Process TheoriesChapter 6 • Learning is the process by which a relatively enduring change in behavior occurs as a result of practice. • Social learning – we acquire much of our behavior by observation and imitation in a social context. This view of behavior is a function of both personal and environmental conditions
Social Learning Theory • Introduces vicarious learning (modeling), symbolism, and self-control. • Self-efficacy has three dimensions: magnitude (level of task difficulty a person believes she can attain), strength (if the magnitude is strong or weak), and generality (degree the expectation is generalized across situations). • An employee’s sense of self-efficacy influences perception, motivation, and performance. Self-efficacy judgments influence our choices of tasks, situations, and companions; how much effort we will spend; and how long we will try.
Analysis of Task Requirements Enactive Mastery Vicarious Experience Verbal Persuasion Physiological Arousal Estimation of Orchestration Capacity (self-efficacy) Consequences of Self-Efficacy (goal level, persistence) Attributional Analysis of Experience Performance Assessment of Personal Situation Resources/Constraints Feedback Gist & Mitchell, 1992 Self-Efficacy
Gist & Mitchell, 1992 Self-Efficacy Categories of Experience (Bandura) E.N – personal attainment V.E. – modeling V.P P.A. - anxiety The individual’s cognitive appraisal and integration of these experience ultimately determine S.E. (Bandura, 1982) Assessment Process - INDEPENDENT Analysis of task requirements – inferences about what it takes to perform at various levels Attributional analysis of experience – individual’s judgments about why a particular performance level occurred. Seek answers to why things happen for mastery and curiosity. Effort, ability, luck, task difficulty Self assessment of resources and constraints for performing task. Personal factors (anxiety, desire, effort) and situational factors (competing demands, distractions) Assessment processes yield interpretative data in a summary level (weighted) judgment process to defines self-efficacy – which may vary across situations. Over time, as task experience increases, S.E. becomes more routine and accurate. Information Processing Issues Judgments about efficacy become more routine and automatic as experience with a task increases because the individual refers to prior performance and adjusts self-efficacy accordingly. Accuracy – based on accuracy of resources, and specific attributes that contribute to performance – predictive validity. Feedback Understanding of task attributes, complexity, and environment Training and information can improve performance (behavioral, analytical, psychological)
Operant Conditioning • When learning occurs as a consequence of behavior. Generally, behavior is controlled by altering the consequences – reinforcement and punishment. • Behavior modification – individual learning by reinforcement. Generally, reinforce for desirable behavior – punish unwanted behavior.
Behavioral Self-Management • Also known as self-control. Self-control is displayed when, in the relative absence of immediate external constraints, a person engages in behavior whose previous probability has been less than that of alternatively available behaviors. • Suggests that individuals will choose behaviors that they have not chosen consistently in the past and this selection may be based on the expectation of positive outcomes in the future.
Expectancy Theory • Motivation is a process concerning choices among alternative forms of voluntary activity. • First level outcomes – associated with doing the job itself: productivity, turnover, quality, etc. • Second level outcomes – events (rewards and punishments) that first level outcomes are likely to produce: promotion, pay raise, termination
Expectancy Theory • Valence – Preference for outcomes. Positively valent when it is preferred; negatively valent when it is not preferred or avoided. Valence is applied to first and second level outcomes • Expectancy – individual’s belief concerning the likelihood or subjective probability that a particular behavior will be followed by a particular outcome. Perceived chance of some event occurring because of a behavior. Values ranging from 0 to 1. • Force – or motivation. The intent of expectancy theory is to assess the magnitude and direction of all the forces acting on the individual. The greatest force is the one likely to occur • Ability – person’s potential for doing the job
Expectancy Theory • Instrumentality – Perception that first-level outcomes are associated with second level outcomes. Range from –1 to +1. A negative indicates a perception that attainment of the second level is certain without the first outcome and impossible with it. A positive indicates that the first outcome is necessary and sufficient for the second outcome to occur.
Expectancy Theory • Valence1 = sum (Valence2 x Instrumentality) This indicates that the valence of the first level outcomes is a sum of the multiplication of the valences of the second level outcomes multiplied by their respective instrumentalities • Motivation is a function of first level outcomes valences’ multiplied by expectancy. If expectancy is low, there will be little motivation. If an outcome’s valence is 0, it will have little effect. • Performance is a multiplicative function of motivation and force
Outcome 1 High Effort Performance Goal Outcome 2 Expectancy “What are my chances of reaching my performance goal if I work hard?” Outcome 3 Instrumentality “What are my chances of getting various outcomes if I achieve my performance goal?” Valence “How much do I value these outcomes?” Decision to Exert Effort Expectancy “What are my chances of reaching my performance goal if I slack off?” Outcome 1 Low Effort Performance Goal Outcome 2 Outcome 3 A General Model of Vroom’sExpectancy Theory
Outcome 1 (1.0) (+2) Make $3,600 in commission Outcome 2 High Effort Performance Gain respect from peers and recognition from boss (.75) (+1) (.80) Work hard for 10 hours a day Sell nine cars a month Outcome 3 (-.9) Have more time to spend with boyfriend (+2) Instrumentality Expectancy Valence Outcome 1 (1.0) (+.5) Make $1,200 in commission Low Effort Performance Outcome 2 (.80) (.75) (-1) Work hard for 5 hours a day Sell three cars a month Lose respect from peers and recognition from boss Outcome 3 (.60) (-2) Get fired Applying Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
1 Value of Reward 4 Abilities and traits 8 Perceived equitable rewards 7A Intrinsic rewards 6 Performance (accomplishment) 9 Satisfaction 3 Effort 7B Extrinsic rewards 2 Perceived effort - reward probability 5 Role perceptions Porter and Lawler’s Expectancy Model
Managerial Implications of Expectancy Theory • Determine the outcomes employees value. • Identify good performance so appropriate behaviors can be rewarded. • Make sure employees can achieve targeted performance levels. • Link desired outcomes to targeted levels of performance. • Make sure changes in outcomes are large enough to motivate high effort. • Monitor the reward system for inequities.
