College of Education – Graduate Studies

Lesson 4. Motivation in Organizations

Objectives:

1. Characterize the nature of motivation, including its importance and basic historical
perspectives.
2. Identify and describe the need-based perspectives on motivation.
3. Identify and describe the major process-based perspectives on motivation.
4. Describe learning-based perspectives on motivation.

A. The Nature of Motivation

Motivation is the set of forces that causes people to engage in one behavior rather than
some alternative behavior.

Why is motivation important?

Managers strive to motivate people in the organization to perform at high levels. This
means getting them to work hard, to come to work regularly, and to make positive contributions
to the organization’s mission. But job performance depends on ability and environment as well
as motivation.

This relationship can be stated as follows:

P=M+A+E

where:
P= performance, M = motivation, A = ability, and E = environment

To reach high levels of performance, an employee must want to do the job well
(motivation); must be able to do the job effectively (ability); and must have the materials,
resources, equipment, and information required to do the job (environment). A deficiency in any
one of these areas hurts performance. A manager should thus strive to ensure that all three
conditions are met.

In most settings, motivation is the most difficult of these factors to manage. If an

employee lacks the ability to perform, she or he can be sent to training programs to learn new job
skills. If the person cannot learn those skills, she or he can be transferred to a simpler job and
replaced with a more skilled worker. If an employee lacks materials, resources, equipment,
and/or information, the manager can take steps to provide them. For example, if a worker cannot
complete a project without sales forecast data from marketing, the manager can contact
marketing and request that information. But if motivation is deficient, the manager faces the
more complex situation of determining what will motivate the employee to work harder.

The Motivational Framework

We can start to understand motivation by looking at need deficiencies and goal-directed

behaviors. A need—something an individual requires or wants—is the starting point. Motivated
behavior usually begins when a person has one or more important needs. Although a need that is
already satisfied may also motivate behavior (for example, the need to maintain a standard of
living one has already achieved), unmet needs usually result in more intense feelings and
behavioral changes. For example, if a person has yet to attain the standard of living, she desires,
this unmet need may stimulate her to action.
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

A need deficiency usually triggers a search for ways to satisfy it. Consider a person who
feels her salary and position are deficient because they do not reflect the importance to the
organization of the work she does and because she wants more income. She may feel she has
three options: to simply ask for a raise and a promotion, to work harder in the hope of earning a
raise and a promotion, or to look for a new job with a higher salary and a more prestigious title.

Next comes a choice of goal-directed behaviors. Although a person might pursue more
than one option at a time (such as working harder while also looking for another job), most effort
is likely to be directed at one option. In the next phase, the person actually carries out the
behavior chosen to satisfy the need. She will probably begin putting in longer hours, working
harder, and so forth. She will next experience either rewards or punishment as a result of this
choice. She may perceive her situation to be punishing if she ends up earning no additional
recognition and not getting a promotion or pay raise. Alternatively, she may actually be rewarded
by getting the raise and promotion because of her higher performance.

Finally, the person assesses the extent to which the outcome achieved fully addresses the
original need deficiency. Suppose the person wanted a 10 percent raise and a promotion to vice
president. If she got both, she should be satisfied. On the other hand, if she got only a 7 percent
raise and a promotion to associate vice president, she will have to decide whether to keep trying,
to accept what she got, or to choose one of the other options considered earlier. (Sometimes, of
course, a need may go unsatisfied altogether, despite the person’s best efforts.)

The following figure shows the Motivational Framework.

Historical Perspectives on Motivation

Historical views on motivation, although not always accurate, are of interest for several
reasons. For one thing, they provide a foundation for contemporary thinking about motivation.
For another, because they generally were based on common sense and intuition, an appreciation
of their strengths and weaknesses can help managers gain useful insights into employee
motivation in the workplace.

