Discussion: View Thread

Kim Boal wrote:

> Boal's Law: Organizations get the behavior they reward, and not the
> behavior they want.
>
> If you are willing to assume that most people act intendedly rational, than
> if they are not engaging in behaviors you desire, it is probably because
> they are being rewarded, or expect to be rewarded, for doing so.

This is a thought provoking comment, Dr. Boal and it speaks to the utility of
motivating people -- in some schools of thought -- but others may contest this
idea. I just covered the topic of motivation with my masters students today
so...here's a thought or two:

If there is a Benthamite or hedonist calculus that motivates people within
organizations, how then do we motivate people in organizations where the
community values 'virtuous' behaviors (ie: being just, being honest)
(Aristotle)? Similarly, how then do we motivate folks in organizations where
some sense of moral duty is required (ie: certain olympic or non profit
organizations)(Kant)? How do we motivate where the principles that govern
social discourse change because the organization exists in several social
cultures (ie: multinationals) (Durkheim)?

In other words, if I chose to measure motivation by criterion other than
response to rewards granted by the organization, would I have a measure at
all?

Gene.

__________________________________________________________________
Eugene G. Kowch, Ph.D. Candidate
SSHRC Doctoral Fellow, Educational Administration
Research Area: University Education Technology Leadership Architectures:
Policy Networks and Communities.
http://www.usask.ca/edadmin/genehome.html

"The world is richer than it is possible to express in any single language".
(Ilya Prigogine, 1942)

Jay Warner asks how academics define motivation. While not pretending to
speak for most, or even many academics, I think we define it in much the
same way that nonacademic folks might. From a nonacademic point of view,
motivation might be described as the degree to which an individual wants
and tries hard to do well at a particular task. In essence, motivation
deals with two interrelated issues : 1) the choices that people make
regarding the things that they will and will not do; and 2) the amount of
effort or intensity that people put into the activities they choose to
perform. Definitionally, I would say that motivation refers o those
psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction, intensity and
persistence of voluntary behavior that is goal directed.

When I teach Organizational Behavior, I always teach my students the
following:

Boal's Law: Organizations get the behavior they reward, and not the
behavior they want.

The tricky part involves clearly defining the behaviors you want, and
making sure that your link rewards they want to them. This, of course,
assumes that other things, (ie., lack of knowledge/ability or resources, or
a more powerful set of linkages between alternative behaviors and rewards
does not exist), do not inhibit the linkages between effort, performance,
and rewards.

If you are willing to assume that most people act intendedly rational, than
if they are not engaging in behaviors you desire, it is probably because
they are being rewarded, or expect to be rewarded, for doing so.

Best, Kim Boal
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

In a message dated 3/19/99 4:47:41 PM Central Standard Time,
Kowch@duke.usask.ca writes:

<< If there is a Benthamite or hedonist calculus that motivates people within
organizations, how then do we motivate people in organizations where the
community values 'virtuous' behaviors (ie: being just, being honest)
(Aristotle)? Similarly, how then do we motivate folks in organizations where
some sense of moral duty is required (ie: certain olympic or non profit
organizations)(Kant)? How do we motivate where the principles that govern
social discourse change because the organization exists in several social
cultures (ie: multinationals) (Durkheim)?

In other words, if I chose to measure motivation by criterion other than
response to rewards granted by the organization, would I have a measure at
all? >>

People join organizations for various reasons. In my estimation, nonprofits
are staffed by a majority who find reward in the virtue of the organization's
mission, the nature of the work itself, and/or the personal sense of
fullfilment associated with the end product of a given task. Those who do not
find a that virtue is a reward in itself, probably will not stay with the
nonprofit for very long. The organization need only represent accurately the
nature of the job, including its inherent rewards to attract workers.

