Journal

WHAT IS MOTIVATION?

Learning Objective 8.1: Identify and discuss the three parts of the motivation process.

The word motivation comes from the Latin word for movement (movere).7 Motivation has been defined as “what a person does (direction), how hard a person works (intensity), and how long a person works (persistence).”8 An overview of the motivation process is shown in Figure 8.1. This figure depicts motivation as a process that follows three stages:

Energizing

Directing

Sustaining

First, a leader must energize their followers’ behavior by activating underlying needs and drives. For example, an employee may have a strong need for personal growth and want to learn new things on the job. Once the employee is energized, the leader then directs the energized behavior toward goals that are important to the employee and the organization. In this chapter, we explore models of motivation that activate and direct behavior (for example, by setting the right type of goals). The third step in the figure is sustaining behavior. This is often done through the provision of rewards that employees value (such as a pay raise). Research shows that reward systems are necessary to sustain behavior over the long term, and the next chapter addresses rewards as motivation in practice. Finally, for motivation to be effective, feedback is needed so that the processes of energizing and directing behavior stay on track. Feedback is essential in several theories of motivation, including for goal setting. Feedback is also a central part of the design of performance management systems.

Description

Figure 8.1 The Motivation Process

NEEDS THEORIES

Learning Objective 8.2: Compare and contrast Maslow’s hierarchy with McClelland’s needs theory.

Early theories of motivation address the first part of Figure 8.1 by focusing on what needs or drives motivate people. The most well-known theory of need motivation is the Maslow hierarchy of needs.9 The theory was the first to point out that there are individual differences in motivation. The first level in the hierarchy of needs is physiological needs (e.g., hunger, sex, and other bodily needs). The next level is safety needs (e.g., the need for protection from physical harm). At the third level of the hierarchy are a person’s social needs (e.g., belongingness and friendship). The fourth level is esteem needs (e.g., status and recognition from others). Finally, at the top of the hierarchy is what Maslow termed self-actualization, which is the drive to meet our fullest capacity (e.g., growth and feeling fulfilled as a person). Physiological and safety needs are lower-order needs, and social, esteem, and self-actualization are higher-order needs, according to the theory. When a need is not satisfied, it becomes dominant. For example, if a person’s safety is threatened, they focus on finding a place where there is no threat of physical harm.

Despite the popularity of Maslow’s hierarchy due to its simplicity and intuitive appeal, it has not been supported by research evidence.10 Research has not demonstrated that needs are arranged in this hierarchy, and there is no evidence that unsatisfied needs become dominant and induce motivation. A review11 of the history of Maslow’s theory reveals that Maslow himself never presented the theory as a hierarchy or pyramid. These depictions emerged in the late 1950s and early 1960s as the theory was communicated to managers and became popular. Despite its limitations, this theory continues to be commonly mentioned by many practicing managers, so it is important to be aware of it.

Another needs theory, by David McLelland, considers three fundamental needs:12

Need for achievement (nAch)—the drive to succeed at high levels

Need for power (nPow)—the need to influence others to do what you want

Need for affiliation (nAff)—the need for close personal relationships

Most of the fundamental need research has been on nAch. There is some research support for the idea that people who have a higher need to achieve do perform at higher levels, and people with a higher nAch may be more successful entrepreneurs.13 However, a high need to achieve is not necessarily related to being an effective leader, since those with higher nAch may be more interested in their own attainment rather than coaching others to succeed. McClelland’s theory has received more research support than other need theories; however, the application of the theory to motivate followers is limited because these needs are believed to be learned at a young age (in other words, it may not be possible to increase an adult’s nAch).

The two-factor theory covers lower- and higher-order needs and relates them to job satisfaction (see Chapter 4).14 This is also called the motivator–hygiene theory, and it sought to answer the question of what people really want from their work. When people think about what makes them dissatisfied with work, they think of things like supervision, pay, company policies, and the working conditions, which are called hygienes. On the other hand, when people think of what satisfies them, they are more likely to think of things like advancement, recognition, and achievement, which are called motivators. Hygiene factors can only bring a person’s satisfaction to the level of “no dissatisfaction” (in other words, they stop complaining about their pay). To motivate people, leaders need to focus on the motivators, such as providing people with a sense of achievement.

As with Maslow’s theory, Herzberg’s two-factor theory is widely cited, but it has not received much research support.15 For example, the methods used in this research have been criticized because it was all self-reported data based on limited samples. Also, the relationship of satisfaction to job performance was assumed in his research but never tested.

This brief review of research on needs theories is a cautionary tale. Overall, research on needs theories has not provided strong research evidence for how to motivate people. In the following sections, theories aimed at understanding what directs a person’s behavior toward outcomes, such as high job performance, are discussed. Recalling the research on grit in the introduction to this chapter, we know that persistence plays a role in understanding how individuals attain high levels of performance. Once people set a goal, perseverance (grit) measures their ability to stick to it until it is attained. There has been a great deal of research on goal setting in OB, and some of the most practical and well-substantiated guidelines for motivating followers are provided by this research.

Critical Thinking Questions: What is the relationship between high self-actualization (Maslow) and nAch? Next, explain the relationship between high self-actualization and motivators.

GOAL SETTING

Learning Objective 8.3: Produce an example of a SMART goal.

OB research has investigated the properties of motivating goals in numerous laboratory and field experiments.16,17 For goals to motivate employees, they must have certain properties.18 These goal-setting principles can be remembered with the acronym SMART for specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, and time-based goals.

