Lecture 3: Rewards & punishments Flashcards
Types of motivation
Extrinsically motivated behaviours are governed by the prospect of instrumental gain and loss, while intrinsically motivated behaviours are engaged for their own sake like task enjoyment
What is the impact of intrinsic motivation on performance?
Performance is synonymous with behaviour, it is something that people actually do and can be observed. Extrinsic incentives are motivating only to the extent that an individual believes attaining the incentive is dependent on other things of value like foods, cars, housing etc. Unclear the link btw intrinsic motivation and performance
Undermining effect
Refers to the idea that the presentation of incentives on an initially enjoyable task reduces following intrinsic motivation for the task
Self-determination theory
Explains how intrinsic motivation fuels the direction, intensity and persistence of motivated behaviour. There is a relationship between the choice of direction and intrinsic motivation. Those who find a task more intrinsically motivating expend a higher degree of intensity or effort in its production. So IM is linked to performance through their impact on motivational persistence. Tasks emphasising performance quality will have a strong link to intrinsic motivation (due to more complexity + engagement of skill). Tasks emphasizing performance quantity have a weaker link to intrinsic motivation (lower in complexity, less cognitive investment)
Does incentivization moderate the predictive validity of intrinsic motivation?
Intrinsic motivation includes the presence of incentives. Incentive presence is whether it is offered while contingency is how an incentive is predicated on performance. Directly salient incentives provide a clear, unambigious link to performance. Indirectly salient incentives have a tie to performance, but the link is less clear or direct
What is the distinction btw the 4 contingency categories?
Engagement, completion, performance and non-contingent incentives. Categories describe whether an incentive was promised, mere completion of the task, attaining some level of performance or not at all related to the task. These incentive contingencies were developed for use in highly controlled, manipulated lab experiments
Crowding out hypothesis
When incentives are directly performance salient they possess immediacy and salience. If performance motives are intrinsic or extrinsic, then intrinsic motivation is a poorer predictor as it not the sole determinant of performance motivation. When there are direct incentives then there is a crowding out effect as incentives become more salient. So, the predictive utility of intrinsic motivation will be weakened as it is the only determinant. But indirectly performance-salient incentives lack the salience and immediacy factors-> less impact on behaviour
When is intrinsic motivation more important for behaviour?
When indirectly salient incentives are weak or absent. If they are more salient then intrinsic motivation will be less important for behaviour (focus should be on whether incentives reduce the extent to which intrinsic motivation covaries with predicting performance)
What matters more for performance: incentives or intrinsic motivation?
Intrinsic motivation should predict performance depending on how performance is defined and the contingency of incentives provided. External incentives can also explain a large share of performance. For quantity: incentives should be the deciding predictors, while intrinsic motivation should more strongly predict quality performance
What are the hypotheses?
1A: intrinsic motivation is positively related to performance
1B: the relation btw intrinsic motivation and performance is stronger for quality-type tasks
2A : when incentivized, the relationship btw IM and performance is strengthened by indirectly performance-salient incentives
2B : when incentivized, the the relationship btw IM and performance is weakened by directly performance-salient incentives
3A: for performance quantity: extrinsic incentives are a better predictor
3B: for performance quality, intrinsic motivation is a better predictor
What was the method and analysis?
- had to report effect sizes for the relation btw intrinsic motivation and performance
- autonomous regulation: maintained by intrinsic/extrinsic forces
- IM: participation in an activity for enjoyment
- task enjoyment
- free choice task persistence: intentionally given an opportunity to engage in a task for no compensation
- performance was divided into: quality, quantity, or both
What are the results?
Hypothesis 1 received support, as there was a correlation of .26 between intrinsic motivation and performance. Hypothesis 2 received support as the correlation btw IM and performance was stronger for quality performance than quantity. Hypothesis 3 and 4 were supported as IM, incentive presence + incentive contingency interacted. The relationship between IM and performance was stronger for indirectly performance-salient incentives. Hypothesis 5 and 6 were supported as incentives explained quantity performance while IM explained quality performance. Relative importance of intrinsic motivation was identical to that of extrinsic incentives. The IM- perf link was strongest under work, physical contexts, adults, weakest in academics, children, adolescents. Samples that were more IM on average were higher performing on average. Incentive contingency has a strong link to IM, rather than incentives alone. IM increases with age
Collateral damage effect
For example, organizations might boost performance/effectiveness quickly and directly by tying incentives more closely to performance, but if this practice occurs at the expense of other critical factors such as individual well-being, morale, and job satisfaction, such programs
may not be worthwhile. Can foster cognitive/attentional deficits
Implications?
