criminal justice organization (check attactment)

Pgs41-46

Motivating Employees

One of the most fascinating subjects throughout history has been how to motivate people. Some have sought to do so through justice (Plato), others through psychoanalysis (Freud), through conditioning (Pavlov), through incentives (Taylor), and still others through fear (any number of dictators and despots). From the Industrial Revolution to the present, managers have been trying to get a full day’s work from their subordinates. The controversy in the early 1990s caused by Japanese businessmen who stated that American workers were lazy certainly raised our collective ire; many U.S. businesspeople and managers would probably agree that better worker motivation is needed. As Donald Favreau and Joseph Gillespie stated, “Getting people to work, the way you want them to work, when you want them to work, is indeed a challenge.”

Many theories have attempted to explain motivation. Some of the best known are those resulting from the Hawthorne studies and those developed by Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, and Frederick Herzberg, all of which are discussed here along with the expectancy and contingency theories.

The Hawthorne Studies

Another important theory that criminal justice leaders must comprehend is that of the Hawthorne effect, which essentially means that employees’ behavior may be altered if they believe they are being studied—and that management cares; this was demonstrated in the following research project.

As mentioned earlier, one of the most important studies of worker motivation and behavior, launching intense interest and research in those areas, was the Western Electric Company’s study in the 1920s. In 1927, engineers at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric near Chicago conducted an experiment with several groups of workers to determine the effect of illumination on production. The engineers found that when illumination was increased in stages, production increased. To verify their finding, they reduced illumination to its previous level; again, production increased. Confused by their findings, they contacted Elton Mayo and his colleague Fritz Roethlisberger from Harvard to investigate. First, the researchers selected several experienced female assemblers for an experiment. Management removed the women from their formal group and isolated them in a room. The women were compensated on the basis of the output of their group. Next, researchers began a series of environmental changes, each discussed with the women in advance of its implementation. For example, breaks were introduced and light refreshments were served. The normal six-day workweek was reduced to five days, and the workday was cut by one hour. Each of these changes resulted in increased output.79 To verify these findings, researchers returned the women to their original working conditions; breaks were eliminated, the six-day workweek was reinstituted, and all other work conditions were reinstated. The results were that production again increased!

Mayo and his team then performed a second study at the Hawthorne plant. A new group of 14 workers—all men who performed simple, repetitive telephone coil-winding tasks—were given variations in rest periods and workweeks.80 The men were also put on a reasonable piece rate—that is, the more they produced, the more money they would earn. The assumption was that the workers would strive to produce more because it was in their own economic interest to do so.

The workers soon split into two informal groups on their own, each group setting its own standards of output and conduct. The workers’ output did not increase. Neither too little nor too much production was permitted, and peers exerted pressure to keep members in line. The values of the informal group appeared to be more powerful than the allure of bigger incomes:

1. Don’t be a “rate buster” and produce too much work.

2. If you turn out too little work, you are a “chiseler.”

3. Don’t be a “squealer” to supervisors.

4. Don’t be officious; if you aren’t a supervisor, don’t act like one.

Taken together, the Hawthorne studies revealed that people work for a variety of reasons, not just for money and subsistence. They seek satisfaction for more than their physical needs at work and from their coworkers. For the first time, clear evidence was gathered to support workers’ social and esteem needs. As a result, this collision between the human relations school, begun in the Hawthorne studies, and traditional organizational theory sent researchers and theorists off in new and different directions. At least three major new areas of inquiry evolved: (1) what motivates workers (leading to the work of Maslow and Herzberg), (2) leadership (discussed earlier), and (3) organizations as behavioral systems.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham H. Maslow (1908–1970), who argued for the application of the humanistic school of psychology—which basically stressed the importance of growth and self-actualization and argued that people are innately good—conducted research on human behavior at the Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, during the 1940s. His approach to motivation was unique in that the behavior patterns analyzed were those of motivated, happy, and production-oriented people—achievers, not underachievers. He studied biographies of historical and public figures, including Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, and Eleanor Roosevelt; he also observed and interviewed some of his contemporaries—all of whom showed no psychological problems or signs of neurotic behavior.

