort pays people for the mix and depth of skills they possess, not for the particular job assignment they hold.
Some advantages of skill-based pay are employee cross-training — workers learn to do one another’s jobs; fewer supervisors—workers can provide more of these functions themselves; and more individual control compensation—workers know in advance what is required to receive a pay raise.
Figure 6.2
The foundation for any performance management system is performance measurement as shown in the figure.
If performance measurement is to be done well, managers must have good answers to both the “Why?” and the
“What?” questions. Evaluation purpose answers the “Why” questions. Developmental purpose answers the “What” questions.
The foundation for any performance management system is performance measurement, which must be measured in ways that are understood and respected by those involved.
Output measure example: A software developer might be measured on the number of lines of code written a day or on the number of lines written that require no corrections upon testing.
Activity measure example: The use of number of customer visits made per day by a salesperson, instead of or in addition to counting the number of actual sales made.
There are a variety of alternative performance measurement methods. They each have strengths and weaknesses that make them more appropriate for use in some situations than others.
Comparative methods of performance measurement seek to identify one worker’s standing relative to others.
Graphic rating scales allow the manager to assign the individual scores that an individual is expected to exhibit.
Descriptions on a behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) include descriptions of superior and inferior performance.
Critical incident diaries are an excellent resource for employee development and feedback. Because it consists of qualitative statements rather than quantitative ratings, it is more debatable as an evaluation tool.
Figure 6.3
Example in the figure shows the primary appeal of graphic rating scales is ease of use. But, because of generality they may lack real performance links to a given job.
Figure 6.4
A sample BARS for a customer service representative is shown in the figure. Note the specificity of the behaviors and the scale values for each. Similar behaviorally anchored scales would be developed for other dimensions of the job. Even though the BARS approach is detailed and complex, and requires time to develop, it can provide specific behavioral information useful for both evaluation and development purposes.
The 360 evaluation is very common now in horizontal and team-oriented organization structures. The evaluation has also moved online with software that both collects and organizes the results of ratings from multiple sources.
Measurement errors can threaten the reliability or validity of performance appraisals.
One of the strongest influencers of motivation is a good ‘fit’ between the person, who offers individual skills and needs, and the job requirements, which match up with those skills and needs.
The “best” job design is always one that meets organizational requirements for high performance, offers a good fit with individual skills and needs, and provides valued opportunities for job satisfaction.
Figure 6.5
The figure shows three major alternative job design approaches, and also indicates how they differ in how tasks are defined and in the availability of intrinsic rewards.
Taylor’s approach was to study a job carefully, break it into its smallest components, establish exact time and motion
requirements for each task to be done, and then train workers to do these tasks in the same way over and over again.
Taylor’s principles of scientific management can be summarized as follows:
1. Develop a “science” for each job that covers rules of motion, standard work tools, and supportive work conditions.
2. Hire workers with the right abilities for the job.
3. Train and motivate workers to do their jobs according to the science.
4. Support workers by planning and assisting their work using the job science.
Example: machine-paced auto assembly line. Increases operating efficiency by reducing the number of skills required to do a job, by being able to hire low-cost labor, by keeping the needs for job training to a minimum, and by emphasizing the accomplishment of repetitive tasks.
Disadvantages: lower work quality, high rates of absenteeism and turnover, and demand for higher wages to
compensate for unappealing jobs. Technological improvements, in some industries, has caused reduction of human labor.
Sometimes called horizontal loading, this approach increases job breadth by having the worker perform more and different tasks, but all at the same level of responsibility and challenge.
Job rotation is also a form of horizontal-loading, the responsibility level of the tasks stays the same. The rotation can be arranged according to almost any time schedule, such as hourly, daily, or weekly schedules. An important benefit of job rotation is training.
This job-design strategy is the practical application of Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene (two-factors) theory of motivation.
The content changes made possible by job enrichment involve what Herzberg calls vertical loading to increase job depth. This essentially means that planning and evaluating tasks normally performed by supervisors are pulled down into the job to make it bigger.
Components of Job Characteristics Model:
Skill variety—the degree to which a job includes a variety of different activities and involves the use of a number of different skills and talents.
Task identity—the degree to which the job requires completion of a “whole” and identifiable piece of work, one that involves doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome.
Task significance—the degree to which the job is important and involves a meaningful contribution to the organization or society in general.
Autonomy—the degree to which the job gives the employee substantial freedom, independence, and discretion in scheduling the work and determining the procedures used in carrying it out.
Job feedback—the degree to which carrying out the work activities provides direct and clear information to the employee regarding how well the job has been done.
Figure 6.6
The shows how the Hackman and Oldham model informs the process of job design. The higher a job scores on each of these five core characteristics, the higher its motivational potential and the more it is considered to be enriched.
Psychological Empowerment is a sense of personal fulfillment and purpose that arouses one’s feeling of competency and commitment to work. It comes from three critical psychological states that have a positive impact on individual motivation,
performance, and satisfaction: (1) experienced meaningfulness of the work, (2) experienced responsibility for the outcomes of the work, and (3) knowledge of actual results of the work.
Hackman and Oldham suggest that enriched jobs will lead to positive outcomes only for those persons who are a good
match for them, the person–job fit again. Moderator variables tied to “fit” and the job characteristics theory are:
Growth-need strength - Degree to which a person desires the opportunity for self-direction, learning, and personal accomplishment at work.
Knowledge and skill - People whose capabilities fit the demands of enriched jobs are predicted to feel good about them and perform well.
Context satisfaction - The extent to which an employee is satisfied with aspects of the work setting such as salary levels, quality of supervision, relationships with co-workers, and working conditions.
Experts generally agree that the job characteristics model and its diagnostic approach are useful, although not
perfect, guides to job design. One note of caution is raised by Gerald Salancik and Jeffrey Pfeffer, who question whether jobs have stable and objective characteristics to which individuals respond predictably and consistently. Instead, they view job design from the perspective of social information processing theory. This theory argues that individual needs, task perceptions, and reactions are a result of socially constructed realities.
78 percent of American couples are dual wage earners; 63 percent believe they don’t have enough
time for spouses and partners; 74 percent believe they don’t have enough time for their children; 35 percent are spending time caring for elderly relatives. Both Baby Boomers (87%) and Gen Ys (89%) rate flexible work as important; they also
want opportunities to work remotely at least part of the time—Boomers (63%) and Gen Ys (69%).
This flexible work schedule is increasingly popular and is a valuable alternative for structuring work to accommodate contemporary family situations – from baby boomers attending to needs of elderly relative to dual-career couples who are juggling children’s schedules as well as their own.
Often, each person works half a day, but job sharing can also be done on a weekly or monthly basis.
Technology has enabled yet another alternative work arrangement that is now highly visible in many employment sectors ranging from higher education to government, and from manufacturing to services.
The use of part- timers is growing as today’s employers try to cut back labor costs.