Simple tasks, high stakes, productivity, compliance-> direct salient incentives. But then creativity and teamwork will be disincentivized
How is transactional leadership effective?
Leader contingent reward behaviour is more strongly correlated than transformational leadership to some employee outcomes. Contingent and noncontingent punishment behaviours have important relationships with employee attitudes, perceptions, behaviours
Why has there been a trendy away from transactional leadership?
- strategic, visionary, transformational leadership seem more important as it addresses more complex and important issues, while transactional focusses on day-to-day interactions
- issues with the definition as an exchange with followers (rewards seen as an inducement, explicit agreement to receive rewards as criticisms)
- leaders administer feedback noncontingently (positive feedback to those not doing well and vice versa)
Contingent reward behaviour
leader’s administration of positive feedback in the form of recognition, praise, and/or acknowledgment to
those employees who demonstrate good performance, show improvements in performance, or exhibit desirable behaviours
Contingent punishment behaviour
leader’s administration of negative feedback in the form of reprimands, criticism, or disapproval to employees who exhibit poor or declining performance, or undesirable behaviours
What are the relationships between leader reward, punishment behaviour and employee satisfaction?
- transformational leadership had stronger positive relationships than contingent reward behaviour with satisfaction with leader and effectiveness
- contingent reward behaviour had stronger positive relationships with job satisfaction + performance
- contingent reward behaviour had the strongest relationships with all employee satisfaction, followed by noncontingent reward behaviour etc, same with leader contingent reward behaviour
- leader contingent rewards was positively related to all aspects of employee satisfaction
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)
Individual behaviour that is not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, that promotes the effective functioning of the organization. Included OCB1- aimed at helping other individuals
and OCB-O is aimed at the organization itself
4 types of performance
Task performance (performance on requirements of the job), OCB-I, OCB-O and group or unit level performance
What are the relationships between leader reward, punishment behaviour and employee performance?
- the strength of the positive relationship between leader contingent reward behaviour and performance was as strong as the negative relationship btw noncontingent punishment behaviour and performance
- leader contingent punishment had no relationship with individual measures of employee performance but was effective for groups
- noncontingent punishment had a stronger impact on group performance than contingent reward behaviours
What are the mechanisms through which leader reward + punishment behaviour work?
- role clarity: feedback can help clarify expectations, related to satisfaction through reduce role ambiguity, send signals to other employees (when contingent)
- perceptions of fairness: contingent rewards are positively related to perceptions of justice, which is positively related to satisfaction and performance
- job satisfaction: due to clarifying expectations, get what they deserve, satisfied when inappropriate behaviours are punished
- trust in leader: noncontingent behaviour has negative effects, as it makes up credibility, being able to influence attitudes and perceptions, directly related to performance
- perceived organizational support: perceptions that the org values their contribution + cares about wellbeing, leaders represent this-> value of these contributions
- organizational commitment: more committed as followers believe that leaders are fair, credible, more support, satisfaction, while noncontingent punishments have a negative relationship
What are the misconceptions about leader reward + punishment behaviour?
- transformational leadership is more effective than transactional for org change : contingent rewards decrease cynicism with organizational change, enhance trust
- to be effective, leaders should provide rewards to all employees: should be dependent on specific employee behaviour, like should not reward individual effort but wanting teamwork
- punishment does not work in org settings: linking discipline to poor performance can improve performance, increase satisfaction, is avoided due to potential negative feelings but should clarify to avoid this
- leaders should reward publically, punish privately: negative feedback can be used as a learning experience, public punishment is not public humiliation
- positive feedback is always better than negative feedback: when rewards are not linked to performance they have little effect but rewards can have a positive effect on discipline, rewards cannot always be used
- enough recognition and praise is provided: not always accurate, should be given more often and frequently
- rewarding employees will decreases their IM to perform: non monetary rewards have the opposite effect
- in a competitive environment, org do not have resources to provide rewards to employees: non-monetary incentives are meaningful, many low cost methods of providing recognition, can lose resources without rewards
- providing recognition or paise is not part of a manager’s job, salary is enough: effective managers provide more specific feedback, white collar workers do not desire praise less than blue collar workers
- annual performance reviews provide enough recognition or discipline: rewards + punishments should be given timely, large lag usually and should be given regularly , no feedback seen as negative by employees
What are the recommendations for giving feedback?
