Internet

Keys to motivating tomorrow's workforce

Categories
Published
of 18
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
Human Resource Management Review 16 (2006) Keys to motivating tomorrow's workforce Gary P. Latham a,, Christopher T. Ernst b a University of Toronto, Canada b Center
Transcript
Human Resource Management Review 16 (2006) Keys to motivating tomorrow's workforce Gary P. Latham a,, Christopher T. Ernst b a University of Toronto, Canada b Center for Creative Leadership, Singapore Abstract Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate within as well as beyond an individual's being. It is a psychological process resulting from the reciprocal interaction between the individual and the environment that affects a person's choices, effort, and persistence. The purpose of this chapter is to peer inside the door to what might or should be the motivational sources of tomorrow's workforce. To discover the key for opening this door, the history of research and theory on work motivation in the 20th century is reviewed in order to identify principles that are likely to be timeless. Second, the current status of research and theory at the dawn of the present millennium is examined. Third, and on that basis, predictions are made regarding the design of organizations in the 21st century; predictions are made on ways to motivate the employees who will work in them Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Work motivation; History of motivation research; Current motivation research; Prediction of future 1. History of motivation research and theory The history of workplace motivation has been described in detail by Latham (2006) and Latham and Budworth (2006). Motivational research conducted during the first 50 years of the 20th century was, for the most part, atheoretical. In the first two decades, the study of motivation was left largely to engineers. They believed that money was the primary, if not sole, source of an employee's motivation (Taylor, 1911). If the engineers had been correct, the well known actors in Hollywood and professional athletes would have been among the happiest people on earth; yet, this was and is not the case despite the fact these people were and continue to be paid exorbitant salaries relative to most people in the workforce. In the third decade, attitude surveys conducted by industrial organizational psychologists (I/O) such as Viteles (1932) revealed that it took a lot more than money to make people happy (e.g., job security, recognition, status). The resulting premise of I/O psychologists was that job satisfaction predicts job performance. Hence they, as did the engineers before them, reached an over-simplified conclusion, namely, that the happy worker is a productive worker. Attitude surveys conducted in that time period made comparisons among, or generalizations to other firms difficult as they were for the most part tailored to the organization where they were administered. Dust-bowl empiricism, the adage that if it works, use it reigned as the primary heuristic guiding research on what motivates employees. And this Preparation of this paper was supported in part by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada to the first author. Corresponding author. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3E6. Tel.: ; fax: address: (G.P. Latham) /$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: /j.hrmr 182 G.P. Latham, C.T. Ernst / Human Resource Management Review 16 (2006) research was showing that people can be happy for non-job performance reasons (e.g., happy with one's co-workers, fringe benefits, physical work conditions) which have little or no bearing on their subsequent productivity (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955). Theories for predicting, explaining, and influencing a person's motivation in work settings blossomed in the 1960s. Credibility was given to Maslow's (1943) need hierarchy theory by McGregor (1960). This theory states that people have five needs; their goal is to satisfy their lower order needs, physiological and security, before they focus on satisfying their higher order needs for affiliation, esteem, and self-actualization. The theory was based on Maslow's observations of people who came to see him in his role as a clinical psychologist. McGregor provided no data to support his endorsement of Maslow's theory for the workplace. This was left to Porter. Using Maslow's theory as a framework for developing survey items, Porter's (1961, 1962, 1963a,b,c) studies showed that people in low level jobs were concerned with satisfying lower order needs such as job security; people did not become concerned with their higher order needs until they had progressed to higher level jobs where their lower level needs had been well satisfied. The implications of this theory for organizational decision makers are straightforward. First, provide pay and benefits which ensure that an employee's physiological (e.g., food) and security (e.g., medical insurance) needs are met. Second, hire people who are compatible with one another. If these lower needs