Your questions may imply that all rewards are under the control of the
organization. Some employees take positions for personal reasons and are not
primarily motivated by the organizations reward system. Experience in a new
field, best of all available options, opportunity to work with a specific or
type of individual, maybe the work is easy and doesn't take a lot of time away
from other interests, etc. may be drivers for some. I wonder if organizational
designers or leaders should attempt to meet all reward needs of employees -
not that any one here has suggested it. Perhaps a starting interview question
should be "How do you motivate yourself?"

At the minimum, Boal's law does apply on the level of business unit objectives
and above. The people within a unit may come and go, but the unit will
continue to exist and be rewarded with larger staffing, equipment, prestige,
etc. if it meets objectives. Eventually, I imagine it will draw the kind of
people willing to focus on the kind of behaviors that receive unit level and,
ultimately, individual rewards.

Just a few thoughts,

Ken Bandy
KenBandy@aol.com

Jay Warner asked:
I have a question, for which you each may be well suited. I want to
know what it is “motivation.” I figure that if I can get terms that
work for me, then I can figure out how to instill it into various
people, and solve a lot of problems. I'm really confused on this issue.
------------------------------------------------------------
My reply:

One of the best texts that I have come across dealing
with the topic of motivation is Work Redesign by
Hackman and Oldham. I do not have the full reference
to hand. Another worker who has done much work in
this area is Kenneth Kovach.
I do think that the definition of motivation varies
with the context in which it is applied, once one tries
to go outside the bounds of dictionary style definitions.

Tony

Dr. Anthony Ingold
Reader & Director of Research
Birmingham College of Food, Tourism & Creative Studies
Summer Row, Birmingham B3 1JB, UK
Tel: 0121 604 1000 x 345
Fax: 00 44 121 200 1376
Mobile: 07970 126909

Writing from the point of view of a journalist (I've written about human
resource management for almost 15 years, and have spent the last 5 years
researching what it means to have a calling), I believe it's impossible to
intellectualize high-quality motivation.

Short-term, low motivation comes from:

financial reward
fear of pain
all the elements of Maslow's lowest levels: shelter, food, etc.

All those motivations demand constant attention and upgrading in order to keep
the employee invested in the job/company. A constant struggle to sustain
interest.

Once those are taken care of, the employer organization must tap into the
employee's higher drives -- or else risk losing that employee.

It's easy to quickly assume that I'm talking about so-called "meaning." Which
I am, to some extent. However, I believe that meaning can be found in any kind
of work -- not just the so-called "meaningful" work of good deeds.

If the employee can identify larger meaning in his or her work of the moment,
that employee's experience of the job is going to be elevated. No matter what
the job is. And that kind of motivation is self-perpetuating, superceding the
short electric thrills of pay increases and mylar balloons and coffee mugs.

The meaning of work gives the employee a sense of living for a larger purpose,
dignity, self-respect, a feeling of enduring improvement. Inspiration. And you
can achieve those feelings just as easily by working in a gas station or donut
shop as you can by rescuing stranded dolphins or feeding hungry children.

Martha Finney
author, Find Your Calling, Love Your Life (Simon & Schuster, 98)
http://www.heartlandatwork.com

On 20 Mar 99 at 10:50, David Moon wrote:

> Martha,
>
> I have read with interest the various comments concerning
> motivation. I find it fascinating that most of the discussion
> centers on the content theories of motivation. The most notable
> offered by Maslow. While there is much to be said for his hierarchy
> of needs I am curious as to why no mention has been made of the
> process theories, especially that of Victor Vroom. I believe that
> the Expectancy Theory takes our understanding of motivation to a new
> level. Its dynamic nature provides greater understanding of how we
> behave to ultimately satisfy our very personal needs.

Perhaps it's because much of the research (stuff I looked at some
time ago so it may be outdated) basically came up a cropper in
supporting the theory.

Mind you, Maslow's theory is probably even more flawed.