“SMART” Goals

Specific: A specific goal has been shown to be more motivating than a “do your best” goal. Answer these questions: Who is involved? What do I want to accomplish? Where will this need to occur? When will it happen? Why am I or we doing this?

Measurable: Set concrete criteria for measuring progress toward the attainment of each goal. Measuring progress provides feedback and keeps people on track. Answer these questions: How much? How many? How will I know this goal is attained?

Attainable: Goals need to be challenging, but they also need to be seen as attainable by the person setting them. When people identify goals that matter to them, it energizes them and motivates a search for ways to perform. This may require new skills or resources. Answer these questions: Is this goal realistic? Do I have the skills and abilities to achieve it? Do I have the resources needed to achieve it? Have I attained something similar in the past?

Relevant: The goal you set needs to matter—to the individual setting it and/or the organization. Goals that are relevant are more likely to gain the support and the resources needed. Relevant goals (when met) drive the team, department, and organization forward. A goal that supports or is in alignment with other goals would be considered a relevant goal. Answer these questions: Does this matter? Is this the right time to do this? How does this fit in with the broader mission of the organization?

Time-based: To be motivating, goals should have a specific time frame. This creates a sense of urgency and encourages benchmarking toward the attainment of the goal. Ask yourself these questions: By when do I need to attain this goal? Are there mini goals or benchmarks I can set to monitor progress toward the goal?

For example, a not-so-smart goal would be the following: “Improve your punctuality.” In comparison, an example of a SMART goal would be as follows: “Be at work by 8:30 a.m. every day this month because everyone being at work on time contributes to our team’s productivity.” Toolkit Activity 8.1 contains a goal-setting exercise where you write a letter to your “future me” and can apply SMART goal setting to your own life and career.

In practice, SMART goal setting has been applied using management by objectives (MBO). MBO is a performance appraisal program where leaders meet with their direct reports and set specific performance objectives jointly. Progress toward objectives is periodically reviewed, and rewards are allocated based on that progress.19 Performance appraisal is discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

The degree to which a person is committed to a goal influences their willingness to persist and attain it. Also, motivation is higher when an employee is more committed to challenging goals compared with easy goals.20 It is not clear whether allowing a person to participate in setting their own goals makes a difference; research findings are mixed.21 However, if the goal is set by the leader, it is important for the leader to focus on the relevance of the goal to the person and the organization. A review22 of goal-setting research suggests that one of the most remarkable findings in recent years is that goals can be primed in the subconscious mind (in other words, not formally articulated but suggested in an indirect manner). This finding has been supported in both laboratory and field experiments. For example, when a leader suggests that an employee pursue a job to learn more, it results in higher performance than when a performance goal is given. This is explained by the employees making choices to pursue difficult rather than easy goals when they are trying to learn something new.

Critical Thinking Question: Why would allowing followers to participate in setting their own goals make a difference? Provide an example.

Regulatory Goal Focus

Regulatory focus theory (RFT) is an alternative approach to understanding how individuals strive to meet their goals. According to RFT, individuals who are promotion-focused are oriented toward growth and development and becoming their ideal. In contrast, individuals who are prevention-focused are oriented toward the things they feel they have to do and focus on their job responsibilities.23 It’s important to ensure that the person’s regulatory orientation (i.e., whether they are promotion- or prevention-focused) fits the situation they are in. For example, a promotion-focused person will want to be provided with goals that stretch their abilities. Promotion-focused individuals have a need for achievement, focus on advancement, and set learning goals. Also, having a promotion focus relates positively to job satisfaction, leader–member exchange, affective organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.24 In contrast, a person who is prevention-focused would be stressed out by such stretch goals and should be given goals that are within their job description. A prevention focus is a tendency to aim for getting to an end because of a fear of an undesirable alternative. Prevention-focused individuals are vigilant and careful, emphasize fears, focus on avoiding threats, and set prevention goals. The motivating force of a prevention focus is the avoidance of pain.

Research has shown that the match between regulatory focus and the situation results in fewer negative emotions and more self-regulation in working toward the goals.25 If there is a mismatch, then the person may feel negative about their work and not pursue the goal. In contrast, promotion-focused individuals tend to have a learning goal orientation (LGO); they want to learn new things at work and see themselves as adaptable.26,27 A review28 of over 20 years of research on learning goal orientation found that it predicts job performance. This is likely because employees with a learning goal orientation are more persistent, ask for feedback, and set their own goals. As a result, employees that have a learning goal orientation report higher-quality relationships with their supervisors.29 Organizations should provide training to educate leaders about the motivational orientations of their employees so that they can better shape work experiences and challenges in ways that allow employees to attain their orientation-related goals.30 Research on goal orientation suggests that leaders respond to goal setting by followers, and they play a significant role in the goal-setting process.

The Role of Leaders in Goal Setting

An example of successful implementation of goal setting is how they do it at Microsoft.31 Goal commitment is so important that they changed the name of the process from “goal setting” to “goal commitment.” Also, the leaders are actively involved in the process of developing commitments from followers. Each leader is expected to do the following:

Discuss and document the commitments of all employees.

Revisit and refresh commitments over time.

Agree to success metrics for each commitment, including the “how” behind execution (e.g., the plans to be used to attain the commitments), not just the “what.”

Align commitments across the company by cascading commitments, beginning with Microsoft’s commitments and connecting to organizational, team, and ultimately individual commitments.