The Traditional Approach. One of the first writers to address work motivation— over
a century ago—was Frederick Taylor. Taylor developed a method for structuring jobs that he
called scientific management. As one basic premise of this approach, Taylor assumed that
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

employees are economically motivated and work to earn as much money as they can. Hence, he
advocated incentive pay systems. He believed that managers knew more about the jobs being
performed than did workers, and he assumed that economic gain was the primary thing that
motivated everyone. Other assumptions of the traditional approach were that work is inherently
unpleasant for most people and that the money they earn is more important to employees than the
nature of the job they are performing. Hence, people could be expected to perform any kind of
job if they were paid enough. Although the role of money as a motivating factor cannot be
dismissed, proponents of the traditional approach took too narrow a view of the role of monetary
compensation and also failed to consider other motivational factors.

The Human Relations Approach. The human relations approach supplanted scientific
management in the 1930s. The human relations approach assumed that employees want to feel
useful and important, that employees have strong social needs, and that these needs are more
important than money in motivating employees. Advocates of the human relations approach
advised managers to make workers feel important and to allow them a modicum of self-direction
and self-control in carrying out routine activities. The illusion of involvement and importance
were expected to satisfy workers’ basic social needs and result in higher motivation to perform.
For example, a manager might allow a work group to participate in making a decision even
though he had already determined what the decision would be. The symbolic gesture of seeming
to allow participation was expected to enhance motivation, even though no real participation
took place.

The Human Resource Approach. The human resource approach to motivation carries
the concepts of needs and motivation one step farther. Whereas the human relationists believed
that the illusion of contribution and participation would enhance motivation, the human resource
view, which began to emerge in the 1950s, assumes that the contributions themselves are
valuable to both individuals and organizations. It assumes that people want to contribute and are
able to make genuine contributions. Management’s task, then, is to encourage participation and
to create a work environment that makes full use of the human resources available. This
philosophy guides most contemporary thinking about employee motivation.

B. Need-based Perspectives on Motivation

Need-based perspectives represent the starting point for most contemporary thought on
motivation, although these theories also attracted critics. The basic premise of need-based
theories and models, consistent with our motivation framework introduced earlier, is that humans
are motivated primarily by deficiencies in one or more important needs or need categories. Need
theorists have attempted to identify and categorize the needs that are most important to people.
(Some observers call these “content theories” because they deal with the content, or substance, of
what motivates behavior.) The best-known need theories are the hierarchy of needs and the ERG
theory.

The Hierarchy of Needs

The hierarchy of needs, developed by psychologist Abraham Maslow in the 1940s, is the
best-known need theory. Influenced by the human relations school, Maslow argued that human
beings are “wanting” animals. They have innate desires to satisfy a given set of needs.
Furthermore, Maslow believed that these needs are arranged in a hierarchy of importance, with
the most basic needs at the foundation of the hierarchy.

The following figures illustrates the Hierarchy of Needs.

 College of Education – Graduate Studies

The three sets of needs at the bottom of the hierarchy are called deficiency needs because
they must be satisfied for the individual to be fundamentally comfortable. The top two sets of
needs are termed growth needs because they focus on personal growth and development.

The most basic needs in the hierarchy are physiological needs. These include the needs
for food, sex, and air. Next in the hierarchy are security needs: things that offer safety and
security, such as adequate housing and clothing and freedom from worry and anxiety.
Belongingness needs, the third level in the hierarchy, are primarily social. Examples include the
need for love and affection and the need to be accepted by peers. The fourth level, esteem needs,
actually encompasses two slightly different kinds of needs: the need for a positive self-image and
self-respect and the need to be respected by others. At the top of the hierarchy are self-
actualization needs. These involve a person’s realizing his or her full potential and becoming all
that he or she can be.

Maslow believed that each need level must be satisfied before the level above it can
become important. Thus, once physiological needs have been satisfied, their importance
diminishes, and security needs emerge as the primary sources of motivation. This escalation up
the hierarchy continues until the self-actualization needs become the primary motivators.
Suppose, for example, that Jennifer Wallace earns all the money she needs and is very satisfied
with her standard of living. Additional income may have little or no motivational impact on her
behavior. Instead, Jennifer will strive to satisfy other needs, such as a desire for higher self-
esteem.

