**Work Motivation & Job Design**
1. Content theories: 1)Content theories are categorical ->Process theories emphasize the actions & will be covered later 2)Motivation as an inference ->Person does something & we attribute a motive (e.G. person does well in exam we say she was motivated) 3)Motivation as need satisfaction ->Need = removal of deficiencies between “self” & a desired “self” (e.G. I want a university degree) 4)Note that the attributions are to the individual as opposed to the social setting of the person (e.G. Most of my friends go to university, so I am doing it too)
2. Rewards:1)Extrinsic ->outside the person(e.G. Pay) 2)Intrinsic ->From within the person(e.G. Achievement of goal) 3)Social ->From other people(e.G. Confirmation of identity) 4)Note that categories overlap(e.G. Being a good team member, using pay to help the needy, how about buying a fancy car?)
3.Maslow’s theory & criticisms: 1)Lower needs must be satisfied before higher needs
2) Order of needs ->Physiological ->Safety (e.G. Shelter) ->Social (relationships, family) ->Ego & esteem (e.G. Recognition) ->Self actualization (e.G. Reaching your potential)
Problems with Maslow’s theory: 1)How do you know a need is satisfied?(e.G. Is social need satisfied, if person has family & friends?) 2)Movement between categories(e.G. Is it possible to satisfy ego needs before social?) 3)Needs vs. Actual behaviour(e.G. Someone buys an expensive house, which need is being satisfied?)
ERG Theory: Existence needs, Relatedness needs, Growth needs
4. Need for achievement theory: 1)Method of measurement ->Projective technique (Thematic Apperception Test) (e.G. “unclear” picture of someone with a briefcase) 2) Characteristics of person with a high need for ach. ->Responsibility ->Moderate risk taker ->Feedback
5. Criticisms of need theories: 1)Other needs ->Need for affiliation(e.G. Socialize with others & get along) ->Need for power (e.G. Seek higher positions) 2) Problems with the need theories ->Broad categories, crude attribution(e.G. Socializing in a company party, is the person satisfying the need for affiliation? Or need for power?) ->Number of needs (e.G. If someone is a jogger, need for jogging?)
6. Herzberg’s two factor theory: Two independent factors-> 1)Satisfiers (motivators) ->Related to the content of the job (e.G. The feeling of contributing to a project) 2)Dissatisfiers (hygiene) ->Related to the context of the job (e.G. Salary level) 3）Methodology for data collection ->Critical incident (e.G. Last time that something good/bad happened at work)
Problems with Herzberg’s theory: 1)Independence of the two factors is questionable(e.G. Working with a person you like) 2)Attribution bias as an explanation of the results ->The results are artifact of methodology(e.G. Good results are attributed to self, bad to the environment) 3)Methodology only samples the peaks(e.G. Events that were really positive or negative were relatively infrequent) ->May not be very representative of ‘normal’ work days
7. Job design: 1) How jobs became repetitive -> a)Requirements of industrialization b)Minimum dependence on workers 2)Classic problem of fragmented jobs & solutions -> a)Job rotation (change in scope)(e.G. Switch from task A to task B, does it make a difference?) ->b)Job enlargement (change in scope)(e.G. Instead of just task A, do A & B, does it make a difference?) ->c)Job enrichment (change in scope & depth)(e.G. Do tasks A & B, and decide when to order parts. Does this make a difference?)
8.Hackman & Oldham theory of Job Design: 1)Core job characteristics & psychological states -> a)Meaningfulness = job characteristic (skill variety + task identity + task significance) ->b)Perceived responsibility = job characteristic of autonomy -> c)Knowledge of results = feedback. 2)Studies in Sweden. ->Reorganization of auto manufacturing -> a) Formation of groups responsible to assemble larger portions ->b)Results: more satisfied workers, better quality, no change in quantity. 3)Criticism of Hackman & Oldham theory -> a)Concepts are too broad (e.G. Meaningfulness, how much skill variety or task significance?
Ignoring the social forces) -> b)Work group (e.G. Nortel semi finished goods group)
1. Dissatisfaction with static concepts with values: 1) Point of departure -> a1) Dissatisfaction with static concepts in psychology (e.G. Categorical concepts in personality, motivation, and so on) ->a2)Also concepts have value attached to them (e.G. Need for achievement is good, need for power is bad) ->b)Analogy to physics(e.G. Aristotelian vs Galilean Modes of Thought) -> c) Representational system(e.G. Language vs. Mathematics) ->d) How to represent human situation?