Drive management team calibration discussions so interdependencies and metrics are vetted across individuals.32

This case example shows that leaders play an important role in negotiating mutual goals one-on-one with each of their direct reports. This process assures alignment with the organization’s goals, commitments, and accountability for results. Psychologists have demonstrated that goals operate at the subconscious level and that cues for high performance result in high performance.33 Thus, the leader can set challenging goals to obtain higher performance from followers.

Research on goal setting has also demonstrated that employees who receive feedback on their progress achieve higher levels of performance than those who don’t.34 Feedback on goals guides performance and allows the person to correct behaviors that may not be working or to try different performance strategies. Furthermore, research has indicated that if employees are allowed to generate their own feedback, it may be more motiving than feedback from an outside source such as their supervisor.35 Goal setting has been criticized due to the fact that it may undermine creativity and the flexibility of employees to adapt to changing situations. For example, focusing on only one criterion for success may preclude looking at other opportunities to improve.36 However, despite this concern, proponents of the theory maintain that the benefits of goal setting outweigh the limitations.37 A SMART goals worksheet that can be used to set goals for yourself or for your followers is provided in Toolkit Activity 8.2 at the end of this chapter. As we have seen, feedback is essential to the process of motivation. In addition to setting SMART goals and receiving feedback on performance, an employee may gain feedback from the work itself. Another major theory of motivation is the job characteristics theory (JCT), which looks at the motivating properties of work. We turn to this core theory of motivation next.

JOB CHARACTERISTICS THEORY

Learning Objective 8.4: Describe the job characteristics theory (JCT) and why growth needs matter.

The work itself may have characteristics that have the potential to motivate people to higher levels of performance.38 Also, people are more satisfied when their work is interesting, and they may be less likely to quit. JCT is shown in Figure 8.2. In this theory of motivation, jobs can be designed so that people are more motivated and satisfied, as well as perform better.

The Motivating Potential of Work

First, the JCT specifies five core job dimensions. These dimensions combine to produce the critical psychological states that enhance motivation:

Skill variety—This is the use of different skills and abilities at work. With skill variety, the employee is not doing the same repetitive tasks over and over.

Task identity—The task is one that people experience from beginning to end. In other words, they identify with an entire work product.

Task significance—This is the degree to which the job is seen as having an impact on others or doing something good for society.

Autonomy—The employee has the freedom to plan and perform their own work. The employees have discretion about their work and are not intensely supervised.

Feedback—The job provides information on the effective of the employee’s work. Just doing the work itself provides performance feedback.

Skill variety, task identity, and task significance combine in the job characteristics model to produce a sense of meaningfulness of the work. For example, autonomy increases a person’s responsibility for the work they perform. As in goal setting, feedback provides knowledge of the actual results of a person’s work. These states experienced from the nature of the work performed translate into high work motivation, work performance, and satisfaction, as well as lower absenteeism and turnover.

As Figure 8.2 shows, the growth needs of employees affect the degree to which a person experiences meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of results from their work. Growth need strength refers to a person’s need to learn new things, grow, and develop from working. People vary in this need; some people have a high desire to grow as a result of their work, and others do not. This need also affects performance. In other words, if a person’s job is interesting, they may not have higher motivation and performance if the individual doesn’t really need to grow from the work. Employees who prefer challenging work experience have less stress after their work is redesigned.39 Another individual difference that affects reactions to increased motivating potential of work is positive affect. Research has shown that employees with positive outlooks react more positively to the perceived availability of motivating job characteristics during work episodes.40

Critical Thinking Questions: How do growth needs relate to higher-order needs as described in the needs theories earlier in this chapter? How can a leader identify growth needs in followers?

Description

Figure 8.2 The Job Characteristics Model

Source: Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Designing Work to Be Motivational

Based on the research on the job characteristics model, organizations have implemented work redesign to enhance the motivating potential of work.41 The basic idea is to load jobs with more of the core job characteristics that have been shown to motivate. This job loading may be horizontal (e.g., adding different tasks at the same level) or vertical (e.g., adding decision-making responsibility). Recall that it is important to consider the growth needs of employees when redesigning work since these employees will respond more positively to the redesign of their work. These strategies have been referred to as job enrichment, and some examples follow.42

Job rotation involves cross-training or allowing workers to do different jobs. This increases the skill variety, task identity, and possibly the task significance. For example, a person who works on an assembly line is rotated to a clerical position in which they learn the purchasing process for supplies needed on the line 1 day a week. This provides variety and allows the worker to see more of the “big picture” of what is needed to perform the work. In addition to job rotation, work may be designed to create natural work units by combining tasks. For example, a worker who drills holes for a door handle of a car would also learn to install the handle. Job rotation and combining tasks must be supported by adequate training and coaching for employees as they learn new skills on the job. Job rotation and combining tasks are examples of horizontal job loading.

Jobs may also be loaded vertically by allowing employees to establish client relationships in which workers can interact directly with clients to increase the meaningfulness of work. For example, the human resources manager for the Applied Systems Group at Spar Applied Systems redesigned the work into teams so that most workers interacted with customers to increase the focus on customer needs.43 Another example is a study of callers requesting donations that found the callers were more persistent and motivated when they were in contact with undergraduate students funded by their efforts.44 Thus, organizations might increase employee motivation by designing interactions with those who benefit from the employees’ efforts. The authors of this study conclude,

Consider the back-room accountant who never meets the clients who benefit from her work. Merely introducing her to these clients may allow her to perceive her impact on them and feel affectively committed to them and thereby enable her to maintain her motivation.45

This form of motivation is based on how people may be motivated by helping others—prosocial motivation, which has emerged as an important outcome variable in OB as noted in Chapter 1.46,47 A review found that the prosocial aspects of work contribute to the explanation of performance, turnover, and job satisfaction beyond that of a job characteristic.48 Thus, it appears that both the work itself and social aspects are important to motivation.