However, if a previously satisfied lower-level set of needs becomes deficient again, the
individual returns to that level. For example, suppose that Jennifer unexpectedly loses her job. At
first, she may not be too worried because she has savings and confidence that she can find
another good job. As her savings dwindle, however, she will become increasingly motivated to
seek new income. Initially, she may seek a job that both pays well and satisfies her esteem needs.
But as her financial situation grows worse, she may lower her expectations regarding esteem and
instead focus almost exclusively on simply finding a job with a reliable paycheck.
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

In most businesses, physiological needs are probably the easiest to evaluate and to meet.
Adequate wages, toilet facilities, ventilation, and comfortable temperatures and working
conditions are measures taken to satisfy this most basic level of needs. Security needs in
organizations can be satisfied by such things as job continuity (no layoffs), a grievance system
(to protect against arbitrary supervisory actions), and an adequate insurance and retirement
system (to guard against financial loss from illness and to ensure retirement income).

Most employees’ belongingness needs are satisfied by family ties and group relationships
both inside and outside the organization. In the workplace, people usually develop friendships
that provide a basis for social interaction and can play a major role in satisfying social needs.
Managers can help satisfy these needs by fostering interaction and a sense of group identity
among employees. At the same time, managers can be sensitive to the probable effects on
employees (such as low performance and absenteeism) of family problems or lack of acceptance
by coworkers. Esteem needs in the workplace are met at least partially by job titles, choice
offices, merit pay increases, awards, and other forms of recognition. Of course, to be sources of
long-term motivation, tangible rewards such as these must be distributed equitably and be based
on performance. Self-actualization needs are perhaps the hardest to understand and the most
difficult to satisfy. For example, it is difficult to assess how many people completely meet their
full potential. In most cases, people who are doing well on Maslow’s hierarchy will have
satisfied their esteem needs and will be moving toward self-actualization. Working toward self-
actualization, rather than actually achieving it, may be the ultimate motivation for most people.
In recent years there has been a pronounced trend toward people leaving well-paying but less
fulfilling jobs to take lower-paying but more fulfilling jobs such as nursing and teaching. This
might indicate that they are actively working toward self-actualization.

The ERG (Existence, Relatedness, and Growth) Theory

The ERG Theory, developed by Yale psychologist Clayton Alderfer, is another

historically important need theory of motivation. In many respects, ERG theory extends and
refines Maslow’s needs hierarchy concept, although there are also several important differences
between the two. The E, R, and G stand for three basic need categories: existence, relatedness,
and growth. Existence needs—those necessary for basic human survival—roughly correspond to
the physiological and security needs of Maslow’s hierarchy. Relatedness needs—those involving
the need to relate to others—are similar to Maslow’s belongingness and esteem needs. Finally,
growth needs are analogous to Maslow’s needs for self-esteem and self-actualization.

In contrast to Maslow’s approach, ERG theory suggests that more than one kind of need
—for example, both relatedness and growth needs—may motivate a person at the same time. A
more important difference from Maslow’s hierarchy is that ERG theory includes a satisfaction-
progression component and a frustration-regression component. The satisfaction-progression
concept suggests that after satisfying one category of needs, a person progresses to the next level.
On this point, the need hierarchy and ERG theory agree. The need hierarchy, however, assumes
that the individual remains at the next level until the needs at that level are satisfied. In contrast,
the frustration-regression component of ERG theory suggests that a person who is frustrated by
trying to satisfy a higher level of needs eventually will regress to the preceding level.

The Dual Structure Theory

Another important need-based theory of motivation is the Dual-Structure Theory,

which is in many ways similar to the need theories just discussed. This theory was originally
called the “two-factor theory,” but the more contemporary name used here is more descriptive.
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

This theory has played a major role in managerial thinking about motivation, and though
few researchers today accept the theory, it is nevertheless widely known and accepted among
practicing managers.

The following figure shows the diagrammatic presentation of the Dual Structure Theory.