2. Life space: 1)Topology -> a)No properties of Euclidean geometry ->b)Analogy of a rubber sheet with connected shapes ->2)Life space ->Representation of person’s view of their immediate psychological situation
Life Space cond': -> 1)Structural properties ->Region of activity -> a)Viewed psychologically as a unit(e.G. Getting ready to go to work) (Figure – ground properties (e.G. Studying for exam as part of getting ready for test)) ->b)Sub-region as perceived sub-unit within the region (e.G. In getting ready region, sub-region of washing up) -> c)Each region is connected to other regions (e.G. Driving to work is connected to getting ready) ->d)Thickness of the boundaries is the permeability between regions(e.G. Region of activity of socializing with friends vs. Parents) -> e)Psychological distance or path as the number of regions & their internal properties between two regions.(e.G. Goal of doing well on a exam, means reading and understanding the notes, practicing sample questions, preparing cheat sheet, etc.)
->2) Locomotion: -> a)Movement in the life space (e.G. Moving from getting ready to driving to work) ->b)Does not need to correspond to physical movement (e.G. Problem solving, waiting in line to buy ticket)
3. Dynamics: 1)Dynamic properties: -> a)Valence -> Relative positive or negative value of a region of activity at a given point in time. (e.G. Eating is attractive when hungry.) ->2) Force ->a)Positive valence in a region creates a force field toward that region. -> b)Negative valence in a region creates a force field away from that region. (e.G. Someone you don’t like) -> c)Induced: externally exerted on the person to move towards a region of activity. (e.G. Your boss wants you to do something) ->3) Force & distance ->Force has magnitude, direction, & point of application -> a)For positive valence, the magnitude increases as distance decreases. ->b)For negative valence, the magnitude is high only when very close, otherwise minimal.
4. Application: 1)Learning -> a)Formation of new parts & their integration (e.G. Learning to drive, unit formation) ->2) Problem solving ->Experiment -> a)Chicken vs. Dog -> b)Detour problem (e.G. Nine dots) ->c) Effect of forces on insight (e.G Studies at waterloo) -> 3)Frustration -> a)Barrier between goal & person(e.G. Being late to a meeting) -> b)Tension wipes out the sub-regions (e.G. Not being able to articulate, aggression)
5. Conflict: 1)Approach – approach (e.G. Choosing between two cars you like equally) ->2)Avoidance – avoidance (e.G. Choosing between two unpleasant tasks) -> 3)Approach – avoidance (e.G. Asking for a raise or promotion)
6. Other applications: 1) Minimizing the negative force -> a)Increasing the distance from the region (e.G. Child forced to eat something he doesn’t like) ->2)Mental satiation studies -> a)Experiment (e.G.Repetitive task with “no end”, what are the dynamics?) ->b)Thickness of the boundary between regions (e.G.People with lower mental age can perform longer) ->3)Leadership ->a)History ->b)Experiment on autocratic vs. Democratic styles ->c)Explanation: induced force vs. Valence force ->4)Attitude change ->a) Festinger (dissonance) was Lewin’s student. ->b)Practical problem of nutrition for children (Experiment with housewives),(Results & group dynamics)
7. Organizational change: 1) Action Research (e.G. Experiment with change, worker’s involvement) ->2)Unfreezing: minimizing the forces which maintains status quo, need for change ->3)Moving: training for the “new” way ->4)Refreezing: forces to maintain the new arrangement(e.G. Calgary Police Department implementing a new information system.)