Work may be redesigned so that employees have more autonomy and discretion in how they perform their work. Finally, opening feedback channels so that employees can learn more quickly about the results of their work may increase motivation (as we have seen, feedback is an important aspect of motivation in other theories such as goal setting). Research has supported the job characteristics model by demonstrating that job enrichment does reduce turnover and increases employee motivation and satisfaction.49,50,51,52,53,54

Work Redesign and Job Stress

The design of jobs may also lessen the experience of work stress. In a study conducted in Sweden, work was redesigned to improve the quality of work life, and this intervention alleviated work stress.55 Another study found that when workers are able to create their own job designs to solve problems in their work, they experience less fatigue.56 Employees felt they had more job control, which is the authority to make decisions about their job on a day-to-day basis. The study also measured negative affectivity (being pessimistic) and cognitive failure. This study also found that asking for social support and executing job control to solve problems encourage further job redesign. Thus, work redesign appears to reduce stress—particularly when followers are empowered to make changes to their work to solve the problems they face.

Job Crafting

Recent work on job design has examined job crafting, or the extent to which individuals can demonstrate initiative in designing their own work. The term job crafting is used “to capture the actions employees take to shape, mold, and redefine their jobs.”57 Jobs vary in the degree of discretion that they offer, but in many cases, employees may be able to design aspects of their own work. Outcomes include changes to the work itself as well as interactions with others that may enhance the meaningfulness of the work performed.58 A three-wave longitudinal study59 of 368 police officers found that job crafting was positively associated with engagement, adaptability, and fewer stress demands during change. An experimental study60 randomly assigned a group of employees to complete an online workshop on job crafting that focused on the fit between their strengths and interests at work. Interestingly, older workers’ perceptions of their person–job fit increased, but this effect was not found for younger workers. Results suggest that interventions to increase job crafting may be particularly important for older workers.

Form

Example

Meaningfulness

Changing job responsibilities

A salesperson visits the bakery to see how the bread is baked to improve sales.

Develops an appreciation for the care taken to create a quality product

Changing interactions with others

A clothing designer posts sketches on social media to see followers’ responses.

Getting closer to customers and learning about their preferences

Changing how the work is seen

A hotel cleaning person brings in flowers from home to decorate rooms in a boutique hotel.

Redefining a menial task to become something that brings happiness to hotel guests

Source: Based on Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.

Critical Thinking Questions: What limitations (if any) would you put on allowing followers to craft their own work? What are the risks of not putting any limitations on job crafting?

However, leader communication regarding organizational change was important too, since it increased job crafting behaviors for promotion-focused employees. An example of job crafting would be a team member who is working on a marketing research project designing a set of team-building activities and implementing them to improve the way that the team works together on the project. Additional examples of job crafting are shown in Table 8.1. A review of the job-design literature states the following: “Job crafting is an exciting area of research.”61 However, the authors caution that there may be dysfunctional consequences from employees designing their own work that need research. For example, an employee might redesign their work to include extraneous meetings with other department members that cause them to be away from the office, resulting in work disruptions for coworkers.

There has been much research on motivation that has provided specific guidelines for leaders to follow. Setting SMART goals and designing work to be motivational are key takeaway concepts. Despite effective goals and challenging work, however, motivation may be lower if employees have strong negative reactions based on how rewards are distributed or how they are treated. To effectively motivate followers and avoid costly absenteeism and turnover, leaders must follow principles of organizational justice. The next sections address this concern.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FAIRNESS

Learning Objective 8.5: Explain why fairness is a necessary condition for leadership using equity theory and the four types of organizational justice.

Despite our parents telling us that “life is not fair,” employees expect the workplace to be fair. This is, in part, due to the “just-world hypothesis,” or the belief that people should get what they deserve. There are situations in which employees experience anger when they don’t receive what they believe they deserve on a performance evaluation and subsequent pay raise. It has been proposed that the need for fairness is a universal motive.62 For example, an employee may feel that he should have been promoted to a higher position instead of a coworker. Employees may react to even lesser outcomes, such as who in the work group gets an office that has a window. As these examples illustrate, concerns for fairness permeate the workplace, and effective leaders need to be aware of how followers might react to their decisions.

Equity Theory

Equity theory focuses on distributive justice (what people receive as a result of their knowledge, skills, and effort on the job).63 As shown in Figure 8.3, equity theory suggests that people may become demotivated or put forth less effort when they feel that what they give and what they get is not in balance. According to the theory, a person (the focal person, or FP) compares himself to the coworker (or CO). Next, he compares his inputs (skills, abilities, effort on the job) to his outcomes (e.g., a merit raise). Three situations can occur in this comparison:

Description

Figure 8.3 Equity Theory

Source: Adapted from Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.

The inputs and outcomes for the FP equal the inputs and outcomes for the CO. What this means is that the FP puts in effort and receives a certain pay raise. This is compared with a CO who puts in more effort and receives a higher pay raise. There is balance because the FP recognizes that the CO works harder and gets a higher raise.

