Organisational Behaviour and Leadership Index: 1. Executive summary 2. Comparing Maslow’s theory of motivation with Skinner’s reinforcement theory in view of critique of each theory with special reference to the South African workplace. 3. A critical evaluation of the similarities and differences between reinforcement and the expectancy theories of motivation. Motivating a choice as to which one has the mist relevance to explaining the work motivation of employees in South Africa. 4. How managers can encourage effective performance by managing the reward process in their organisations.
Applying two motivational theories to effect performance. 5. References Executive Summary: Other than being familiarised with different theories and that all are motivation related; the three assignments led to discoveries that: 1. One theory can be embedded in another when the purpose for a theory is changed, i. e. from a need to a behaviour. 2. By comparing theories, content (need) theories focus on the need as a motivator per se, whereas process/cognitive theories focus on how we are motivated.
They differ a lot and similarities are rather superficial.
The third assignment revealed that by focusing on a feature like performance one could discover specific motivational theories suited to it and how other can be instrumental to its goal. It is my opinion that companies will really benefit from considering making use of the expectancy model. It is an individual directed approach to further effective performance. They will have to apply the equity theory to make their approach fair and just. In fact, the expectancy model is as much an operational model as it is a motivational theory. 1.
Comparing Maslow’s theory of motivation with Skinner’s reinforcement theory in view of critique of each theory with special reference to the SA workplace. McShane & Von Glinow (2010: 136) states that Maslow’s theory is a holistic approach of needs. The scope is so wide that it rather serves as a frame work. That may explain why research can find little or no empirical support for the theory, reports Robbins (2001: 157). Most other theories address a group of needs. Maslow’s initial belief was that needs is a bottom to top – lower to higher – hierarchy. This paper will prove it not to be so.
Reinforcement is the external control of consequences (needs) to motivate the person. Reinforcement can use any need in any order as a reward to strengthen a behaviour. Maslow’s theory is need based and reinforcement behaviour based, but the latter uses the need to reinforce. By comparing, I will show how the reinforcement theory is applied within Maslow’s need theory differently. I incorporated Luthans (2011: 164) and Schultz et al (2003:56) practical applications to Maslow’s theory to show how his theory operates and then show how the reinforcement theory applies the needs to reinforce positive or negative behaviour. ) Basic (physiological) needs. Practical implication: Pay, subsidies, company cafeterias, coupons. All employers, also in SA, will pay their employees, thus satisfying basic needs indirectly. Yearly inflation related adjustments influenced by labour unions keeps the basic need satisfied. A problem for the Maslow’s theory is that in satisfying the need it tends to lose its motivational function and it becomes a right. Marikana and De Doorns are recent events where employees went on a strike because pay was considered as insufficient to meet physiological and social (schooling) demands.
In reinforcement theory a reward only has meaning when it strengthens a behaviour. The reward must also be immediate to be effective. Salary will now fail as positive reinforcement. The reinforcement theory will resort to food vouchers/coupons as short term enforcers to strengthen positive behaviour. Withholding the coupons will be negative reinforcement. ii. ) Security needs. Practical implication: Security plans, pension, health insurance, severance pay, unions. Most employers in SA will have a pension fund and medical scheme in place. Mining companies in SA set safety rules that must be adhered to.
How does the reinforcement theory apply this? They use consequences like money, holidays, certificates and recognition to reinforce behaviour to apply safety rules as antecedent. Negative reinforcement is used when safety rules are broken. This can be achieved by negative body language, disapproval, cutting bonuses or withholding a bonus. Thus different needs in any order! In extreme cases the reinforcement can end in dismissal of an employee. iii. ) Social needs. Practical implication: Formal and informal workgroups, company sports and affiliations.
Recreation clubs and sport facilities (like the ERPM rugby club) are common to most established South African mining companies serving as positive reinforcement. Reinforcement theory may use negative need reinforcement like suspended admission to the club which can differ in time frame according to the severity of the transgression, like being late at work or aggressiveness in the work place. iv. ) Esteem needs. Practical implication: Recognition, merit-based pay and merit promotion, job titles, status, training seminars, competence- and mastery rewards ordinary employees.