- administer rewards and punishments contingently by linking to performance
- specify the reasons for rewards and punishments, rather than individual qualities
- personalize rewards + punishments by getting to know what they value
- provide timely recognition + discipline as employees will perceive stronger links the shorter the delay
- match the magnitude of the reward/punishment to behaviour as significant accomplishments should involve large rewards
- administer rewards + punishments consistently across employees time and within categories of behaviours or types of performance-> more fair
How can the work environment be structured so that performance can lead to both intrinsic + extrinsic rewards?
By enlarging jobs to make them more interesting, intrinsically rewarding and making higher pay and promotions contingent on effective performance
Cognitive evaluation theory
Argues that external factors can undermine intrinsic motivation like rewards, deadlines etc, while other external factors like providing choices can enhance feelings of autonomy. So social-contextual factors that promote autonomy and competence enhance intrinsic motivation, while factors that diminish that reduce intrinsic motivation. But when rewards were given independent of task engagement, not anticipated, then extrinsic rewards did not undermine IM
What are the problems with CET as a theory of work motivation?
- most studies that tested CET were lab experiments rather than org studies
- difficult to incorporate CET into prevalent behavioural and expectancy valence approaches
- many activities are not intrinsically interesting and using strategies to improve this are not always feasible
- people who work need to earn money so using rewards is practical and easy
- implies focus on either IM or EM
Internalization
is defined as people taking in values, attitudes, or regulatory structures, such that the external regulation of a behaviour is transformed into an internal regulation and thus no longer requires the presence of an external contingency. It is a continuum rather than a dichotomy
What is central to SDT?
The distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation. Autonomy is endorsing actions at the highest level of reflection, while being controlled involves acting with a sense of pressure
External regulation
Initiated and maintained by contingencies external to the person, so they act with intention of obtaining a desired consequence or avoiding undesired ones
Introjected regulation
The regulation was controlling the person like contingent self esteem (pressures people to behave to feel worth + ego involvement)
Identified regulation
people feel greater freedom and volition because the behaviour is more congruent with their personal goals and identities. The cause of their behaviour is an internal locus of control, as it reflects an aspect of themselves
Integrated regulation
people have a full sense that the behaviour is an integral part of who they are, that it emanates from their sense of self and is thus self-deter- mined. It is the most advanced form of extrinsic motivation, it does not become IM but is still EM. This is because the activity is instrumentally important for personal goals rather than driven by pure interest
What is the Ryan and Connell approach?
Use questionnaires by being presented with reasons for doing the behaviours that reflect different types of motivation then indicate to what extent it is true for them. Introjected reasons are behaving to avoid guilt, identified reasons are as people value the behaviour, IM is for interest. Quasi-simplex pattern emerges as each subscale correlates most positively with the subscales closest to it
What are the basic psychological needs?
Competence and autonomy underlie intrinsic motivation, the need for relatedness is needed for internationalization. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy distinguishes identification or integration rather than introjection will occur. It focusses on the consequences of the extent to which individuals are able to satisfy the needs within social environments. Satisfaction of these basic needs was related to wellbeing
How does satisfaction of needs enhance work outcomes?
Through persistence and maintained behaviour change, effective performance, particularly on tasks needing creativity, cognitive flexibility, conceptual understanding, job satisfaction, positive work-related attitudes, OCB and psychological adjustment and well-being.
How can social contexts promote internalization?
- autonomy support predicts identification + integration, improved grades
- 3 factors can help: meaningful rational for doing the task, acknowledgement that people might not find the activity interesting, emphasis on choice rather than control led to greater internalization
- with facilitating conditions: internalization was integrated while with less conditions then internalization was introjected- valued the activity less and felt less free
- interpersonal ambience (in line with climate + interpersonal styles)
What are the differences between the factors that lead to internalization or intrinsic motivation?