Robert Bacal, author of PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,(McGraw-Hill). Details at
http://members.xoom.com/perform and http://members.xoom.com/cooperate.
"Performance management - about people and creating success"=
Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm

Martha,

I have read with interest the various comments concerning motivation. I
find it
fascinating that most of the discussion centers on the content theories
of
motivation. The most notable offered by Maslow. While there is much to
be said
for his hierarchy of needs I am curious as to why no mention has been
made of the
process theories, especially that of Victor Vroom. I believe that the
Expectancy
Theory takes our understanding of motivation to a new level. Its
dynamic nature
provides greater understanding of how we behave to ultimately satisfy
our very
personal needs.

I don't discount the contribution of the content theories especially as
a
foundation upon which to build, but in the end they are very static and
frequently
don't address the deeper issues of what keeps us engaged in any
endeavor.

Dave

Martha Finney wrote:

> Writing from the point of view of a journalist (I've written about human
> resource management for almost 15 years, and have spent the last 5 years
> researching what it means to have a calling), I believe it's impossible to
> intellectualize high-quality motivation.
>
> Short-term, low motivation comes from:
>
> financial reward
> fear of pain
> all the elements of Maslow's lowest levels: shelter, food, etc.
>
> All those motivations demand constant attention and upgrading in order to keep
> the employee invested in the job/company. A constant struggle to sustain
> interest.
>
> Once those are taken care of, the employer organization must tap into the
> employee's higher drives -- or else risk losing that employee.
>
> It's easy to quickly assume that I'm talking about so-called "meaning." Which
> I am, to some extent. However, I believe that meaning can be found in any kind
> of work -- not just the so-called "meaningful" work of good deeds.
>
> If the employee can identify larger meaning in his or her work of the moment,
> that employee's experience of the job is going to be elevated. No matter what
> the job is. And that kind of motivation is self-perpetuating, superceding the
> short electric thrills of pay increases and mylar balloons and coffee mugs.
>
> The meaning of work gives the employee a sense of living for a larger purpose,
> dignity, self-respect, a feeling of enduring improvement. Inspiration. And you
> can achieve those feelings just as easily by working in a gas station or donut
> shop as you can by rescuing stranded dolphins or feeding hungry children.
>
> Martha Finney
> author, Find Your Calling, Love Your Life (Simon & Schuster, 98)
> http://www.heartlandatwork.com

--
Moon Consulting Group
Phone: 330/656-4393
Fax: 330/528-0135
E-mail: dlmoon@ix.netcom.com

It's remarkable that David Moon states that Maslow is the 'most notable'
content theory of motivation. He's not alone. For many managers, it is
the only theory they remember!

I've often puzzled why this is. After all it is such a lousy theory,
little supported by evidence. It should have been overwritten both by
later content theories as well as process and reinforcement theories.

Maslow is remarkably well known; he's one of the few behavioural
theorists with an entry in encyclopaedias from Britannica to Encarta.
Although he intended to develop a theory about well people, his ideas
originated in work with the ill. It's all very curious.

Candidate explanations:

plausibility;
ease of explanation therefore easy to teach;
age;
American.

When will Maslow disappear from the Business School curriculum? Does
anyone seriously believe it?

John Naylor
Liverpool Business School
Liverpool John Moores University

For the record, the Hackman reference is:
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980) Work Redesign, New York:
Addison-Wesley

John Naylor

John,

Maslow was to motivation as the Wright Brothers were to flight. Nobody
pays serious attention to the ideas of either at this point, but they get
remembered for their pioneering achievement.

Best,

Larry

At 09:02 PM 3/20/99 +0000, you wrote:
>It's remarkable that David Moon states that Maslow is the 'most notable'
>content theory of motivation. He's not alone. For many managers, it is
>the only theory they remember!
>
>I've often puzzled why this is. After all it is such a lousy theory,
>little supported by evidence. It should have been overwritten both by
>later content theories as well as process and reinforcement theories.
>
>Maslow is remarkably well known; he's one of the few behavioural
>theorists with an entry in encyclopaedias from Britannica to Encarta.
>Although he intended to develop a theory about well people, his ideas
>originated in work with the ill. It's all very curious.
>
>Candidate explanations:
>
> plausibility;
> ease of explanation therefore easy to teach;
> age;
> American.
>
>When will Maslow disappear from the Business School curriculum? Does
>anyone seriously believe it?
>
>John Naylor
>Liverpool Business School
>Liverpool John Moores University
>

Dr. Masloff was an excellent teacher!!! 48 years later, I still
remember his lectures.