All of the above need satisfactions are usually satisfactory met in large SA companies. Reinforcement uses the rewards to control behaviour. v. ) Self-actualization. Practical implication: Personal growth, realization of potential, achieving a goal, autonomy, promotion opportunities, opportunity for creativity. For example: Amasol initiates a rugby team (a social need). They provide many players for the Cheetah team. The performance success satisfies the esteem level (status) and self-actualisation level (realization of potential/ achievement/ reaching a goal).
Reinforcement can use any reward (also on other levels) to control behaviour. SA universities set academic achievement as a prerequisite to be able to play club rugby. 2. A critical evaluation of the similarities and differences between reinforcement and expectancy theories of motivation. Motivating a choice as to which one has the most relevance to explaining the work motivation of employees in SA. Skinner’s reinforcement theory proposes that behaviour is controlled by its consequences, not by needs. To control behaviour it must be valued and graded.
This is done by negative or positive reinforcement. Maslow’s theory is basically set at that the job is done, not how. The problem with Maslow’s theory is that the behaviour is not specifically related to a need, because it assumes it will gratify itself on a hierarchal way. This is the great flaw in his theory. The reward (controlling the consequence) is a need satisfied or withheld! But it resets itself towards the antecedent with the effect that the behaviour is strengthened to apply the need. Actually they are strengthening the application of the antecedent.
Maslow’s theory simply rewards the need. Reinforcing antecedents (the goals) named are rules, instructions, goals and advice. Slocum & Hellriegel (2011: 138) mentions that one principle of reinforcement theory is that it must be administered immediately t to be effective. Thus short term goals are more effective. In the expectancy theory goals can realize over time. The reinforcement theory wants to know how much repetition of a reward is necessary to obtain the goal. The expectancy theory is based on the question: How much effort would you exert to obtain a particular reward?
In the reinforcement theory the reward is personal but the goal is externally directed. The reward can be positive or negative. One of the beliefs of the expectancy theory is that the rewards will be personal to enable you to achieve your personal goals. This relationship has a valence which can be positive or negative. According to Schermerhorn et al (2011: 97) “Managing reinforcement properly can change the direction, level, and persistence of an individual’s behaviour”. The expectancy theory manages the effort-performance relationship to achieve an expected reward-goal relationship.
Robbins (2001: 173) states that the personal emphasis requires that the employer must involve ability, potential and opportunity to maximize effort and performance. The behaviour theory ignores ability, potential and opportunity. Slocum and Hellriegel’s (2011: 176) discussion of the expectancy model has a content that reveals several implied similarities and differences with the reinforcement theory. The expectancy model is a cognitive approach that’s growth directed. In behaviour theory growth is stunted. The expectancy model is humanistic.
The behaviour theory can demean and dehumanise. In expectancy theory you decide your own behaviour, in spite of constraints like rules and norms. In reinforcement theory behaviour is enforced by antecedents. In the expectancy theory situations you face determine whether you are inherent motivated or unmotivated. In reinforcement theory you are externally positively motivated or negatively unmotivated. The reinforcement theory stimulates the performance to get the expected performance related reward. The reinforcement theory controls the reward to get the expected behaviour.
The results of the comparisons determine which theory has greater relevance to the work motivation of employees in SA. If only about work done then is the reinforcement theory. If one must be sure that it is the right man for the right job that he/she has the potential and/or ability to get the job done and he/she can be skilled in to how to do his task properly, expectancy is the better choice. I believe that as South Africa is a developing country. The need is great for discovering people with abilities and potential.
Learning opportunity and opportunity to develop skills is absolutely necessary as there is a vast shortage of capable, experienced and skilled employees. * There is an abundance of unfilled positions on skilled – and executive levels. * Especially in municipalities and government workplaces there is an alarming use of contractors, suggesting ignorant, inexperienced and some unable employees. Thus: the expectancy theory is the more relevant in the work motivation of employees in South Africa. 3. How managers can encourage effective performance by managing the reward process in their organisations.