Maslow hypothesized that if he could understand what made these people function, it would be possible to apply the same techniques to others, thus achieving a high state of motivation. His observations were coalesced into a hierarchy of needs.

Maslow concluded that because human beings are part of the animal kingdom, their basic and primary needs or drives are physiological: air, food, water, sex, and shelter. These needs are related to survival. Next in order of importance are needs related to safety or security, protection against danger: murder, criminal assault, threat, deprivation, and tyranny. At the middle of the hierarchy is belonging, or social needs: being accepted by one’s peers and associating with members of groups. At the next level of the hierarchy are the needs or drives related to ego: self-esteem, self-respect, power, prestige, recognition, and status. At the top of the hierarchy is self-realization or actualization: self-fulfillment, creativity, becoming all that one is capable of becoming.

Unlike the lower needs, the higher needs are rarely satisfied. Maslow suggested that to prevent frustration, needs should be filled in sequential order. A satisfied need is no longer a motivator. Maslow’s research also indicated that once a person reaches a high state of motivation (i.e., esteem or self-realization levels), he or she will remain highly motivated, will have a positive attitude toward the organization, and will adopt a “pitch in and help” philosophy.

McGregor’s Theory X/Theory Y

Douglas McGregor (1906–1967), who served as president of Antioch College and then on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was one of the great advocates of humane and democratic management. At Antioch, McGregor tested his theories of democratic management. He noted that behind every managerial decision or action are assumptions about human behavior. He chose the simplest terms possible with which to express them, designating one set of assumptions as Theory X and the other as Theory Y.

Theory X managers hold traditional views of direction and control, such as the following:

· The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if possible. This assumption has deep roots, beginning with the punishment of Adam and Eve and their banishment into a world where they had to work for a living. Management’s use of negative reinforcement and the emphasis on “a fair day’s work” reflect an underlying belief that management must counter an inherent dislike for work.

· Because of their dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, or threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort to achieve organizational objectives. Their dislike of work is so strong that even the promise of rewards is not generally enough to overcome it. People will accept the rewards and demand greater ones. Only the threat of punishment will work.

· The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all. This assumption of the “mediocrity of the masses” is rarely expressed so bluntly. Although much lip service is paid to the “sanctity” of the worker and of human beings in general, many managers reflect this assumption in practice and policy.

Theory Y managers take the opposite view of the worker:

· The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest. The average human being does not inherently dislike work; it may even be a source of satisfaction, to be performed voluntarily.

· External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for producing effort to achieve organizational objectives.

· Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. The most significant rewards—satisfaction of ego and self-actualization needs—can be direct products of effort directed to organizational objectives.

· Under proper conditions, the average human being learns not only to accept but also to seek responsibility. In this view, the avoidance of responsibility, lack of ambition, and emphasis on security are general consequences of experience, not inherent human characteristics.

· The capacity to exercise a high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population.

· Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potential of the average human being is only partially utilized.

What’s interesting to note here are the parallels that you may be realizing between a closed-model organization and McGregor’s Theory X, and an open-model organization and McGregor’s Theory Y.

Ouchi’s Theory Z

William Ouchi popularized Theory Z, which essentially takes McGregor’s Theory Y further by emphasizing the importance of participatory decision making in organizations. Core elements of Theory Z include collective decision making, job security, generalized (vs. specialized) understanding of organizational goals, an emphasis on training and performance improvement, concern for the employee, and individual responsibility for shared accomplishments.88 As you already may have noted, open-model organizations are congruent not only with McGregor’s Theory Y conceptions of human behavior but also with Ouchi’s Theory Z approach to management.

Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory

During the 1950s, Frederick Herzberg conducted a series of studies in which he asked workers, primarily engineers, to describe the times when they felt particularly good and particularly bad about their jobs. The respondents identified several sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in their work. Then, from these findings, Herzberg isolated two vital factors found in all jobs: maintenance or hygiene factors and motivational factors.

Maintenance or hygiene factors are those elements in the work environment that meet an employee’s hedonistic need to avoid pain. These factors include the necessities of any job (e.g., adequate pay, benefits, job security, decent working conditions, supervision, interpersonal relations). Hygiene factors do not satisfy or motivate; they set the stage for motivation. They are, however, a major source of dissatisfaction when they are inadequate.