Motivation factors such as achievement and recognition were often cited by people as
primary causes of satisfaction and motivation. When present in a job, these factors apparently
could cause satisfaction and motivation; when they were absent, the result was feelings of no
satisfaction rather than dissatisfaction. The other set of factors, hygiene factors, came out in
response to the questions about dissatisfaction and lack of motivation. The respondents
suggested that pay, job security, supervisors, and working conditions, if seen as inadequate,
could lead to feelings of dissatisfaction. When these factors were considered acceptable,
however, the person still was not necessarily satisfied; rather, he or she was simply not
dissatisfied.

To use the dual-structure theory in the workplace, Herzberg recommended a two-stage

process. First, the manager should try to eliminate situations that cause dissatisfaction, which
Herzberg assumed to be the more basic of the two dimensions. For example, suppose that Susan
Kowalski wants to use the dual-structure theory to enhance motivation in the group of seven
technicians she supervises. Her first goal would be to achieve a state of no dissatisfaction by
addressing hygiene factors. Imagine, for example, that she discovers that their pay is a bit below
market rates and that a few of them are worried about job security. Her response would be to
secure a pay raise for them and to allay their concerns about job security.
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

According to the theory, once a state of no dissatisfaction exists, trying to improve

motivation further through hygiene factors is a waste of time. At that point, the motivation
factors enter the picture. Thus, when Susan is sure that she has adequately dealt with hygiene
issues, she should try to increase opportunities for achievement, recognition, responsibility,
advancement, and growth. As a result, she would be helping her subordinates feel satisfied and
motivated. Unlike many other theorists, Herzberg described explicitly how managers could apply
his theory. In particular, he developed and described a technique called “job enrichment” for
structuring employee tasks.

Other Important Needs

The need for achievement is most frequently associated with the work of David
McClelland. This need arises from an individual’s desire to accomplish a goal or task more
effectively than in the past. Individuals who have a high need for achievement tend to set
moderately difficult goals and to make moderately risky decisions.

High-need achievers also want immediate, specific feedback on their performance.

They want to know how well they did something as quickly after finishing it as possible.
Preoccupation with work is another characteristic of high-need achievers. They think about it
on their way to the workplace, during lunch, and at home. They find it difficult to put their work
aside, and they become frustrated when they must stop working on a partly completed project.
Finally, high-need achievers tend to assume personal responsibility for getting things done.
They often volunteer for extra duties and find it difficult to delegate part of a job to someone
else. Accordingly, they derive a feeling of accomplishment when they have done more work than
their peers without the assistance of others.

Individuals also experience the need for affiliation—the need for human companionship.
Researchers recognize several ways that people with a high need for affiliation differ from those
with a lower need. Individuals with a high need tend to want reassurance and approval from
others and usually are genuinely concerned about others’ feelings. They are likely to act and
think as they believe others want them to, especially those with whom they strongly identify and
desire friendship. As we might expect, people with a strong need for affiliation most often work
in jobs with a lot of interpersonal contact, such as sales and teaching positions.

The third major individual need is the need for power—the desire to control one’s
environment, including financial, material, informational, and human resources. People vary
greatly along this dimension. Some individuals spend much time and energy seeking power;
others avoid power, if at all possible. People with a high need for power can be successful
managers if three conditions are met. First, they must seek power for the betterment of the
organization rather than for their own interests. Second, they must have a fairly low need for
affiliation because fulfilling a personal need for power may well alienate others in the workplace.
Third, they need plenty of self-control to curb their desire for power when it threatens to interfere
with effective organizational or interpersonal relationships.

C. Process-based Perspectives on Motivation

Process-based perspectives are concerned with how motivation occurs. Rather than
attempting to identify motivational stimuli, process perspectives focus on why people choose
certain behavioral options to satisfy their needs and how they evaluate their satisfaction after
they have attained these goals. Three useful process perspectives on motivation are the equity,
expectancy, and goal-setting theories.
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

The Equity Theory of Motivation

The Equity Theory of Motivation is based on the relatively simple premise that people
in organizations want to be treated fairly. The theory defines equity as the belief that we are
being treated fairly in relation to others and inequity as the belief that we are being treated
unfairly compared with others. Equity theory is just one of several theoretical formulations
derived from social comparison processes. Social comparisons involve evaluating our own
situation in terms of others’ situations. In this chapter, we focus mainly on equity theory because
it is the most highly developed of the social comparison approaches and the one that applies most
directly to the work motivation of people in organizations.