Larry Pate wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Maslow was to motivation as the Wright Brothers were to flight. Nobody
> pays serious attention to the ideas of either at this point, but they get
> remembered for their pioneering achievement.
>
> Best,
>
> Larry
>
> At 09:02 PM 3/20/99 +0000, you wrote:
> >It's remarkable that David Moon states that Maslow is the 'most notable'
> >content theory of motivation. He's not alone. For many managers, it is
> >the only theory they remember!
> >
> >I've often puzzled why this is. After all it is such a lousy theory,
> >little supported by evidence. It should have been overwritten both by
> >later content theories as well as process and reinforcement theories.
> >
> >Maslow is remarkably well known; he's one of the few behavioural
> >theorists with an entry in encyclopaedias from Britannica to Encarta.
> >Although he intended to develop a theory about well people, his ideas
> >originated in work with the ill. It's all very curious.
> >
> >Candidate explanations:
> >
> > plausibility;
> > ease of explanation therefore easy to teach;
> > age;
> > American.
> >
> >When will Maslow disappear from the Business School curriculum? Does
> >anyone seriously believe it?
> >
> >John Naylor
> >Liverpool Business School
> >Liverpool John Moores University
> >

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

Regarding Jay Warner's inquiry about "motivation"...

"Motivation" is a word that refers to a state of having motives, that is, to a condition of having reasons for doing something. The assumption in the management literature and in the practice of management is that we can motivate people, that is, provide them with reasons for doing what we want them to do.

To some extent we can; we can persuade, cajole, plead, coerce, bribe, force, influence and otherwise get others to do our bidding.

What the hoopla has usually been about in a distinction that has been drawn between so-called "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" motivation, that is, to the difference between people wanting to do what I want them to do because they also want to do it for reasons of their own (intrinsic) and them wanting to do it because I've supplied them with reasons which they accept and on the basis of which they will act but which they haven't really adopted as their own (extrinsic).

As a purely practical matter, I know of no systematic, reliable ways of instilling intrinsic motivation (supposedly the better of the two). As for fostering extrinsic motivation, I tend not to bother; most people will "go along with the program" anyway (which is about all you can expect from extrinsic motivation) and, getting someone to do something they really don't want to do is a task that I prefer to avoid. I guess that makes me a bad manager.

Frankly, I took Jay's inquiry as a little bit tongue-in-cheek and thought a half-way serious answer was the best way to respond.

Fred Nickols
fnickols@ets.org

Colleagues,

Back in the 80s, I had the wonderful pleasure of discovering a market,
founding a business, and growing it. I was a VP, not the President.

When competition came in, our atmosphere got a bit more tense. In
particular, the President began managing by note. He'd drop a note on my
desk when I wasn't there saying something like, "Stop all actions on project
A. You've gone beyond your authority."

Not what I call a motivator. Those notes would make me so angry that it
would take me a day to calm down. Then I could go talk about project A and
we would reach a far different conclusion than stopping everything.

One time, I asked myself -- if this method is the worst motivator, what is
the best. In particular, what would motivate me more than anything else to
perform at my best.

So I wrote my top ten. I suggest that you, too, sit down and write your own
motivators. I'll bet you that they don't fit neatly into Maslov's
hierarchy. The people we need to motivate, including ourselves, are beyond
most Maslov levels.

I'd love to see lists from other people. To know our similarities, our
differences.