Applying two motivational theories to effect performance. 3. 1 To Consider: a. ) Which motive theory suits performance best? According to Schultz et al (2003: 84) performance management is “…to align individual effort behind the strategy of the organisation”. To accomplish this, it must be a learning orientated organisation that takes into account the special needs of workers: independence, individualism and personal achievement. These are growth needs. My answer to effective performance management is the expectancy model. It is the core. b. ) Which motive related theory suits the performance-reward relationship best?
Kreitner & Kinickin (2010: 284) present a general model of organizational reward systems. The types are financial/ material, social and psychic. In managing the reward process towards effective management the two-factor theory will be applied as it fit all the needs, but more so the growth needs. It is the starting point of the expectancy theory. The equity theory, though apart, is not discussed. 3. 2 The Application: Schermerhorn et al (2011: 120) set an approach that answers to the choice of this paper. i. ) Influencing expectancy. Effort must result in effective performance.
Goal setting is fundamental and it must be individually tailored. To determine and develop proper abilities management must give an employee proper opportunity to perform a task so as to build experience and become able. Management must see to it that he is supported by an experienced colleague. In South Africa deprived communities are sadly still deprived from opportunity. Competence or developed skills to perform adequately in a particular job requires opportunity for training in skills and competencies. ii. ) Instrumentality. Build a performance-reward relationship.
Ideally the manager must understand the personal needs of every employee. He must have knowledge of as many possible reward systems and how they are individual related. Intrinsic rewards satisfy individual needs. “They are valued outcomes directly received through task performance” according to Schermerhorn et al (2011: 131). Management should lend priority to intrinsic rewards in the reward process. Extrinsic rewards satisfy the expectancy or rules of the employer to earn a reward. This might explain why company policies and administration and supervision act as dissatisfying in the two-factor theory.
It seems logical that managers will limit it in the reward process. Rewards fail because of too much emphasis on monetary rewards and lacking an “appreciation” effect. There is a too long delay between performance and rewards. Too many one-size-fit-all rewards. In managing the reward process managers must set out to remedy this. Managers should apply the equity theory to safe-guard effective performance. Where comparison and rewards takes place and are valued equity is a necessity. A fair and just appraisal is necessary when rewarding effective performance. In addition to salaries in managing the reward process, managers must xplore new pay techniques for effective performance. This will vary from merit pay, skill pay, competency pay, bonuses, profit sharing and even certificates and recognition as a form of pay. iii. ) Influence valences. Identify the needs that are important to each individual and try to adjust available rewards to match the needs. The two-factor theory is chosen in this frame as it covers all needs. 3. 3 Practical application of the approach: The company could put two employee- directed operations in place: 1. ) Skill training opportunities can make employees capable and effective in their performance.
In itself there are already rewards like competence, personal achievement and recognition. A certificate is always highly valued. The latter might serve for promotion as a reward or new job opportunities. A material reward is competency pay. When the skill training leads to improved performance rewards can be furthered by skill pay, merit pay or profit sharing. 2. ) Quality control circles (QC circles): voluntary problem-solving groups committed to improving quality and reducing costs. Quality control circles are voluntary problem-solving groups from the same work area. They discuss quality improvement and ways to reduce costs.
The rewards they receive are recognition and independence. Kreitner (2009: 386) reports that “… , benefits such as direct cost savings, improved worker-management relations and greater individual commitment have been reported”. 4. References Bagraim, J. , Potgieter, T. , Viedge, C. , Werner, A. &Schultz, H. , ed 2003. Organisational behaviour: a contemporary South African perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Hunt, J. G. , Osborn, R. N. , Uhl-Bien, M. &Schermerhorn, J. R. 2011. Organizational behavior. 11th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kreitner, R. & Kinickin, A. 2010. Organizational behavior. 9th ed.
Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Kreitner, R. 2009. Principles of management. 11th ed. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. Luthans, F. 2011. Organizational behavior: an evidence-based approach. 12th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Irwin. McShane, S. L. & Von Glinow, M. 2010. Organizational behavior: emerging knowledge and practice for the real world. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Robbins, S. P. 2001. Organizational behavior. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Slocum, J. W. & Hellriegel, D. 2011. Principles of organizational behavior. 13th ed. Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Cite this Organisational Behaviour and Leadership
Organisational Behaviour and Leadership. (2016, Sep 13). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/organisational-behaviour-and-leadership/