8. More applications: -> 1)Planning ->a)Hierarchical nature of life space ->b)Life space at two levels ->b1)Reality (region of activity) ->b2) Irreality (region of activity in which a situation is imagined) ->b21)Regions are not well defined & locomotion is easy (e.G. Planning a trip) -> 2)Memory -> a)Memory of uncompleted tasks
9. Motivation = Resultant force acting on an individual at a given point in time:
Concepts: 1) Need to reduce tension ->2)Valences create a force field which results in tension(e.G. Cleaning your room) ->3) Level of aspiration ->a)How high you set the goal (e.G. Mark for the course) ->4)Path to the Goal ->a)There is always some resistance, resistance increases when sub-regions have negative Valence.(e.G. Studying for an exam) ->5)Relationship between physical environment & region of activity ->a)Gestalt laws determine the sub-regions (e.G. Emptying the dishwasher, cutting the lawn)
11. Relationship between force & expectation: 1) Expectation as the probability of next event ->a)Cognitive representation ->b)Force in the context of self fulfilling prophecy ->2)Expectation if specified requires ->a)Strength ->b)Direction & point of application ->c)Note force has all these properties; magnitude, direction, point of application ->3)Force not a popular concept in psychology ->4)Criticisms of Lewin ->a)Force as a function of distance unspecified ->b)Difficulty in theory & its communication
**Process theories of motivation**
1. Vroom’s model:Effort= (expectancy)(instrumentality)(valence) -> 1)Expectancy= subjective probability that effort will lead to performance.(e.G. If I study, I will do well in exam.) ->2)Instrumentality= subjective probability that performance will lead to goal attainment. (e.G. If I do well in exam, I will get a good mark (valence))
2. Comparison of Vroom to Lewin’s theory: 1)Force = effort ->2)Expectancy = region of activity of studying, locomotion to region of activity of writing the exam. ->3)Instrumentality = region of activity of good performance, locomotion to region of activity of good mark. ->4)Note that all properties of the region is only represented as a probability (e.G. Cleaning the bathroom)
3. Porter & Lawler’s model & comparison to Lewin’s theory: Satisfaction, ability, type of reward (intrinsic vs. Extrinsic), etc. -> The model predicts that satification is determined by the preceived equity of intrinsic and extrinic rewards for high-level performance.
Comparison to Lewin: 1)Abilities, traits, role perception as part of region of activity. ->2)Perceived effort reward probability as connectivity between region of activity & the goal region ->3)Value of reward, intrinsic/extrinsic, perceived equity of the rewards, and satisfaction as properties of the goal region ->4)Note that this theory is doing exactly what Lewin did not think was a productive approach to psychology. ->5)Note that both expectancy theories do not talk about the valence of the path.
4. Equity theory: 1)Based on the Gestalt idea of preference for balance ->2)Expectation of balance (justice) between one’s input & outcomes in comparison to others. ->a)Experiment: information about pay difference results in changes in productivity (e.G. You will produce more/less than others, if you are getting paid more/less) ->3)Strategy of one investor ->a)Buy a company in trouble, fire half of the employees & double the salary of the rest.
5. Management By Objectives (MBO), goal setting theory: 1)Importance of goals & the process of goal setting ->a)Goal clarity & acceptance ->2)Experimental work on goal setting ->a)Goal specificity & goal difficulty increase productivity (e.G. Do as many as you think is reasonable vs. Specific number)
6. Problems with MBO: 1)Setting the goal level (management likes to set high goals, employees like to set easily achievable ones) ->2)Measurement changes the behaviour (e.G. Claim processors reduce quality to increase quantity) ->3)What to do when goals are not met
1. Rational or Economic model:1)Rationality ->a)Individuals & organizations like to appear rational ->2)Definition ->a)Reduction of uncertainty (e.G. Staff reduces the possibilities from eight to two and manager chooses one. Who has reduced more uncertainty?) ->3)Rational or economic view ->a)Optimum solution based on all alternatives (e.G.Criteria for selection, OR model for scheduling)
2. Simon’s model of subjective rationality: 1)Introduction ->a)Economic man vs. Administrative man ->2)Subjective rationality ->a)Grouping to simplify the situation (e.G. Japanese vs. European cars) ->b)Subjective probabilities (heuristics) ->b1)Small sample size ->b2)Availability (e.G. Recency of information) ->b3)Representativeness (e.G. BMW vs. Peugeot) ->b4)Anchoring (using the only available information) ->b41)Study on number of UN members from African nations ->b5)Framing of the problem (e.G. With car A you get free service for 3 years vs. $500 discount) ->b51)Study on coin toss ->c)Satisficing (tendency to settle for ‘good enough’ as opposed to continuing the search for optimum) (e.G. Buying a car)
