SBenegaL

Blog

  • Expectancy Model of Motivation 4

    In the last byte we were discussing the Expectancy theory of motivation. In today’s byte, we look at some of the issues with motivation when we consider expectancy theory to be explaining the behavior of people.

    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:

    1. A disbelief in a relationship between effort and performance
    2. A disbelief in a relationship between performance and reward
    3. Lack of desire for the rewards offered
    Let us take the scenario of a sales person and explore these in greater detail. If the sales person doesn’t believe that doing more calls will result in higher sales, then he/she could be shown how to distinguish departments with high probability sales opportunities from those with low probability sales opportunities. This could motivate the individual to perform better at the sales task.

    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!

  • Expectancy Model of Motivation 3

    In the last byte, we looked at a model for the Expectancy Model of Motivation which was adapted from the standard reference book. In today’s byte, we look at exploring the relationship a bit further.

    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.

  • Expectancy Model of Motivation 2

    In the last byte, we looked at various definitions involved in the expectancy model. In today’s byte we delve deeper to understand the theory in greater detail.
    Valence, Expectancy, and Instrumentality are all important to an individual’s motivation.  Expectancy and Instrumentality concern a person’s beliefs about how efforts, performance, and rewards are related.  The following diagram summarizes the relation. 
    If we map this to the real life, we can think of a situation where an individually may firmly believe that an increase in effort has a direct, positive effect on performance and that a reduced amount of effort results in commensurate reduction in person. There could be another person who might believe that regardless of the effort one puts in, no improvement in performance is possible.

  • Expectancy Model of Motivation

    In the last byte, we looked at some of the extensions of equity theory. In today’s byte we begin the discussion on Expectancy Model of Motivation.

    While the equity theory focused on the social exchange process; the expectancy theory as the name suggests is based on the perception of individuals and how it acts as a motivation in the work environment.

    The theory of Expectancy was proposed by Vroom and the basic outline includes the understanding that individuals desire certain outcomes of behavior and performance (similar to rewards and consequences of behavior) and that they believe that there is a relationship between the effort they put in and the performance they achieve and the outcomes they receive.

    To understand this further it would be useful to understand the 3 important terms that are used in this theory:

    • Valance:  It is the value or importance that an individual places on a particular reward
    • Expectancy: It is the belief that effort leads to performance
    • Instrumentality: It is the belief that performance is related to rewards.
    We shall continue the discussion in the next byte.

  • Adam’s Theory of Inequity 4

    In the last byte, we looked at some classifications based on the equity expectations of the people. In today’s byte, we look at some extensions of the equity theory.

    The research on equity from the organizational justice has a pretty long history, and has some interesting insight about how an individual’s organizational position influences the self-imposed performance expectation. Following briefly summarizes it:
    It has been observed that when an individual moves two-levels up in the organizational hierarchy with no increase in pay, he/she creates a higher self-imposed performance expectation than a one-level move up with modest increase in pay! Similarly, a two-level demotion in the organization hierarchy with no reduction in pay creates a lower self-imposed performance expectation compared to a one level demotion with a modest decrease in pay!
    This clearly indicates that organizational position is considered more important than pay in determining the level of person’s performance expectations.

    In extreme cases unintended consequences of such inequity and organizational injustice could be manifested in a dysfunctional behavior. Examples of such behavior are aggressive reactions or other forms of violent and deviant behavior that harm both their colleagues and organization. The fortunate piece of the story is that there are very few such instances.

  • Co-founder selection

    An entrepreneur when starting off his venture typically tries to on-board a co-founder, and the most co-founders are friends. On-boarding a co-founder is an interesting junction in the start-up’s journey. Here are possible benefits and drawback one would need to think of in choosing co-founders:

    Clear Benefits:
    Having a co-founder is an indication that the
    ideator has been “sold” the
    idea to someone other than himself/herself, and that someone has joined the pursuit – this is an interesting signal to the outside world (primarily investors & employees). Resource pooling clearly emerges out as a very tangible benefit from such an approach – thereby de-risking to a limited extent.  
    – “I am not alone believing in an idea!“

    Teams enable the entrepreneur pool in some essential “factors of production”, in the classical terminology – land, labor, capital. Definitely, this process has added resources as a result of accumulation from more than one of the founders. In the contemporary world we could possibly look at some more dimensions to the classical factors – network, intellectual capital etc. 
    – “I am possibly better off!” 

    For start-ups, whose first challenge is survival this means: on-boarding a stakeholder would enhance the survivability of a start up; a greater breather space, and potentially a greater growth prospect. 
    – “I survive to fight another day!“
    The
    benefit is not just in terms of physical resources the idea sounding, check and balance mechanism, emotional support etc are all packaged into this. 
    Other implications:
     
    In
    addition to selling the concept of idea, the ideator is also responsible for the firm that gets formed. In many ways the identities
    of the two – the firm and the founder overlap when one starts off. However, realizing that
    these two could be separate over a longer period is important – the
    founder mindful of the distinguishing between the firm and the
    founder, the founder would need to make a decision that is beneficial
    for the firm which could continue perpetually. The co-founder decision one makes
    should be thought out in this light, and with the benefits to the firm be predominantly greater than the personal needs of the founder. Ask the question:
    – “Would the person be the right fit for the firm?”

    The
    ideator when on-boarding a co-founder would also have to note that the
    initial idea could also undergo a change. In addition to accessing new
    resources (means) there are new goals that the firm would need to adjust
    itself to. Ask yourself:
    – “Am I willing to change he goal? will the joint effort of the co-founders make the firm better off?“
    Many
    of the co-founders shared personal friendships – this could potentially
    be the source of the on-boarding, rather than the idea.  We are all
    emotional being, and encouraging friends in their entrepreneurial
    pursuit could be but a logical extension of the friendship. The ideator
    would benefit from reflecting on what each individual in his network
    could get to the table and relate it how the potential exploration could
    be helped by the individual.     Ask yourself:
    – “Is it the idea or is it my relationship alone?”
    Few words of caution in selecting friends co-founders:

    If the common interest is not the idea, and only limited to the social relationship – the firm wouldn’t benefit as much from from such an alignment of the founders. An obligation cannot be the source to a long term commitment; periodic incentivization is needed for one to sustain such a relationship.
     
    Last but not the least, co-founder conflicts are extremely common. There are many who do go to the extreme step of saying – be ready to loose friendship if you want to get into a partnership for venturing out into a business. Distinguishing what would form the professional space and what the personal space is important – this ability to separate the issue from the actor would be extremely helpful for founder.

    The call to add on a co-founder is one that could have significant implications on the firm and the ideator. So think through before you on-board your co-foudners.

  • The Last Lecture – Randy Pausch



    For those of you who haven’t heard “The Last Lecture” by Prof Randy Pausch, do watch the above video before reading my review here. That would almost be akin to reading most of the book. Here is his page on Carnegie Mellon Website.

    While most of the points disccussed in the lecture are extended into deeper discussion in the book, but it goes beyond these points in the presentation to give us a closer look into his life. 

    In addition to the philosophical aspect what is mentioned in the book, there are many practical take away that an individual reader like me could take. Quite a few points if I wear my teacher’s hat – could be how he used peer feedback to give hard individual feedback or the excitement and thrill of being able to help many realize their dreams. 


    The emphasis of team in learning is an interesting dimension in the complete learning process. This is an important aspect to look into in the field of education. I loved the concept of “headfakes”, and was thinking of using a few in my sessions going ahead. I feel it is extremely handy!Another point I loved was the emphasis he gave on failures – “the first penguin” which helped get the motivation going. 


    My take: Read the book! Its worth it.

  • Prioritize Stakeholder Acquisition

    I wrote this blog to highlight a best practice
    approach in starting off and tried rationalizing it. It also answers the question as
    to why dealing with the customer as stakeholders of business before any
    other stakeholder would be a good idea.



  • Prioritizing Stakeholders for your start-up to reduce uncertainty

    Murphy’s Law seems to follow entrepreneurs more than anyone else – Yes! anything you believe wouldn’t happen, will most possibly happen. So the challenge is really of being able to live through all these experiences and eventually be able to get the business they intend to create see the light of the day. 

    The notion of such unpredictability in what one does is generally called – uncertainty. There is really nothing certain about the entity that entrepreneurs are trying to create. They have a thought about the need for something they believe would be required by someone… Yes! It is only a thought when it starts like many other thoughts! The entrepreneur chases the thought and attempts to create value – economic, social etc out of the thought by manifesting the thought into the realm or reality.

    In the process there are numerous challenges that come in – beginning with the thought – the entrepreneur would need to really see if the intended product/service is something that would be found valuable and useful for people. The second question is really to see if someone could pay for the same! I have mentioned multiple times about the need for early customer engagement in earlier blogs [read here and here]

    The maximum uncertainty would definitely be on the customer‘s end of the chain. The thought that the entrepreneur would have initiated invariably would have come from his/her prior experience/ability/capacity – essentially – the response to the questions: who am I? What do I know? Whom do I know? She/he would also have attempted evaluating what would it take to create something of value and how someone could and then figure out a way to reach out to the person who could not just use but also pay for the same. 

    This mean the maximum uncertainty for a business is not on the customer‘s side of activities and would progressively reduce in the following order – investors, suppliers and employees. The following diagram indicates the same:
     
    High Uncertainty                                                     Least Uncertainty
    Customer    >    Investor      >    Supplier       >        Employee
    The uncertainty in the above context could be understood as containing two components – the predictability of the behavior of each of the stakeholder and second, the effective control on that the entrepreneur could have on the behavior of each of these. We could visualize the spectrum of predictability and controllability to be as below.

    Least Predictability                                              Most Predictability
    Customer    >    Investor      >    Supplier      >        Employee 
    Least Controllability                                             Most Controllability
    Customer    <    Investor      <    Supplier      <        Employee

    An effective approach for an entrepreneur to be able to leverage and grow his/her business would be to reduce the zone of maximum uncertainty and steadily build the other stakeholders commitments to effectively handle the reduced uncertainty. 
    (click on the stakeholder link to be directed to some best practises in finding a better stakeholder)

  • Adam’s Theory of Inequity 3

    In the last byte, we looked at the various strategies one could adopt to handle a situation of inequity in an organization. In today’s byte, we look at some extensions to the equity theory.     

    If we really look at the theory that we have been discussed, it was really inequity that we were setting as the subject matter and not equity itself. As research has progresses, certain revisions have been suggested to this basic equity theory. One such interesting approach has been suggested by classifying individuals based on their preference for equity. These are:

    1. Equity Sensitive
    2. Benevolent
    3. Entitled
    Equity Sensitive people are those individuals who prefer an equity ratio equal to that of his or her comparison other. This sensitivity has a great bearing on the way people spend their free time – it would define whether they would invest the time into the work or do something else.

    Benevolent refers to those individuals who are comfortable with an equity ratio lesser than that of their comparison other. The Entitled on the other hand are people who are comfortable with equity ratio greater than that of their comparison others. The Entitled behavior is generally observed in the younger generation of the affluent families. If we were to call Benevolent as givers, the Entitled could be called as takers.

    We could remember the above using the following diagram.