Motivational factors are those psychosocial factors that provide intrinsic satisfaction and serve as an incentive for people to invest more of their time, talent, energy, and expertise in productive behavior. Examples include achievement, recognition, responsibility, the work itself, advancement, and potential for growth. The absence of motivators does not necessarily produce job dissatisfaction

Although these needs are obviously related, they represent totally different dimensions of satisfaction.

Expectancy and Contingency Theories

In the 1960s, expectancy theory was developed, focusing on certain beliefs that can influence effort and performance. As examples, if an employee believes that his or her efforts will result in a certain level of performance leading to a desired reward, then that employee will likely take action accordingly. Of course, the opposite is true as well: If an employee perceives a low correlation between effort or performance and reward, then the result may well be inaction. Essentially, expectancy theory holds that employees will do what their managers or organizations want them to do if the following are true:

1. The task appears to be possible (employees believe that they possess the necessary competence).

2. The reward (outcome) offered is seen as desirable by the employees (intrinsic rewards come from the job itself; extrinsic rewards are supplied by others).

3. Employees believe that performing the required behavior or task will bring the desired outcome.

4. There is a good chance that better performance will bring greater rewards.

Expectancy theory will work for an organization that specifies what behaviors it expects from people and what the rewards or outcomes will be for those who exhibit such behaviors. Rewards may be pay increases, time off, chances for advancement, a sense of achievement, or other benefits. Managers and organizations can find out what their employees want and see to it that they are provided with the rewards they seek. Walter Newsom said that the reality of the expectancy theory can be summarized by the “nine Cs”: (1) capability (does a person have the capability to perform well?), (2) confidence (does a person believe that he or she can perform the job well?), (3) challenge (does a person have to work hard to perform the job well?), (4) criteria (does a person know the difference between good and poor performance?), (5) credibility (does a person believe the manager will deliver on promises?), (6) consistency (do subordinates believe that all employees receive similar preferred outcomes for good performance, and vice versa?), (7) compensation (do the outcomes associated with good performance reward the employee with money and other types of rewards?), (8) cost (what does it cost a person, in effort and outcomes foregone, to perform well?), and (9) communication (does the manager communicate with the subordinate?).

Later, in the 1970s, Morse and Lorsch built on McGregor’s and Herzberg’s theories with their theory of motivation called contingency theory. This theory sought to determine the fit between the organization’s characteristics and its tasks and the motivations of individuals. The basic components of the contingency theory are that (1) among people’s needs is a central need to achieve a sense of competence, (2) the ways in which people fulfill this need will vary from person to person, (3) competence motivation is most likely to be achieved when there is a fit between task and organization, and (4) a sense of competence continues to motivate people even after competence is achieved. In essence, we all want to be competent in our work. Contingency theory contends that people performing highly structured and organized tasks perform better in Theory X organizations and that those who perform unstructured and uncertain tasks perform better under a Theory Y approach. This theory tells managers to tailor jobs to fit people or to give people the skills, knowledge, and attitudes they will need to become competent.

Motivation through Job Enrichment

Motivation, among other desirable employee behaviors in an organization, can also be achieved by creating enriched jobs. Enriched jobs include the following five characteristics: (1) skill variety (the extent to which a job requires a number of different skills and talents), (2) task identity (the extent to which a job requires completion of an entire piece of work), (3) task significance (the impact of one’s work), (4) autonomy (the level of independence of one’s work), and (5) feedback (the extent of information the employee receives about effective performance).

Redesigning jobs to emphasize the above five characteristics influences three psychological states, which can lead to higher levels of motivation, satisfaction, and productivity, as well as lower levels of employee absenteeism and turnover. These three critical work-related states include the following: (1) experienced meaningfulness of work, (2) experienced responsibility, and (3) knowledge of results.96 In the criminal justice system, a good example of a redesigned job is that of a community policing officer engaged in problem-solving, who when compared to an incident-driven traditional police officer may possess more of the desired elements of a redesigned job.

Peak, K. J., & Giacomazzi, A. (2018). Justice Administration: Police, Courts, and Corrections Management (9th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9780134871554