3. Garbage Can Model of Decision making: (e.G.Capital punishment),(e.G.Computers in schools) 1)Lack of rationality: organized anarchies ->a)Problematic preferences: members with different preferences ->b)Unclear technology: predicting the outcome of a decision ->c)Fluid membership: change in the membership ->2)Characteristics of the model ->a)Problems ->b)Solutions ->c)Choice opportunities: events (usually external) which map some solution to the problem ->d)Participants
4. Post-decision behavior: 1)Commitment to a failing course of action ->a) Psychological (e.G. Ego defense, I wasn’t wrong, dissonance reduction) ->b) Social (looking bad in front of others) ->c) Project (lengthy projects, problem will be fixed) ->d)Organizational ->d1)For a major decisions many could look bad (e.G. UW scheduling system)
5.Factors affecting decision making: 1)Individual factors ->a)Personality (e.G. Manipulative person) ->b)Perception (e.G. See it as logical situation) ->c)Attitude towards Risk (e.G. Willingness to take risk) ->c1)Culture change at Bell, management must be willing to take risks ->d)Ethics and Values (e.G. Professional ethics) ->d1)Consulting job offer to produce a positive report ->2)The Decision Context ->a)Nature of the decision (e.G. Easy to define vs. More ambiguous) ->a1)location of a warehouse vs. New model of a car ->b)Uncertainty (e.G. Predictability of the outcomes) ->3)The Organizational Context ->a)Organizational Politics (e.G. Satisfying a donor by buying their product) ->b)Organizational Culture (e.G. Risk taking behavior at Bell)
6. Psychology of decision making: 1)Simon’s model for “problem solving/decision making” ->a)Shows cognitive search strategies as opposed to the psychological feeling (e.G. No discussion of valances & forces) ->b)What feels like a decision is usually a conflict ->b1)Situation with Valences (+, +; -, -; +, -) & forces including induced (e.G. Choosing a university, or an area of study) ->2)Psychologically a decision = a commitment to action or entering a region of activity, often at the irreality level.
**Groups & Teams**
1. Groups: Definition 1)Psychological feeling of “we” (e.G. Being stuck in an elevator) ->2)Basic properties ->a)Norms: the rules by which a group operates ->a1)The rules may be explicit or implicit(e.G. Meeting time vs. Actual arrival times) ->a2)Norms create a pattern of expectations or induced force on the members.(e.G. Language in conversation with different groups) -> a3)Norms can be measured by Echo method which is based on the idea of specifying a situation and asking for examples of behaviours that are considered good vs. Bad and the source of reinforcement for each. ->a31)The method was developed by Alex Bavelas, note the Lewinian thinking in terms of region of activity & induced forces. ->a32)Format of the question: what will be a good (bad) thing to do in situation X and who will encourage (discourage) this behaviour?(e.G. Classic studies with children, recent studies with native children)
2. Group cohesiveness: 1)Strength of the valances and the extent to which the induced forces are pointing in the same direction. (e.G. Winter Olympics in Canada) ->2)Studies of group cohesiveness ->a)Classic studies by Sherif ->b)Lab. Studies on the impact of cohesiveness on productivity
3. Effects of induced force: 1)Conformity studies by Asch ->a) Five lines, all agree or contradict. ->a1) This illustrates the capability of a group to obtain confomity, even where conforming means making a pubulic statement that a person know to be untrue. ->2)Obedience studies by Milgram -> a) electric shock ->a1) When a person conforms to a group's behavioural expectations, he or she is given the stamp of legitimacy by the group. Almost all formal groups are placed under an appointed authority figure, who is granted a degree of power by the orgainsation, but if a group does not legitimise this person's action, xtremely potent forces are unleashed shich can result in resistance to authority.
4. Group decision making: 1) Advantages ->a)More knowledge ->b)More communication on issues ->c)Acceptance of the outcome ->2) Disadvantages ->a)Slow & inefficient (e.G.Democracy has many advantages, efficiency isn’t one of them) ->b)Compromise solutions (e.G. Assigned budget for a new program) ->c)One person may dominate ->d)Groupthink (e.G.)Group becomes dogmatic, assumes it is morally right, no one dares to question, loses contact with outside world)
Possible improvements: 1)Brain storming ->a)Generate ideas without evaluation ->2)Nominal group technique ->a)Members express preferences or solutions anonymously ->3)Delphi ->c)Usually when members are not collocated. Cycles of responses to questions, communication of summaries, and indication of preferences.
5. Studies of group decision making: Two studies by Bavelas ->1)Number of roles in the group ->a)Decision in a conflict situation ->2)Encouraging a point of view in a discussion ->a)Perception of leadership and foolishness -> Recent studies at Waterloo: 1)Emergence of expertise ->a)Judgement task with randomly selected person for ‘expert’ ->b)Perception of expertise by the group members ->2)Conflict in group decision making ->a)Two conditions: decide then discuss with the group vs. Discuss with the group and then decide ->b)Which condition results in more conflict? Why?