Forming Equity Perceptions. People in organizations form perceptions of the equity of

their treatment through a four-step process. First, they evaluate how they are being treated by the
firm. Second, they form a perception of how a “comparison-other” is being treated. The
comparison-other might be a person in the same work group, someone in another part of the
organization, or even a composite of several people scattered throughout the organization. Third,
they compare their own circumstances with those of the comparison other and then use this
comparison as the basis for forming an impression of either equity or inequity. Fourth, depending
on the strength of this feeling, the person may choose to pursue one or more of the alternatives
discussed in the next section.

Equity theory describes the equity comparison process in terms of an input-to-outcome

ratio. Inputs are an individual’s contributions to the organization—such factors as education,
experience, effort, and loyalty. Outcomes are what the person receives in return— pay,
recognition, social relationships, intrinsic rewards, and similar things. In effect, then, this part of
the equity process is essentially a personal assessment of one’s psychological contract. A
person’s assessments of inputs and outcomes for both self and others are based partly on
objective data (for example, the person’s own salary) and partly on perceptions (such as the
comparison-other’s level of recognition).

The Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Expectancy Theory is a more encompassing model of motivation than equity theory.

Over the years since its original formulation, the theory’s scope and complexity have continued
to grow.

The Basic Expectancy Model. Victor Vroom is generally credited with first applying the
theory to motivation in the workplace. The theory attempts to determine how individuals choose
among alternative behaviors. The basic premise of expectancy theory is that motivation depends
on how much we want something and how likely we think we are to get it.

Effort-to-Performance Expectancy. Effort-to-performance expectancy is a person’s

perception of the probability that effort will lead to successful performance. If we believe our
effort will lead to higher performance, this expectancy is very strong, perhaps approaching a
probability of 1.0, where 1.0 equals absolute certainty that the outcome will occur. If we believe
our performance will be the same no matter how much effort we make, our expectancy is very
low—perhaps as low as 0, meaning that there is no probability that the outcome will occur. A
person who thinks there is a moderate relationship between effort and subsequent performance—
the normal circumstance—has an expectancy somewhere between 1.0 and 0.
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

The following figure shows Effort-to-Performance Expectancy.

Performance-to-Outcome Expectancy. Performance-to-outcome expectancy is a

person’s perception of the probability that performance will lead to certain other outcomes. If a
person thinks a high performer is certain to get a pay raise, this expectancy is close to 1.0. At the
other extreme, a person who believes raises are entirely independent of performance has an
expectancy close to 0. Finally, if a person thinks performance has some bearing on the prospects
for a pay raise, his or her expectancy is somewhere between 1.0 and 0. In a work setting, several
performance-to-outcome expectancies are relevant because several outcomes might logically
result from performance. Each outcome, then, has its own expectancy.

Outcomes and Valences. An outcome is anything that might potentially result from
performance. High-level performance conceivably might produce such outcomes as a pay raise, a
promotion, recognition from the boss, fatigue, stress, or less time to rest, among others. The
valence of an outcome is the relative attractiveness or unattractiveness—the value—of that
outcome to the person. Pay raises, promotions, and recognition might all have positive valences,
whereas fatigue, stress, and less time to rest might all have negative valences. The strength of
outcome valences varies from person to person. Work-related stress may be a significant
negative factor for one person but only a slight annoyance to another. Similarly, a pay increase
may have a strong positive valence for someone desperately in need of money, a slight positive
valence for someone interested mostly in getting a promotion, or—for someone in an
unfavorable tax position—even a negative valence! The basic expectancy framework suggests
that three conditions must be met before motivated behavior occurs. First, the effort-to-
performance expectancy must be well above zero. That is, the worker must reasonably expect
that exerting effort will produce high levels of performance. Second, the performanceto-outcome
expectancies must be well above zero. In other words, the person must believe that performance
will realistically result in valued outcomes. Third, the sum of all the valences for the potential
outcomes relevant to the person must be positive. One or more valences may be negative as long
as the positives outweigh the negatives. For example, stress and fatigue may have moderately
negative valences, but if pay, promotion, and recognition have very high positive valences, the
overall valence of the set of outcomes associated with performance will still be positive.