are satisfied, the theory states that the likelihood increases that a person will focus on self-esteem through achievement as well as self-actualization, that is, finding ways to maximize one's knowledge and skills. In addition to need hierarchy, McGregor (1960) also endorsed the relevance of a second theory of motivation. This theory, developed by Herzberg (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959) identified situational factors that facilitate or inhibit the growth of an employee. As a graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh, Herzberg was torn between becoming a clinical or an I/O psychologist. In choosing to become an I/O psychologist, Herzberg decided to focus on the mental-health of the worker. His interviews with employees led him to conclude that one cannot motivate others per se, but one can enrich a work environment so that it becomes conducive to self-motivation. Using his mentor's methodology for conducting a job analysis, Herzberg adapted Flanagan's (1954) critical incident technique for collecting data on what satisfies and what dissatisfies employees. He concluded that the sources of an enriched job that lead to job satisfaction (feedback, recognition, task variety, autonomy) form one continuum while the sources of job dissatisfaction (supervisors, coworkers, pay, fringe benefits, physical work conditions) form another. Thus the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, but rather no job satisfaction. Hence, two interchangeable names were used as labels for Herzberg's theory, namely, job enrichment and the two-factor theory (i.e., job satisfaction vs. job dissatisfaction). Hackman and Oldham elaborated on Herzberg's theory regarding important characteristics of jobs, so as to take into account differences among individuals regarding their needs (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Two key differences between their job characteristics theory and that of Herzberg's job enrichment theory is that they did not posit two distinctly different factors as sources of satisfaction versus dissatisfaction, and, more importantly, they did not advocate enriching jobs for everyone. Instead, their theory states that job enrichment only motivates employees who have higher order growth needs for autonomy, responsibility, task variety, feedback, and recognition. Similar to McGregor's advocacy of Maslow's need hierarchy theory, Nord (1969) wrote a compelling essay endorsing another person's body of work, namely, Skinner's. Skinner was an experimental psychologist who studied the behavior of rats and pigeons in laboratory settings. Nord argued that there are many similarities between Maslow's theory, McGregor's translation of Maslow's theory, and Skinner's research on operant conditioning. The latter was known as behavior modification in clinical psychology and subsequently as contingency theory in I/O psychology. But unlike Maslow, Skinner's research was based on the philosophy of behaviorism. Two principles of behaviorism are that the mind is an epiphenomenon in that it has no causal effect on behavior; and determinism, namely, that the environment alone shapes a person's behavior. Strictly speaking this is a learning theory. 1 A person's response, operating on the environment, increases in frequency contingent upon the presence of reinforcers, and decreases contingent upon the presence of punishers or the withdrawal of a reinforcer immediately after the response occurs. The schedule with which a reinforcer is made contingent upon a response can be fixed (e.g., 100%, or after every 4th response) or variable. A variable schedule has the appearance of being random to the person (e.g., the payout of a slot 1 Skinner purposefully chose not to use the word theory in his description of his work: I have never attacked a problem by constructing a hypothesis (Skinner, 1964, p. 1385). I object to theories of learning which attempt to explain observed facts by appealing to events taking place somewhere else, at some other level of observation, described in different terms, and measured, if at all, in different dimensions (p. 1385). G.P. Latham, C.T. Ernst / Human Resource Management Review 16 (2006) machine in Las Vegas) but in reality it is programmed on a variable interval (e.g., on average once every 43 min) or variable ratio (e.g., on average one of every forty-one responses is reinforced). Thus, despite the fact both Herzberg and Skinner emphasized the importance of the environment on a person's behavior, they did so from very different perspectives. By controlling environmental contingencies, behaviorists such as Skinner showed how a person's behavior can be easily modified by someone else. Herzberg's job enrichment theory said that money can be a source of a person's dissatisfaction, but that it has no effect on a person's motivation. Skinner was agnostic. What constitutes a reinforcer is an empirical issue; if money that is made contingent upon a response increases the probability that the response is repeated (i.e., reinforced/ strengthened ), it is by definition a reinforcer. Yukl, Wexley, and