- they do not need limits or contingencies to maintain intrinsic motivation
- internalization (integration) is facilitated by endorsement of behaviours by significant others which is less important for IM
What are the individual differences in people’s orientations?
- autonomy orientation (general tendency to experience social contexts as autonomy supportive and to be self-determined)-> self-actualization, self-esteem
- control orientation (general tendency to experience social contexts as controlling)-> self-consciousness, type A pattern, pay, EM
- impersonal orientation (general tendency to be amotivated)-> external locus of control, self-derogation, depression
What is the primary difference between SDT and other theories?
relative strength of autonomous vs controlled motivation rather than on the total amount of motivation
Goal-setting theory
People’s goal representations are the cause of behaviour and it will be maximized when they set specific, difficult goals that have high valence and then understand what behaviours lead to the goals and feel competent to do them. Characteristics of goals are used to predict work outcomes
Action regulation theory
Includes decision latitude which it equated with autonomy. Maximal motivation and action result there is enough decision latitude. This promotes greater intrinsic motivation. Control combined with optimal complexity leads to optimal performance + wellbeing
Job characteristics theory
Focuses on facilitating high internal work motivation (does not distinguish btw types of motivation). Should design jobs that they will provide variety, completion of a whole + positive impact on the lives of others, afford freedom and discretion to the employee and provide meaningful performance feedback
Kanfer’s task specific motivation
It uses the interaction of motivation and individual differences in abilities to predict work performance. Motivation involves 2 cognitive resource allocation processes: distal (utility of person doing the task + instrumentality of expending effort) and proximal. When they are complex and required effort, proximal factors like self-monitoring and self-regulation are important for performance. More important for how a goal is achieved than motivation
Needs and motives theories
Maslow: 5 and 3 classes of needs with lower order needs to higher order needs.
Herzberg: satisfiers and motivators
SDT: addresses more fundamental motivation questions like how it is directed and energized
Kelman’s theory of internalization
Attitude-related behaviour can be compliant and short lived or can be influenced by others if the person identifies with others or the behaviour is congruent with the person’s values. Focus is on others, and person will be likely to engage in all behaviours shown or endorsed by others
Organizational commitment
- distinguishes between identification with the organization, internalization of the organization’s values and compliance-> correlates with IM, introjected regulation, identified regulation
-affective commitment is identification with, emotional attachment to and involvement in the organization
What were the main findings of SDT research?
- positive relations between managerial autonomy support (acknowledging perspectives, relevant info in a non-controlling way) and positive work outcomes, led to more satisfaction of needs for competence, relatedness, autonomy
- predicted autonomous motivation, related to org commitment
- transformational leaders were more likely to adopt autonomous goals than controlled goals
- autonomous motivation is superior to controlled motivation
- intrinsic motivation led to better performance on tasks that are interesting but autonomous extrinsic motivation yielded better performance on tasks that are important, require discipline or determination
What are the propositions of this research?
- autonomous EM will be more effective in predicting persistence on effort-driven tasks, while IM is more effective in predicting persistence on interesting tasks
- controlled motivation will yield poorer performance on heuristic tasks than autonomous motivation, but will lead to equal or better short-term performance on algorithmic tasks
- autonomy-supportive work climates facilitate internalization of EM resulting in more autonomous self-regulation
- specific aspects of jobs interact with work climates to influence autonomous motivation for work like rewards, choice, positive feedback etc
- concrete managerial behaviours that support autonomy in the workplace can be identified empirically
6.Autonomous causality orientation and autonomy-supportive work climates will have addictive positive effects on motivation + work outcomes
Idk extra findings
- Autonomous motivation, supported by autonomy and need satisfaction, predicts prosocial and organizational citizenship behaviours more effectively than controlled motivation
- Autonomous motivation strengthens the positive link between job satisfaction and performance, especially for complex or meaningful tasks, while controlled motivation weakens this link
- Tangible rewards undermine intrinsic motivation unless administered in an autonomy-supportive and equitable climate, highlighting the need for careful reward design
- Autonomous extrinsic motivation, fostered by interesting, meaningful jobs and autonomy-supportive climates, enhances performance, satisfaction, and internalization of values beyond intrinsic motivation alone