Conceptually, the valences of all relevant outcomes and the corresponding pattern of
expectancies are assumed to interact in an almost mathematical fashion to determine a person’s
level of motivation. Most people do assess likelihoods of and preferences for various
consequences of behavior, but they seldom approach them in such a calculating manner.
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

D. Learning-based Perspectives on Motivation

Learning is another key component in employee motivation. In any organization,

employees quickly learn which behaviors are rewarded and which are ignored or punished. Thus,
learning plays a critical role in maintaining motivated behavior. Learning is a relatively
permanent change in behavior or behavioral potential that results from direct or indirect
experience. For example, we can learn to use a new software application program by practicing
and experimenting with its various functions and options.

How Learning Occurs

The Traditional View: Classical Conditioning. The most influential historical approach
to learning is classical conditioning, developed by Ivan Pavlov in his famous experiments with
dogs. Classical conditioning is a simple form of learning in which a conditioned response is
linked with an unconditioned stimulus. In organizations, however, only simple behaviors and
responses can be learned in this manner. For example, suppose an employee receives very bad
news one day from his boss. It’s possible that the employee could come to associate, say, the
color of the boss’s suit that day with bad news. Thus, the next time the boss wears that same suit
to the office, the employee may experience dread and foreboding. But this form of learning is
obviously simplistic and not directly relevant to motivation. Learning theorists soon recognized
that although classical conditioning offered some interesting insights into the learning process, it
was inadequate as an explanation of human learning. For one thing, classical conditioning relies
on simple cause-and-effect relationships between one stimulus and one response; it cannot deal
with the more complex forms of learned behavior that typify human beings. For another,
classical conditioning ignores the concept of choice; it assumes that behavior is reflexive, or
involuntary. Therefore, this perspective cannot explain situations in which people consciously
and rationally choose one course of action from among many. Because of these shortcomings of
classical conditioning, theorists eventually moved on to other approaches that seemed more
useful in explaining the processes associated with complex learning.

The Contemporary View: Learning as a Cognitive Process. Although it is not tied to a

single theory or model, contemporary learning theory generally views learning as a cognitive
process; that is, it assumes that people are conscious, active participants in how they learn. First,
the cognitive view suggests that people draw on their experiences and use past learning as a basis
for their present behavior. These experiences represent knowledge, or cognitions. For example,
an employee faced with a choice of job assignments will use previous experiences in deciding
which one to accept. Second, people make choices about their behavior. The employee
recognizes that she has two alternatives and chooses one. Third, people recognize the
consequences of their choices. Thus, when the employee finds the job assignment rewarding and
fulfilling, she will recognize that the choice was a good one and will understand why. Finally,
people evaluate those consequences and add them to prior learning, which affects future choices.
Faced with the same job choices next year, the employee will probably be motivated to choose
the same one. As implied earlier, several perspectives on learning take a cognitive view. Perhaps
foremost among them is reinforcement theory. Although reinforcement theory per se is not new,
it has only been applied to organizational settings in the last few years.

Reinforcement Theory and Learning

Reinforcement theory (also called “operant conditioning”) is generally associated with

the work of B. F. Skinner. In its simplest form, reinforcement theory suggests that behavior is a
function of its consequences. Behavior that results in pleasant consequences is more likely to be
repeated (the employee will be motivated to repeat the current behavior), and behavior that
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

results in unpleasant consequences is less likely to be repeated (the employee will be motivated
to engage in different behaviors). Reinforcement theory also suggests that in any given situation,
people explore a variety of possible behaviors. Future behavioral choices are affected by the
consequences of earlier behaviors. Cognition, as already noted, also plays an important role.
Therefore, rather than assuming the mechanical stimulus-response linkage suggested by the
traditional classical view of learning, contemporary theorists believe that people consciously
explore different behaviors and systematically choose those that result in the most desirable
outcomes.