Seymore (1972) were among the first to show that this is indeed the case. In a laboratory setting, people paid on a variable ratio schedule performed at a higher rate than those paid on a continuous schedule. In a field experiment involving unionized employees, Latham and Dossett (1978) found, consistent with Skinner's work with rats and pigeons, that inexperienced unionized employees had higher performance when a bonus was paid on a continuous rather than on a variable ratio schedule. The opposite was true with those who were experienced. In summary to this point in time, psychologists now knew the importance of (1) taking into account a person's needs (Maslow's need hierarchy theory, Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics theory), (2) creating a job environment that is likely to facilitate self-motivation (Herzberg's job enrichment theory, Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics theory), and (3) ways to directly modify, that is, to directly increase or decrease another person's behavior by administering environmental reinforcers and punishers contingent upon a person's response (Skinner's contingency theory). The 1960s was the decade that heralded in the cognitive revolution in psychology; people were now viewed by psychologists as immersed in thought. No one deserves more credit for fostering this revolution within I/O psychology and organizational behavior (OB) than Vroom. Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory is expressed in a mathematical equation that serves as a heuristic for predicting a person's choice, effort and persistence, the three pillars of motivation. In conceptual terms, this heuristic shows that people choose to engage in a given behavior based on their subjective probability estimate that (1) their effort will lead to effective performance, (2) multiplied by their subjective probability estimate that their performance will lead to various outcomes, (3) all of which is multiplied by their valence, that is, the degree to which these outcomes are valued. Thus expectancy theory casts a person's motivation to apply one's knowledge and skills (ability) as a thoughtful rational decision making process. A person's motivation can be influenced by others to the extent that they can provide outcomes that are valued by the person, and create situations whereby the person's two probability estimates (i.e., subjective expective utility) are high. Drawing upon expectancy theory, money, Lawler (1970) argued, can indeed motivate employees if (a) they value the amount that is offered, (b) if they believe that their performance will lead to the attainment of a desired amount, and (c) if they believe their effort will result in them performing effectively. Based on his mentor Ryan's research on intentions, a second cognitive approach to the study of motivation in work settings was put forth in this same time period by Locke. Reluctant to call his work a theory until the mediators and moderators were identified, Locke (1968) advanced three propositions that he induced from a series of laboratory experiments that he had conducted. These propositions, more simple and straightforward than expectancy theory are: (a) specific high goals lead to higher performance than no goal setting or even a vague high goal such as an exhortation to do your best ; (b) given goal commitment, the higher the goal, the higher one's performance; and (c) variables such as monetary incentives, participation in decision making, competition, and feedback only increase a person's performance to the extent that they lead to the setting of and commitment to a specific high goal. As a result of Latham's field experiments on goal setting (Latham & Kinne, 1974; Ronan, Latham, & Kinne, 1973), he and Locke became collaborators in the mid-1970s (e.g., Latham & Locke, 1975). Initially labeled an effective motivational technique for increasing performance (Locke & Latham, 1984), goal setting subsequently became a formal theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) based on induction, that is, on the vast accumulation of findings from both laboratory and field experiments specifying the mechanisms by which goals affect performance, and identifying moderators or boundary conditions (e.g., Latham, Locke, & Fassina, 2002; Locke & Latham, 2002, 2005). Psychology is concerned with three broad constructs: cognition, affect, and behavior. Skinner, a behaviorist, focused solely on the third construct whereas Locke and Latham, who are cognivitists, focused on the first two in terms of their effects on the third. Affect was defined as a cognitive appraisal of one's performance (actions/behavior) in relation to one's goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). A goal is at the same time a target to attain (e.g., a level of proficiency to achieve usually within a specified time period) and at the same time a standard by which to evaluate the effectiveness of one's performance. When people attain their goals, they not only feel satisfied, they generalize their positive affect to the task 184 G.P. Latham, C.T. Ernst / Human