The inputs and outcomes for the FP are lower than the inputs and outcomes for the CO. For example, the FP views the ratio of his inputs and outcomes as less than the CO. The FP realizes that he is “underpaid,” and this causes dissonance or stress for the FP. In this situation, the FP may become demotivated (reduce inputs or efforts) to bring the ratios back to balance. If the situation persists, the person may leave the situation entirely (find another job that pays better). This is referred to as underpayment inequity.

The inputs and outcomes for the FP are higher than the inputs and outcomes for the CO. For example, the FP makes the comparison of inputs to outcomes and views their ratio of inputs to outcomes as higher than his CO. The FP realizes that he is being “overpaid” for his contributions compared to his CO. This situation is interesting because while we might expect the FP to work harder, this typically does not happen. People are more likely to distort the perceptions of inputs or outcomes to justify or rationalize their relative overpayment inequity. For example, they may point to their degree being from a better business school or adjust their view of their CO’s input downward.

Inequitable comparisons affect employee attitudes such as job satisfaction.64 For example, employees in underpayment conditions may engage in behavior to adjust or compensate for the inequity (theft, for example).65 Also, employees who experience unfair situations don’t tend to help their coworkers out (organizational citizenship).66,67 There is strong research support indicating that perceptions of fairness affect motivation. However, research has also shown that equity may be viewed differently depending on whether or not a person has a positive or negative relationship with their comparison other.68 In other words, if we like our coworker and they get a raise, then we are happy for them and less likely to experience a sense of inequity. On the other hand, if we don’t like them, we may perceive the raise as unjust. Given the limited resources a leader must distribute (particularly monetary compensation), leaders need to work at being perceived as fair. Research has shown that when there is a high degree of difference in compensation, employees’ perceptions of pay fairness increases when they have a strong promotion focus, whereas pay dispersion decreases fairness perception when they have a strong prevention focus.69 Research on equity (or distributive justice) was expanded to include other forms of justice that help explain how employees come to view their leader as fair.

Organizational Justice: Expanding Fairness

The concept of equity was expanded to consider broad concerns for organizational justice at the workplace.70 Organizational justice is the “members’ sense of the moral propriety of how they are treated.”71 When people feel an event is unfair, they may even experience moral outrage, which is a severe reaction to the perceived injustice (including strong emotions such as anger and resentment).72 One study found that followers even engaged in sabotage when they perceived situations to be unfair.73 Given that OB researchers have documented the importance of fairness perceptions (particularly underpayment inequity) on demotivation, researchers became interested in how other forms of justice might somehow address fairness concerns. When leaders follow fair procedures, followers are more willing to accept distributive outcomes and their formal authority—even if they receive less.74 Research on organizational justice turned to the development of additional forms of fairness, further broadening the concept.

Organizational justice is now considered to have four components: distributive (equity), procedural, interactional, and informational.75 Distributive justice refers to the fairness of decisions made as perceived by followers, as described earlier.76 Procedural justice is the perception of how fair the process was in making decisions that affect employees. There are certain rules of fair process that are expected by employees.77,78 For example, employees want to have a voice in decisions that affect them. They also want some form of an appeal process or way to correct something they see as unfair. Third, they want procedures to be consistent across people and over time. They also want the process to be unbiased and to represent the concerns of everyone affected by the decision. Finally, procedures need to be based on accurate information. Procedural justice has been shown to be more important than distributive justice in how followers respond to the decisions of their leaders in two review studies that included a variety of organizational and occupational samples.79,80

Interpersonal justice refers to how employees are treated by their leaders, including respect and propriety (which refers to whether the leader refrains from offending the follower with comments that are inappropriate).81,82 The final form of justice is informational justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of the communications made by leaders during a process. Informational justice includes full explanations of processes and the perception that the leader is being truthful.83,84 For example, during the Great Recession of 2008, many organizations had zero pay raises. When this happened, leaders explained that raises were zero for hardworking employees because of the economic situation. Figure 8.4 summarizes the four components of organizational justice and provides a sample item from an organizational justice measure to illustrate each aspect of justice.

Given the central role of fairness in motivation, OB theory and research have described how a leader can change the perceptions of their followers so that they are seen to be fair. Research has shown a clear relationship between fairness and effective leadership. This research is described in the following section, as well as the process through which a leader can develop a reputation in the organization for being fair.

Research in Action: Who Cares About Fairness?

Do you ever hear someone say, “Life isn’t fair”? Equity sensitivity is an individual difference that affects how different people react to inequity. Individuals fall along a continuum as either benevolents (tolerant of underpayment), equity sensitives (adhere to equity norms), or entitleds (tolerant of overpayment). Benevolents don’t get stressed when they experience underpayment or overpayment, but people who are equity sensitive do. Research has shown that personality traits are related to equity sensitivity. Honesty, humility and conscientiousness are positively correlated with being benevolent in samples of both undergraduates and employees.

Equity sensitivity may also affect the types of rewards that people prefer: Entitled employees prefer monetary rewards, whereas benevolents prefer intrinsic rewards such as the ability to learn something new on the job. Equity sensitivity has also been associated with motivation: Benevolence is related to job performance and organizational citizenship.

Intriguing experimental research found benevolent individuals report the highest pay satisfaction, highest pay fairness, and lowest turnover intentions. However, entitled individuals did not report lower overall pay satisfaction, lower perceived pay fairness, or higher turnover intentions than benevolents. The overrewarded condition was also very interesting: All three equity sensitivity groups preferred being overrewarded to being fairly rewarded and were distressed when underrewarded. These findings support equity theory for underpayment, yet overpayment is enjoyed by everyone, regardless of whether they are sensitive to equity or not. So, whether we care about equity may depend on whether we are being overpaid or underpaid.

