The strategies discussed in the last byte, were put up as a law of effect by Thorndike; we could summarize them as in the diagram below. (This is a modified version of Figure 6.1. from the standard reference book.)
In simple terms, reinforcement is used to enhance a desired behavior, while punishment and extinction are used to diminish undesired behavior. This theory of reinforcement is fundamental in organizations design of the reward systems. If these reward systems are well designed it would help the organization attract and retain the best employees!
If these reward systems are planned in a strategic way, they would help motivate behavior, action and accomplishments that would propel the organizations in the direction of its goals. These strategic rewards need not necessarily be cash but could be training, educational opportunities, stock options, recognition, travel etc. These sorts of rewards have a positive consequence on the employee’s behavior.
If we revisit the last point and the one earlier, we realize that reinforcement and punishments are administered through the positive or negative consequences of the employee’s behavior. Positive consequences are results as a result of certain behavior that the person would find more attractive or pleasurable. Negative consequences are results of behavior that a person finds unattractive or aversive. Examples of positive consequences include pay increase, bonus, promotion, transfer to desirable geographic location or even a praise by one’s superior. The Negative consequences could include disciplinary action, undesirable transfer, demotion, harsh criticism by a superior.
One essential aspect that a manager would need to be aware of is the cultural differences and gender differences when providing reinforcement through positive or negative consequences.
The beginning would be apt if we first define what operant conditioning means before we proceed. Operant conditioning is the process of modifying behavior through the use of positive or negative consequences following specific behavior. The underlying belief is that behavior is a function of its consequences; it could be positive or negative. These consequences could be positive or negative and essentially leads to 3 possible strategies of creating the consequences:
Before we could begin with, let’s have a look at the following diagram: which pretty much explains the famous experiment that was associated with this theory.
The diagram here is the summary of the experiment where the behavior of a dog was changed! In summary classical conditioning deals with the modification of behavior so that a conditioned stimulus is paired with an unconditional stimulus and elicits an unconditional response.
Taken to the real world today, it is quite possible that an individual working for long hours in front of a computer may get lower back strain as a result of poor posture, If the person becomes aware of the strain only when the manager enters the work space, then the person may develop a conditional response of lower back pain on appearance of the manager!
The question one would also need to ask – is it so straight forward? No, for the following reasons:
It would be apt to being the discussion with an understanding of the definition of learning in the organizational behavior context. Learning is a change in behavior acquired through experience. If we have a closer look at this change based definition, we can identify 2 broad ways this change in behavior could occur:
A manager would require to begin with the understanding that of the various theories that have been discussed thus far, not all is equally good or equal – they would require to understand that the later theories have a greater scientific backing compared to the earlier ones. The internal theories of motivation along with the theories dealing with the individual-environment interaction process contribute significantly to the manager’s understanding of human behavior and motivation at work.
Individual employees needs would be different and the manager would need to keep a note of all these and be sensitive about the ethnic, national, gender and age differences. Involving the employees in understanding their needs would definitely go a long way.
Training, Coaching and Task assignments are found to be effective ways to increase employee motivation. The Managers would require to ensure that the rewards are contingent on good performance and that valued rewards are offered to the employees. It is fundamental that the manager understand what the employee wants.
In the overall scheme it is important to understand that the manager would be required to take note of the morally mature employees!
If we were to question – who can the altruistic behavior of individuals be analyzed using the expectancy theory, we realize that it is not sufficient to give a satisfying answer. It would really fall short in explaining the altruistic behavior – the general expectancy model is in many ways akin to Adam Smith’s idea that individuals work for their own self-interest. In order to explain these altruistic behaviors, one would need to consider the concept of – “Moral Maturity”. Moral maturity is simply a measure of a person’s cognitive moral development. This concept would help us explain the behavior of individuals that are seen to be altruistic, fair and equitable in nature. The morally mature people are seen to act and behave on what is seen as “universally ethical principles” while the immature ones are seen to behave in an egocentric behavior.
If we analyze the impact of culture on Motivation; it would be interesting to note that as the theories have been developed by Americans, they would need to be altered to cultures other than American. Cultures like the Japanese put a lot of emphasis on reducing uncertainty, while the Americans would put self-actualization at the pinnacle. The Greeks put a lot of emphasis on security. The Expectancy theory may hold very well to cultures that have individualism as an important value, but would not be successful in explaining the collective cultures where regards are closely tied to group or team efforts.
In any case a manager would need to understand the context of application of the motivational theories beyond just routinely following the theory into practice.
If one is to carefully think about the source of what could lead to a not so motivated performance and then map it over the expectancy model of motivation, we realize 3 possible causes for these motivational problems:
Let’s take an extension of the sales person’s scenario – where he/she believes that the relation doesn’t exist between the performance and rewards, i.e. the person doesn’t believe that an increased sale doesn’t result in over al higher commission – this could be simply solved in a session which highlights the relation using graphs or numbers!
Research has indicated the theory is pretty accurate in predicting job satisfaction. But this theory is inherently a bit complex and hence makes it a bit difficult to test the model!
Perspectives of individuals could be that regardless of the amount of additional effort put forth, there wouldn’t be any improvement in performance, and since the performance has no relationship with the reward, there could be no meaning in putting in the additional effort. It is essentially the person’s belief about the relation between the constructs that is important (it is not the actual nature of the relation that matter!). What the individual believes in is the relation is what would motivate the individual to work.
It would however be interesting how this expectation about the relation would act in the business world when in a volatile environment like today.
Companies and Managers could use the expectancy theory to design motivation programs. The performance plans and evaluation systems could be designed to enhance a person’s belief that effort would lead to better performance and that the better performance would lead to a pay increase and other reward. Valance and Expectancy play a major role in establishing priorities for employees when they pursue multiple goals.
It is the idea of valance that people place on various rewards that varies – an individual could choose salary over other benefits while another could choose benefits over salary! Every individual doesn’t place the same value on each reward.