Suppose a new employee at Monsanto in St. Louis wants to learn the best way to get
along with his boss. At first, the employee is very friendly and informal, but the boss responds by
acting aloof and, at times, annoyed. Because the boss does not react positively, the employee is
unlikely to continue this behavior. In fact, the employee next starts acting more formal and
professional and finds the boss much more receptive to this posture. The employee will probably
continue this new set of behaviors because they have resulted in positive consequences.

Types of Reinforcement in Organizations

The consequences of behavior are called reinforcement. Managers can use various kinds
of reinforcement to affect employee behavior. There are four basic forms of reinforcement—
positive reinforcement, avoidance, extinction, and punishment.

Positive reinforcement is a reward or other desirable consequence that follows behavior.

Providing positive reinforcement after a particular behavior motivates employees to maintain or
increase the frequency of that behavior. A compliment from the boss after an employee has
completed a difficult job and a salary increase following a worker’s period of high performance
are examples of positive reinforcement. This type of reinforcement has been used at Corning’s
ceramics factory in Virginia, where workers receive bonuses for pulling blemished materials
from assembly lines before they go into more expensive stages of production. Intuit has started a
program of giving relatively small but relatively frequent rewards when workers perform well.
So, for example, rather than getting one large bonus at the end of the year, a high performer may
get several smaller ones throughout the year.

Avoidance, also known as negative reinforcement, is another means of increasing the

frequency of desirable behavior. Rather than receiving a reward following a desirable behavior,
the person is given the opportunity to avoid an unpleasant consequence. For example, suppose
that a boss habitually criticizes employees who dress casually. To avoid criticism, an employee
may routinely dress to suit the supervisor’s tastes. The employee is thus motivated to engage in
desirable behavior (at least from the supervisor’s viewpoint) to avoid an unpleasant, or aversive,
consequence.

Extinction decreases the frequency of behavior, especially behavior that was previously
rewarded. If rewards are withdrawn for behaviors that were previously reinforced, the behaviors
will probably become less frequent and eventually die out. For example, a manager with a small
staff may encourage frequent visits from subordinates as a way of keeping in touch with what is
going on. Positive reinforcement might include cordial conversation, attention to subordinates’
concerns, and encouragement to come in again soon. As the staff grows, however, the manager
may find that such unstructured conversations make it difficult to get her own job done. She then
might begin to brush off casual conversation and reward only to-the-point “business”
conversations. Withdrawing the rewards for casual chatting will probably extinguish that
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

behavior. We should also note that if managers, inadvertently or otherwise, stop rewarding
valuable behaviors such as good performance, those behaviors also may become extinct.

Punishment, like extinction, also tends to decrease the frequency of undesirable

behaviors. Punishment is an unpleasant, or aversive, consequence of a behavior. Examples of
punishment are verbal or written reprimands, pay cuts, loss of privileges, layoffs, and
termination. Many experts question the value of punishment and believe that managers use it too
often and use it inappropriately. In some situations, however, punishment may be an appropriate
tool for altering behavior. Many instances of life’s unpleasantness teach us what to do by means
of punishment. Falling off a bike, drinking too much, or going out in the rain without an
umbrella all lead to punishing consequences (getting bruised, suffering a hangover, and getting
wet), and we often learn to change our behavior as a result. Furthermore, certain types of
undesirable behavior may have far-reaching negative effects if they go unpunished. For instance,
an employee who sexually harasses a coworker, a clerk who steals money from the petty cash
account, and an executive who engages in illegal stock transactions all deserve punishment.