Discussion Questions

Given the descriptions above, do you consider yourself to be equity sensitive? In other words, do you believe that employees should be rewarded relative to their contributions?

Explain why overpayment satisfies employees regardless of whether they are equity sensitive or not.

Why is it important for a manager to consider the equity sensitivity of their followers?

Sources: Bing, M. N., & Burroughs, S. M. (2001); Blakely, G. L. et. al. (2005); Bourdage, J. S. et. al. (2018); Miles, E. W. et. al. (1994); Shore, T. H. (2004).

Developing a Fair Reputation

Fairness is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for effective leadership.85 The ability to develop high-quality relationships depends upon following norms of procedural justice and ensuring that outcomes are fairly distributed. Interpersonal and informational justice are both important; leaders must respect followers and provide truthful explanations of how they make decisions. Fairness is pivotal to relationships between leadership and employee work attitudes, relationships with coworkers, and employee turnover.86 In addition, employees with good relationships with their boss also engage in more organizational citizenship when they perceive a fair climate in the work group.87 Fairness issues emerge at the group level when followers compare their relationships with their boss (in-group or out-group) and the outcomes they receive. Thus, the procedural justice climate that a leader creates is essential to being effective in motivating followers and avoiding costly turnover.

Description

Figure 8.4 Components of Organizational Justice

Source: Copyright © 2001 by the American Psychological Association. Republished with permission. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. The use of APA information does not imply endorsement by APA.

Leaders can develop followers’ perceptions that they are being fair—a fair identity.88 When a follower presents the boss with an unfair situation, it is a predicament for the boss. For example, a worker gets assigned to a more lucrative client; however, another direct report feels they deserved the assignment. What should the leader do to resolve this? First, the leader should have empathy and see the situation from the follower’s perspective. The leader then has options to respond to the follower, but these should be carefully thought through because they have consequences for the continued trust and development of the relationship.

One set of options is verbal: The leader can deny the unfairness, show regret, or admit that it was not fair to the follower. These actions may damage the trust in the working relationship. Other options are to provide explanations to justify the action by making excuses or apologies. While these verbal responses represent better options for the maintenance of the working relationship, the follower may still not be satisfied. Finally, the leader can take actions to address the concern, such as restoring the benefit (in the example just given, the leader could assign the follower to join the coworker in working with the lucrative client). Another action would be to provide alternative recompense: Assign the follower an equally valuable client to work with. A fair identity and reputation for being fair are thus negotiated and must be monitored carefully.

Critical Thinking Question: Do you believe that other forms of justice can compensate for distributive justice (what people get)? Provide an example of when this happens.

This example shows that leaders play a large role in follower perceptions of fairness, which may avoid demotivation and withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover. Organizational justice theory addresses what has happened in the past. Leaders also help employees understand how they will be rewarded in the future. The next section discusses research on expectancy theory and how leaders motivate by articulating the pathways to goals.

EXPECTANCY THEORY

Learning Objective 8.6: Discuss how the expectancy theory of motivation predicts effort.

Valence–instrumentality–expectancy (VIE) theory was one of the most influential approaches to motivation in the 20th century.89 A review of research on expectancy theory noted the following: “Expectancy theory has become a standard in motivation, as reflected by its incorporation as a general framework for a wide variety of research.”90 The expectancy theory of motivation has received mixed research support but does provide insight into the process of motivation.91 The theory has three basic principles:92

Employees decide to put forth effort when they believe that their effort will lead to good performance. This is called the effort → performance relationship, which is the probability that a person believes that their effort will lead to performance (designated as the E → P expectancy).

The employee’s performance will be evaluated accurately and will lead to rewards (e.g., pay raises, bonuses). This is the follower’s estimated probability that if they perform well, they will receive the reward from the organization (designated as the P → O instrumentality).

The employees value the rewards offered by the organization. One level of performance may have multiple outcomes (such as a salary increase and a bonus), designated as the list of valences, or V’s, which can be either positive or negative. For example, a negative outcome associated with high performance might be having to stay late at work to accomplish a task and the employee misses his daughter’s violin solo at a school concert. So, receiving a salary increase and a bonus has a positive (+) valence. At the same time, having to work late has a negative (-) valence.

Expectancy Theory Predictions of Effort and Motivation

In the original formulation of expectancy theory, these components were multiplied to predict effort.93 Later, these three aspects of motivation were shown to each directly predict effort (rather than needing to be multiplied together).94,95 For example, a person’s belief that they can perform affects performance (“I can do the task”). The person’s belief in the organizational reward system also affects their performance (“My leader will provide me with a bonus if I perform well”). Finally, the degree to which rewards are valued also affects performance (“I really want that bonus!”). A summary of the expectancy theory of motivation is shown in Figure 8.5. Expectancy theory highlights the role that a leader plays in motivating followers by strengthening their perception that they can perform a task—their self-efficacy (you learned about efficacy as part of PsyCap in Chapter 2).96 Also, the leader can reassure followers that if they perform, they will be rewarded. Finally, the leader can engage in candid conversations with followers regarding what rewards they value most (and therefore are most motivating). In sum, leaders can take several actions to motivate employees based upon VIE theory:97

First, leaders should ensure that their employees expect that they can achieve whatever goals are set. This begins with selecting employees who have the knowledge, skills, and ability (KSA) to attain the goals.