Organizational Implications of Expectancy Theory • Reward people for desired performance, and do not keep pay decisions secret. • Design challenging jobs. • Tie some rewards to group accomplishments to build teamwork and encourage cooperation. • Reward managers for creating, monitoring, and maintaining expectancies, instrumentalities, and outcomes that lead to high effort and goal attainment. • Monitor employee motivation through interviews or anonymous questionnaires. • Accommodate individual differences by building flexibility into the motivation program.
Inputs Time Education/training Skills Creativity Seniority Loyalty to organization Age Personality traits Effort expended Personal appearance Factors Considered When Making Equity Comparisons Outcomes Pay/bonuses Fringe benefits Challenging assignments Job security Career advancement/promotions Status symbols Pleasant/safe working environment Opportunity for personal growth/ development Recognition Participation in important decisions
Negative and Positive Inequity • An Equitable Situation- Comparison in which another person’s ratio of outcomes to inputs is equal to your outcome to input ratio- Example: Self = $2 = $2 per hour vs. Other = $4 = $2 per hour 1 hour 2 hours • Negative Inequity- Comparison in which another person receives greater outcomes for similar inputs- Example: Self = $2 = $2 per hour vs. Other = $3 = $3 per hour 1 hour 1 hour • Positive Inequity- Comparison in which another person receives lesser outcomes for similar inputs- Example: Self = $3 = $3 per hour vs. Other = $2 = $2 per hour 1 hour 1 hour
Restoring Equity • Change the inputs • Change the outcomes • Change the referent other • Change the inputs or outputs of the referent other • Change the situation
Organizational Justice Distributive Justice: The perceived fairness of how resources and rewards are distributed. Procedural Justice: The perceived fairness of the process and procedures used to make allocation decisions. Interactional Justice: The perceived fairness of the decision maker’s behavior in the process of decision making.
Practical Lessons from Equity Theory • Employee’s beliefs and attitudes affect job performance. • Managers should pay attention to employees’ perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice because they affect many different employee outcomes. • Managers benefit by allowing employees to participate in making decisions about important work outcomes. • Perceptions of fairness are increased by giving employees the opportunity to appeal decisions that affect them.
Practical Lessons from Equity Theory (continued) • Employees are more likely to accept change when they believe the organization is treating them fairly and equitably. • Managers can promote cooperation and teamwork among work group members by treating them equitably. • Treating employees inequitably can lead to litigation and costly court settlements. • A climate for justice is associated with positive employee outcomes.
Goals Goal: What an individual is trying to accomplish. Directing one’s attention Regulating one’s effort Task performance Goals motivate the individual by... Increasing one’s persistence Encouraging the development of goal- attainment strategies or action plans
Key Insight of Goal-Setting B High A = Performance of committed person with ability B = Performance of committed person working at full capacity C = Performance of person lacking commitment Job performance C A Low Hard Easy Moderate Goal difficulty
Insights from Goal-Setting Research • Difficult Goals Lead to Higher Performance.- Easy goals produce low effort because the goal is too easy to achieve.- Impossible goals ultimately lead to lower performance because people begin to experience failure. • Specific Difficult Goals May or May Not Lead to Higher Performance.- Goal specificity pertains to the quantifiability of a goal.- Specific difficult goals impair performance on novel, complex tasks when employees do not have clear strategies for solving these types of problems. • Feedback Enhances The Effect of Specific, Difficult Goals.- Goals and feedback should be used together.
Insights from Goal-Setting Research(continued) • Participative Goals, Assigned Goals, and Self-Set Goals Are Equally Effective.- Managers should set goals by using a contingency approach. Different methods work in different situations. • Goal Commitment and Monetary Incentives Affect Goal-Setting Outcomes.- Difficult goals lead to higher performance when employees are committed to their goals.- Difficult goals lead to lower performance when employees are not committed to their goals.- Goal based incentives can lead to negative outcomes for employees in complex, interdependent jobs requiring cooperation. * Employees may not help each other. * Quality may suffer as employees pursue quantity goals. * Commitment to difficult goals may suffer.