Schedules of Reinforcement in Organizations

Should the manager try to reward every instance of desirable behavior and punish every
instance of undesirable behavior? Or is it better to apply reinforcement according to some plan or
schedule? As you might expect, it depends on the situation.

The following table presents the Schedules of Reinforcement.

Continuous reinforcement rewards behavior every time it occurs. Continuous

reinforcement is very effective in motivating desirable behaviors, especially in the early stages of
learning. When reinforcement is withdrawn, however, extinction sets in very quickly. But
continuous reinforcement poses serious difficulties because the manager must monitor every
behavior of an employee and provide effective reinforcement. This approach, then, is of little
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

practical value to managers. Offering partial reinforcement according to one of the other four
schedules is much more typical.

Fixed-interval reinforcement is reinforcement provided on a predetermined, constant

schedule. The Friday-afternoon paycheck is a good example of a fixed-interval reinforcement.
Unfortunately, in many situations the fixed-interval schedule does not necessarily maintain high
performance levels. If employees know the boss will drop by to check on them every day at 1:00
p.m., they may be motivated to work hard at that time, hoping to gain praise and recognition or
to avoid the boss’s wrath. At other times of the day, the employees probably will not work as
hard because they have learned that reinforcement is unlikely except during the daily visit.

Variable-interval reinforcement also uses time as the basis for applying reinforcement,
but it varies the interval between reinforcements. This schedule is inappropriate for paying
wages, but it can work well for other types of positive reinforcement, such as praise and
recognition, and for avoidance. Consider again the group of employees just described. Suppose
that instead of coming by at exactly 1:00 p.m. every day, the boss visits at a different time each
day: 9:30 a.m. on Monday, 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, and so on. The
following week, the times change. Because the employees do not know exactly when to expect
the boss, they may be motivated to work hard for a longer period—until her visit. Afterward,
though, they may drop back to lower levels because they have learned that she will not be back
until the next day.

The fixed- and variable-ratio schedules gear reinforcement to the number of desirable
or undesirable behaviors rather than to blocks of time. With fixed-ratio reinforcement, the
number of behaviors needed to obtain reinforcement is constant. Assume, for instance, that a
work group enters its cumulative performance totals into the firm’s computer network every
hour. The manager of the group uses the network to monitor its activities. He might adopt a
practice of dropping by to praise the group every time it reaches a performance level of 500
units. Thus, if the group does this three times on Monday, he stops by each time; if it reaches the
mark only once on Tuesday, he stops by only once. The fixed-ratio schedule can be fairly
effective in maintaining desirable behavior. Employees may acquire a sense of what it takes to be
reinforced and may be motivated to maintain their performance.

With variable-ratio reinforcement, the number of behaviors required for reinforcement

varies over time. An employee performing under a variable-ratio schedule is motivated to work
hard because each successful behavior increases the probability that the next one will result in
reinforcement. With this schedule, the exact number of behaviors needed to obtain reinforcement
is not crucial; what is important is that the intervals between reinforcement not be so long that
the worker gets discouraged and stops trying. The supervisor in the fixed-ratio example could
reinforce his work group after it reaches performance levels of 325, 525, 450, 600, and so on. A
variable-ratio schedule can be quite effective, but it is difficult and cumbersome to use when
formal organizational rewards, such as pay increases and promotions, are the reinforcers. A
fixed-interval system is the best way to administer these rewards.

References:

Diefendorff, J. M. & Chandler, M. M. (2010). “Motivating Employees,” in Sheldon Zedeck

(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association).
 College of Education – Graduate Studies

Griffin, R.W. & Moorhead, G. (2014). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and
Organizations. South-Western, Cengage Learning, Ohio.

Pinder, C. (2008). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008).

Lord, R., Diefendorff, J., Schmidt, A. & Hall, R. (2010). “Self-Regulation at Work,” in Susan
Fiske, Daniel Schacter, and Robert Sternberg (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, vol.
61 (Palo Alto: Annual Reviews), pp. 543–568.

Robbins, S. & Judge, T. A. (2017). Organizational Behavior. Pearson Education Limited,

Edinburgh Gate, Harlow