Second, leaders should offer rewards that employees value (positive valences). Keep in mind that employees may not value the same things as leaders and managers.

Third, leaders should make a strong linkage between goal attainment and valued rewards. Employees must also perceive this linkage; don’t assume that they see the association between performance and rewards.

Description

Figure 8.5 The Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Source: Adapted from Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

Leader transformational behavior is related to the degree to which followers set goals that are related to authentic values.98 This goal setting translates into job performance, initiative, self-direction, and innovation on the job. Leaders influence follower motivation and performance.

A leader may also influence followers’ performance by having positive expectations of them. In other words, how a leader views their followers may become a motivating force. There is much research on the Pygmalion effect, which shows that performance expectations by a leader play a significant role in improving follower motivation and performance.

Critical Thinking Question: Apply expectancy theory to explain whether a talented junior football player should go to a professional football league or stay and finish his college degree. What are the valences, instrumentalities, and expectancies the player might have?

What’s #Trending in OB? Putting the Past Behind You: Performance Resets and Motivation

Hengchen Dai is a professor at the Anderson School of Management at UCLA. She is interested in how a “performance reset” affects motivation. She conducts both field studies and experiments to see how a person’s prior performance record affects their motivation. She has found that lower performers get more motivated and improve when they can start over. However, those with higher performance become demotivated and perform lower.

When a prior performance record is erased, people separate their past from their future. Such resets happen in organizations. For example, a salesperson gets to start over fresh each quarter. Dai reports that 40% of respondents in a survey said that they had experienced a performance reset at least once in their career. In one experiment, Dai told the participants playing a game that they would be paid for the total number of correct words they identified over 10 tries. They saw their performance on a graph. After the first five games, half of the respondents were “reset” to a clean graph, wiping out their prior performance. Those who were doing poorly did better in the last five trials, but those who were doing well did worse when their prior performance was erased.

Dai explains that this happens because people gain confidence (known as self-efficacy) on a task when they get a chance to start over after failing. But when people are doing well, the reset reduces their confidence and they stop trying. In fact, they may even quit. Dai’s research has shown that followers with high performance expectations may become embarrassed and stop trying, but those with low expectations (i.e., the underdogs) try harder. Leaders often boost their followers’ confidence and motivation by communicating positive expectations However, communicating high expectations may backfire when employees experience setbacks early on.

Discussion Questions

Do you experience a “performance reset” at the start of a new semester? If so, explain how this either motivates you or demotivates you.

What are some other reasons why performance resets affect motivation?

How can a leader influence follower motivation using performance resets for (1) a poor-performing employee and (2) a high-performing employee?

Sources: Dai, H. (2018). A double-edged sword: How and why resetting performance metrics affects motivation and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 12–29; Dai, H. (2019). Research explores how fresh starts affect our motivation at work. https://hbr.org/2019/02/research-explores-how-fresh-starts-affect-our-motivation-at-work; Dai, H., Dietvorst, B. J., Tuckfield, B., Milkman, K. L., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2018). Quitting when the going gets tough: A downside of high performance expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1667-1691 Dai, H., Milkman, K.L., & Riis, J. (2014). The fresh start effect: Temporal landmarks motivate aspirational behavior. Management Science, 60(10), 2563-2582.

THE PYGMALION EFFECT

Learning Objective 8.7: Summarize how self-fulfilling prophecies affect motivation.

Perceptions sometimes result in the self-fulfilling prophecy, or Pygmalion effect, in which the high expectations of performance by leaders create conditions in which followers succeed. Named after a George Bernard Shaw play, the effect was first studied by Robert Rosenthal in an elementary classroom setting.99 In his experiments, he told teachers that some of their students had the capability to be leading performers—or as he called them, “intellectual bloomers.”100 The teachers, unknowingly, gave these students more learning opportunities and more positive feedback. These students had actually been chosen randomly, but the result was that they did end up performing better. As a leader, you may challenge your employees or empower them to confront a difficult situation by persuading them into positive thoughts. Having positive expectations may cause a leader to provide more attention and feedback to followers and, in turn, result in them performing at a higher level.

Research on the Pygmalion effect suggests managers can boost performance by raising their expectations of followers.101 This occurs through higher goals being set and followers being more engaged and striving to learn more on the job.102 A review concluded the Pygmalion effect is fairly strong in organizations, but the work context of the research was limited since many early studies were conducted in military settings with men only.103,104 However, later research demonstrated the Pygmalion effect in nonmilitary settings and with women as well.105,106 Leaders in organizations can communicate high expectations to followers in the following four ways:107

Create a warmer emotional climate.

Provide more and increasingly challenging opportunities to learn.

Invite followers to ask questions of clarification.

Provide feedback on performance.

The Galatea Effect

What about a person’s expectations of himself or herself? The Galatea effect is present when an individual sets high expectations and then performs to those expectations. Such a follower already has high self-esteem and believes in their ability to succeed. The Galatea effect was examined by conducting an experiment where subjects’ self-esteem was boosted by a series of positive feedback messages.108 This intervention resulted in improved self-esteem, stronger motivation, and a positive impact on performance. Thus, leaders need to provide ongoing feedback and challenging assignments to increase follower expectations. The Galatea effect suggests followers may even exceed the leader’s expectations when they have confidence in their ability to succeed.