Resource Management Review 16 (2006) (Locke & Latham, 1990). Goals and feedback in relation to goal setting are the cornerstones for self-management (Latham & Locke, 1991). Adams focused explicitly on the influence of affect on one's behavior. His observations at the General Electric Company, and his subsequent empirical research led to his formulation of equity theory (Adams, 1963). In brief, this theory states that feelings of equity/inequity stem from a cognitive appraisal of one's outcomes (e.g., pay, promotion) relative to one's input (e.g., education, skills) relative to one's comparison others (e.g., co-workers). An example of equity theory was provided by a former professor (input=knowledge, skill), initially ecstatic at being hired away from a university to become the Vice President of Human Resources (outcome) of a large US auto-company. He regaled the authors with laughter as he explained why he came close to quitting his job within the first week of his employment. He wanted to do so despite the fact that he loved the new job (outcome), the salary (outcome), the people with whom he was working (outcome), and the fact that he would be given a new car annually that would be washed and waxed daily (outcomes). The sole source of his feelings of inequity was discovering on his first day that his peers (comparison other) were chauffeur driven to work. The situation was subsequently corrected to his satisfaction, so he stayed. In integrating expectancy, goal setting, and equity theories, organizational decision makers have a compelling body of knowledge on ways to create a highly motivated workforce. In addition to the three motivational principles articulated earlier, (4) set specific high goals that are judged by employees to be attainable (Locke and Latham's goal setting theory), (5) ensure that the attainment is tied to outcomes that are valued (Vroom's expectancy theory) and appraised as equitable (Adam's equity theory) by the employee, and (6) become aware of who is seen by employees as their comparison other. Failure to do the latter cannot only lead to decisions by employees to quit their job, it can spur social movements. African-Americans, judging themselves to be inequitably treated relative to whites, began the US Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. The feminist movement in Canada and the United States occurred a decade later when women appraised their pay relative to men in the workplace as inequitable. A fundamental value of science is to criticize what is known for the purpose of advancing knowledge. The s witnessed criticism that was tantamount to a civil war within the field of motivation as theorists and researchers engaged in an on-going attack of one another's work. For example, Wahba and Bridwell (1976) critiqued Maslow's theory after finding no evidence of five universal needs let alone a hierarchy. Their critique was so thorough that no further research was conducted on this theory for several decades. Both Vroom (1967) and Locke (1975) showed that Herzberg's notion of a two-factor theory of satisfaction versus dissatisfaction is a methodological artifact of his use of the critical incident technique. Roberts and Glick (1981) attacked Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics theory for its lack of discriminant validity with other attitudinal measures, as well as halo error among perceived characteristics of jobs. Heneman and Schwab (1972) critiqued both expectancy and goal setting theories, the latter for its lack of external validity in that time period. Hinrichs (1970) too questioned whether Locke's laboratory findings would generalize to organizational settings. Pritchard (1969) attacked equity theory for lack of precision regarding how people identify their inputs, outputs and comparison others, while Lawler (1970) argued that expectancy theory provides a more useful framework for explaining phenomena studied by equity researchers. Schmidt (1973) stated that the mathematical formulas of expectancy theory assume a ratio scale when there is no known way for assessing valences on this scale. Locke (1975) argued that Vroom was incorrect to assert that people are usually rational decision makers and that he was also wrong to believe that they make complex calculations when they are making choices. Leventhal (1980) opined: What shall we do with equity theory? And despite the usefulness of Skinner's methodology for predicting and influencing behavior, the vast majority of organizational behavior researchers rejected the philosophy on which it is based, behaviorism. Three bright spots emerged in this era. First, numerous field experiments showed the generalizability of goal setting findings from the laboratory to work settings (e.g., Latham & Lee, 1986; Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978). Second, Bandura (1977, 1997a) presented social learning theory, later re-named by him as social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). The third was Greenberg's (1986) answer to the question asked by his mentor, Lev
Search
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks