Alderfer suggests, however, that frustrated higher-level needs cause a regression to and reemphasis
of the next lower-level need in the hierarchy. In addition, Alderfer’s model suggests
that more than one need may operate at any time. Although it is somewhat less rigid than
Maslow’s hierarchy, it presents little that is new or substantially different from Maslow’s.
Herzberg’s two-factor theory explains motivation as a function of job satisfaction (Herzberg,
1966; Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman, 19 59). Herzberg states that job satisfacti·on and
job dissatisfaction are not opposite ends of the same continuum; rather, they are two different
phenomena. The factors that lead to job satisfaction are quite different from those that lead to
job dissatisfaction, and the resulting behaviours from these two states are also quite different.
Based on this concept, Herzberg proposed that hygiene factors and motivating factors,
respectively, affect dissatisfaction and satisfaction. Hygiene factors are extrinsic to the nature
of the job; they include pay, supervision, organisational policies, relationships with co-workers,
working conditions, personal life, status and job security. Unsatisfactory hygiene factors
lead to dissatisfaction, which, in turn, leads to increased absences, grievances or resignations.
Herzberg likens hygiene factors to the process of treating water to ensure it is safe for drinking.
Not treating the water will probably result in illness, but drinking purified water will not necessarily
keep one from becoming sick.
Satisfaction and motivation then result from factors intrinsic to the job, such as a sense
of achievement for performing a task successfully, recognition and praise, responsibility for
one’s own or another’s work, growth and advancement or changing status through promotion.
To the extent that these intrinsic, or motivating, factors are present, an employee is assumed
to experience job satisfaction and hence will be highly motivated to perform the job effectively.
Process theories of motivation
Whereas content theories attempt to explain why a person behaves in a particular manner,
process theories of motivation emphasise how the process works to direct an individual’s effort
into performance. These theories add another dimension to the understanding of motivation
and help to predict employee behaviour in certain circumstances. Examples of process theories
are reinforcement theory, expectancy theory, equity theory and goal-setting theory.
Reinforcement theory
Reinforcement theory (behaviour modification} views motivation as a learned response to a
given situation (Skinner, 1953]. According to this theory, behaviour is learned through a process
called operant conditioning, in which a particular behaviour becomes associated with a
particular consequence. In operant conditioning, the response-consequence connection is
strengthened over time: that is, it is learned. Skinner’s philosophy depended on an absence
of cognition; it was about reflex and immediate pay-off. Pavlov’s research on ringing a bell to
induce a dog to salivate is a classic example of Skinner’s reinforcement theory.
Skinner’s work, however, gave rise to the idea that behaviour can be modified by the use of
reward or punishment. Positive reinforcement is used for the express purpose of increasing
a desired behaviour, whilst negative reinforcement is used to extinguish or make a particular
behaviour less likely.
John, a staff nurse, made a suggestion that would improve patient flow and minimise
delays on transfer from his ward to another. His manager supported the idea and helped John
137
CHAPTER 8 MOTIVATING AND DEVELOPING OTHERS
implement the new process. The manager praised John for the extra effort and publicly rec ognised
him for the idea. John was encouraged by the outcome and sought other solutions to
work-flow problems.
Negative reinforcement is used to inhibit an undesired behaviour: punishment is a common
technique. Rose has a long-standing habit of not attending to the completion of patient notes.
The manager decided that she should be required to come to his office with her patient notes so
that he could directly supervise Rose’s work and make sure she achieved the expected standard.
Rose unsurprisingly found the task laborious and humiliating. Begrudgingly, Rose brought
her notes up to standard, so that the manager would let things return to normal.
Because punishment creates compliance at best, often accompanied by emotions such as
resentment, anger and defiance, an employee may fail to improve and may also avoid the manager
and the job. Research has shown that the effects of punishment are generally temporary.
Undesirable behaviour will be suppressed only as long as the manager monitors the situation
and the threat of punishment is present. Conversely, research has demonstrated that positive
reinforcement is the best way to change behaviour.
Extinction is another technique used to eliminate negative behaviour. By removing
reinforcement, undesired behaviour is extinguished. Consider the case of Jane, a chronic complainer.
To curb this behaviour, her manager chose to ignore her many complaints and not try
to resolve them. Initially Jane complained more, but eventually she realised her behaviour was
not getting the desired response and stopped complaining.