The Golem Effect

As might be predicted, expectations may also work in the opposite direction where lower expectations lead to lower performance, and this is called the Golem effect. Golem comes from the Hebrew slang for dumbbell. Bosses can “kill” followers’ motivation by having low expectations. A 2-year study was conducted of 50 boss–subordinate pairings in which the managers were asked to differentiate high performers from low performers. Within 5 minutes of meeting and working with new employees, managers felt they could easily evaluate their future performance. They unanimously stated that the low performers were passive, less motivated, less proactive, and so on. Some followers were classified as not having potential; therefore, the managers spent less time providing them with instructions on how to do their jobs. The managers viewed the low performers as weak and, thus, did not assign challenging tasks to them where they could learn new skills. When the “weak” performers began to notice the bosses’ treatment, they became disengaged, their performance deteriorated, and they ended up matching the bosses’ expectations. In effect, these bosses set the followers up to fail.109 It is possible, through training, to reverse the Golem effect (“de-Golemization”)—supervisors can change their expectations of low performance to higher performance, and followers respond positively with more effort.110,111 Based upon the long stream of research on the Pygmalion effect in organizations, it is clear that high expectations play a role in enhancing job performance.

Critical Thinking Questions: Based on what you have learned about the Galatea effect, how can you use the concept to improve your grades? Develop two or three positive feedback messages that will impact your performance.

LEADERSHIP IMPLICATIONS: WHO WILL LEAD?

This chapter has discussed how leaders serve as motivators for their followers. But is everyone equally motivated to be a leader? Research on motivation to lead (MTL) has addressed this interesting question. The MTL is defined as “an individual differences construct that affects a leader’s or leader-to-be’s decisions to assume leadership training, roles, and responsibilities and that affect their intensity of effort at leading and persistence as a leader.”112 This research has found that people have different reasons for wanting to be a leader. There are three basic reasons, based on the measurement of MTL:

Affective-identity MTL—the natural tendency to lead others—reflects the value an individual places on a leadership role and most directly reflects leadership self-efficacy and experience. For example, how would you respond to the statement “Most of the time I prefer to be a leader rather than a follower when working in a group”?

Social-normative MTL—the tendency to lead because of a sense of duty or responsibility—is associated with general attitudes toward social norms. For example, how would you respond to the statement “I feel that I have a duty to lead others if I am asked”?

Noncalculative MTL—where people agree to lead without calculating the costs and benefits of assuming leadership—is associated with an individual’s level of altruism. For example, how would you respond to the statement “I am only interested in leading a group if there are clear advantages for me”? (If your answer is no, you tend to have a higher noncalculative MTL.)113

Of course, these reasons can combine to produce stronger MTL. For example, a person might have a natural tendency to lead others and also feel a sense of duty to lead them. They may also not be interested in the advantages that being a leader provides. While people vary in their motivation to lead, scholars believe that MTL results from experiences that shape a person’s motivation to assume leadership roles. In other words, MTL is learned through experience. For example, a person with MTL may pay more attention when leadership is covered in an OB course, or they may sign up for leadership training provided by their organization. MTL may be affected by regulatory focus. For example, affective-identity MTL is more related to promotion (advancement) focus, whereas social-normative MTL is more related to prevention focus because such individuals do things out of necessity (to avoid pain).114 A study of students participating in team projects found that those who were high in affective-identity MTL became leaders in leaderless discussions, while high social-normative MTL individuals assumed leadership roles in long-term project teams.115 Thus, the particular reason why a person is motivated to lead influences the type of leadership roles they assume. A study of 215 Israeli military recruits found that those with higher MTL were more likely to display effective teamwork and emerge as team leaders; however, intelligence combined with MTL to predict leader emergence.116 A follow-up study of 60 recruits conducted 1 year later found that MTL predicted which ones became commanders (i.e., formal leaders).117 Another study of 100 leaders in an experimental simulation of a manufacturing organization found that MTL was related to perceptions of leader effectiveness as rated by followers, after taking personality traits into account.118 In other words, MTL cannot be explained by whether a person is an extrovert or not. The results of these studies suggest that organizations can influence MTL by providing training in leadership and leadership development opportunities to build a person’s belief in their own leadership abilities (known as leader self-efficacy).

Some people will follow, and some will lead. Leadership is an identity that emerges through social interactions with others.119 People hold images in their minds of what a leader is, and they compare themselves to those images to determine whether they have a leader identity, but the degree of leader self-efficacy is also important. Congruence between a person’s self-image with images of great leaders and leader self-efficacy relates to MTL.120 If you aspire to be a leader, it is important to understand your motivations for being a leader. Once you understand your own motivations, you will be better able to lead others. Take opportunities to assume leadership roles to gain experience to build your leader self-efficacy.

Leaders play a major role in how motivated their followers are to perform at high levels. First, leaders must assure that followers understand their goals and are committed to them. Second, leaders can design more motivating work or allow followers some discretion to craft their own work (aligned with work unit and organizational objectives). Leaders must negotiate a fair identity with their followers so that followers don’t become unmotivated by perceptions of inequity. Finally, leaders strengthen followers’ expectations that they can perform at a high level (expectancy) and that they will receive rewards they value for performing (instrumentality). Holding high expectations of followers can induce the positive effects of a Pygmalion effect on follower motivation. Finally, leaders need to talk to their followers to understand their motives and what rewards they value. The next step is to provide those rewards. The next chapter discusses the motivating properties of rewards and reward systems in organizations