6. Observations at Bell collaborative centre: 1)Basic situation ->2)Process of information reduction ->a)Summary & presentation ->3)Norm of ‘agreeing’ ->a)Related to mobility in the company ->4)Passive or lack of participation ->5)Two ideas to change the group dynamics ->a)Role of devil’s advocate in the group ->b)Select the ‘reporter’ at the end
Teams in organizations: ->1)Positive connotation of the word ->2)Other words: committee, group, gang ->3)Another view
Conceptual analysis: ->1)Role model ->a)System of communication of expectations, interpretations, behaviour. ->b)Research into role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload. All result in stress.
Roles: 1)Expectations: the role occupant's expectations about what the role entails. ->2)Role Sender: Individuals who ahve behavioural expectations of a role occupant.
Problem: 1)Expected role problem: a clash between role sender and role occupant about the content of their respective roles. ->2)Perceived role problems: a misinterpretation by a role occupant of a role senders' expectation. ->3)Enacted role problems: inappropriate role behaviour.
Task related social structure: 1)Interdependence among tasks requires interaction which leads to the development of a social structure within the context of which the job gets done. The social structure modifies the formal task structure to the one actually used. (e.G. Use of signature stamp) ->2)Comparison to role model ->a)Tasks are concrete ->b)Each task may have a different social structure ->c)The connection between task and role may not be clear (e.G. Emotional problems)
Team implementation studies:1)Background ->2)Training ->a)Analogy to sports: coach vs. Players ->a1)Question of type of sport ->b)Support at shop floor ->c)Workers divided into teams with different objectives(e.G. Work area improvement, work method improvement) ->3)Union’s approach ->a)Negotiated with management for voluntary participation ->b)Advice to workers: don’t take it seriously ->4)Findings ->a)Two types of teams: meeting vs. Working ->b)Impact on the workers in meeting teams ->c)Impact on supervisors in meeting teams ->c1)Case of one supervisor ->d)Only one successful working team ->d1)Manager’s approach & relationship with the workers ->d2)Weekend meetings ->d3)Norm in the working team ->d4)Coordination ->d5)Emphasis on feedback learning ->5)Fundamental problem in implementation ->a)Input-output error: the change as input to current situation as opposed to creating a situation in which the desired results are the output. ->b)While there were difficulties with the meeting teams other teams had emerged. (e.G. Auto insertion & engineering) (Note it is easier to have a team if there are interdependencies)
8. Working relationship between teams study: 1)Background ->a)Initial study of professionals who worked in Japan ->b)Notion of consistency (e.G. Mazda’s policy for new hires) ->2)Role model ->a)Attention to conflict as opposed to consistency ->b)Degree of consistency in expectations ->b1)Similar items ->b2)Similar priority ->b3)Time range ->c)Comparison of two organization ->c1)Nortel & TRW
1. Teams as a network of interactions:1)Interview of 28 people in 5 functions ->a)Solution Primes (SP), IS/IT, Project Managers (PjM), Product Managers (PM), and Operations (OP) ->b)Emphasis on the instances of helpful and not so helpful behaviours of other functions as a measure of variety ->2)Data analysis ->a)Categorization and analysis of the comments where each function is treated as a node in the network
2. Measurement of effectiveness & relation to Echo method: 1)Measure of effectiveness ->a)Ratio of # of helpful comments to # of not helpful comments ->b)Baseline for effectiveness comparison is based on the ratio of the total # of helpful to total # of not helpful comments from all nodes = 0.95 ->c)If ratio > 0.95, then effective; if 0.9 ≤ ratio ≤ 0.95, then average effectiveness; and if ratio < 0.9, then ineffective) ->2)Node & link level analysis ->a)Listed from most to least effective
Two-way interaction between nodes: 1)Summary of interactions ->a)Minimal categorization of comments in the summary ->b)List of helpful and not helpful behaviours, arranged from most to least frequent behaviours ->2)Example of comments ->a)Only one example representing the link colour
What can learn from the closer examination of interactions: 1)Specific information about interaction behaviours between any two nodes ->a)Helpful behaviours are appreciated by the recipient node and should be encouraged ->b)Not helpful behaviours create problems for the recipient node, and if possible, should be discouraged ->2)Impact of not helpful behaviours ->a)At the level of individual: more work ->b)At the level of project: delay (a single not helpful behaviour can cause a delay from 1 day to 3 months)