There are problems with behaviour modification as a strategy in the workplace. Take the
example of Jane above, whose complaining behaviour has been ignored, and she has eventually
stopped. If, for example, she identifies a significant safety issue that should be brought to
the attention of her manager, because her complaints were ignored in the past she may now
fail to report the safety issue in the belief that she will again be ignored.
A further problem involves opportunity. For example, a manager may wish to reinforce in
Barbara the behaviour of speaking up in multidisciplinary meetings, something she has never
done before. In order to use positive reinforcement as a motivating strategy, Barbara has to
speak up at least once in the meeting, and this may not happen.
Gauging the impact of a reinforcement action is not always easy; a response intended to
be a positive reinforcement may be perceived as negative. Take Mai Lee, for example. As a
new employee, Mai Lee conscientiously completed her work fully and in good time. When the
manager recognised her for her good work, her peers became less friendly, forgetting to invite
her for coffee after work or not engaging in small talk in the staff room. Although the manager
wanted to motivate Mai Lee to continue with this desired behaviour, the response of Mai Lee’s
colleagues had a negative effect. Mai Lee became less vigilant in her work, falling into line with
her colleagues who were of the opinion that if the routine work was done on time, other work
would be asked of them. Mai Lee was more motivated by the acceptance and approval of her
colleagues than that of the manager.
Shaping is another technique that falls into the positive reinforcement category. Shaping
involves selectively reinforcing behaviours that are successively closer approximations
to the desired behaviour. This technique recognises that it is unrealistic to expect a habit or
other strong behaviour pattern to be extinguished and replaced by a new behaviour overnight.
Making changes is often a gradual approach. A number of personal change programmes, such
as weight loss or smoking cessation, use shaping as a technique, praising people for small
successes along the way to the ultimate goal of ideal weight or non-smoking. Each successively
closer approximation to the desired behaviour is reinforced and well established before
progressive reinforcement is given to closer approximations of the desired behaviour. Shaping
138
MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES
can take time and occasionally an injection of energy along the way. Furthermore, if small
improvements receive the same accolades as bigger improvements, the participants in the
weight-loss or smoking cessation clinics may slow down their motivation because, as long
as they are seen to be losing weight/cutting down on their smoking, they can still be gaining
approval.
Behaviour modification works quite well provided rewards can be found that employees
value and supervisory personnel can link those rewards to performance. This does not mean
that all rewards work equally well or that the same rewards will continue to function effectively
over a long time. If a manager praised someone four or five times a day every day, the praise
would soon begin to wear thin; it would cease to be a motivating strategy. Care must be taken
not to overdo a good thing.
Figure 8.2 illustrates the use of various schedules of reinforcement. Partial schedules of
reinforcement [reinforcing behaviour with every second or third occurrence J are usually more
effective than other reinforcement schedules in changing behaviour. This fixed-ratio schedule
of reinforcement requires very close monitoring to reinforce every nth response and is
obviously not very practical. Reinforcing on a fairly regular basis is known as a fixed-interval
schedule of reinforcement; an example is the distribution of monthly pay cheques [Ferster and
Skinner,195?].
Some rather interesting research findings have emerged over the years on the subject
of continuous and partial schedules of reinforcement. On the one hand, we know that a continuous
schedule of reinforcement is the fastest method of establishing or learning a new
behaviour, whereas any kind of partial schedule of reinforcement is much slower. On the other
hand, behaviours learned under a continuous schedule also extinguish very quickly once reinforcement
stops. Behaviour learned on a partial schedule continues for a much longer time
without being reinforced . In addition, continuous schedules of reinforcement are probably
better when money is used rather than other reinforcements, such as praise [Ferster and
Skinner,195?] .
Interval Ratio
Fixed interval Fixed ratio
Reinforcer given after a given Reinforcer given after a given
time number of behaviour occurrences
Fixed Weekly or monthly paycheques Piece rate pay
Regularly scheduled exams Commissioned salespeople;
certain amount is given for
each pound of sales
Variable interval Variable ratio
Reinforcer given at random Reinforcer given after a random
times number of behaviour occurrences
Occasional praise by Random quality checks with praise
Variable boss on unscheduled visits for zero defects
Unspecified number of pop quizzes Commissioned salespeople;
to students a varying number of calls is
required to obtain a given sale
Time-based Behaviour occurrence-based
Figure 8_2 Four types of intermittent reinforcement schedule
Source: From Organizational Behavior, 8th edn, by J. R. Schermerhorn, J. G. Hunt and R.N. Osborn, 2003, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
139
The post Process theories of motivation appeared first on My Assignment Online.