My ten:
Team membership
Challenging and creative tasks
Authority to perform
Recognition of past performance
Respect
Feedback, including rapid and honest criticism
Cooperation
Commitment by upper management
Working environment/material support
Salary/benefits package

Gary
----------------------------
Dr. Gary Lundquist - The Scientist-Marketer
The Power of Marketing to Change Companies and Change Lives
garyl@market-engineering.com
Market Engineering International
The Bridge Between Science and Marketing
www.market-engineering.com
303-840-9929 - FAX 303-841-6636
12006 N. Antelope Trail
Parker, Colorado 80138, USA

On 21 Mar 99, at 10:13, Dr. Gary Lundquist wrote:

> So I wrote my top ten. I suggest that you, too, sit down and write
your own motivators. I'll bet you that they don't fit neatly into Maslov's
> hierarchy. The people we need to motivate, including ourselves,
are beyond most Maslov levels.

> I'd love to see lists from other people. To know our similarities, our
> differences.

I always liked the definition of success that was engendered by a
girlfriend of mine while working for ABC:

"Success is when the people you want to be with recognize you for
the gifts and abilities you would like to be acknowledge for, and
compensate you, in order that you may continue to contribute."

That having been said- I always stipulate three conditions before
entertaining a new assignment.

1. The organization must be in a challenging emergence of some
sort; pushing the envelope, on the edge, or in a crisis (opportunity)
of tranformation which involves resources of technology and people.

2. I must be in a position to make a significant difference.

and a distant last- but still included)

3. I am to be compensated accordingly.

My Best,
Ann Marie Harmony


Ann Marie Harmony aharmony@in-the-mood.com
(_`·.,,.·'_`·.,,.-> In The Mood
http://www.in-the-mood.com
Communications Tooling for Better People Capital

Gary
I think what you describe fits Maslow and indeed Herzberg precisely. You may
choose different words but your top ten coincide very well
Alistair McEwen
Training for Profit
Edinburgh, Scotland
Mailto:amcewen@fife.ac.uk


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Dr. Gary Lundquist
> Sent: 21 March 1999 17:13
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Motivation
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
> Back in the 80s, I had the wonderful pleasure of discovering a market,
> founding a business, and growing it. I was a VP, not the President.
>
> When competition came in, our atmosphere got a bit more tense. In
> particular, the President began managing by note. He'd drop a note on my
> desk when I wasn't there saying something like, "Stop all actions
> on project
> A. You've gone beyond your authority."
>
> Not what I call a motivator. Those notes would make me so angry that it
> would take me a day to calm down. Then I could go talk about
> project A and
> we would reach a far different conclusion than stopping everything.
>
> One time, I asked myself -- if this method is the worst motivator, what is
> the best. In particular, what would motivate me more than
> anything else to
> perform at my best.
>
> So I wrote my top ten. I suggest that you, too, sit down and
> write your own
> motivators. I'll bet you that they don't fit neatly into Maslov's
> hierarchy. The people we need to motivate, including ourselves,
> are beyond
> most Maslov levels.
>
> I'd love to see lists from other people. To know our similarities, our
> differences.
>
> My ten:
> Team membership
> Challenging and creative tasks
> Authority to perform
> Recognition of past performance
> Respect
> Feedback, including rapid and honest criticism
> Cooperation
> Commitment by upper management
> Working environment/material support
> Salary/benefits package
>
> Gary
> ----------------------------
> Dr. Gary Lundquist - The Scientist-Marketer
> The Power of Marketing to Change Companies and Change Lives
> garyl@market-engineering.com
> Market Engineering International
> The Bridge Between Science and Marketing
> www.market-engineering.com
> 303-840-9929 - FAX 303-841-6636
> 12006 N. Antelope Trail
> Parker, Colorado 80138, USA
>

What people says motivates them can be quite different than what empirical
behavioral observations suggest.
--
Prof. John L. Naman naman+@pitt.edu http://www.pitt.edu/~naman

John Naylor wrote:

"For many managers, (Maslow's theory) is the only theory they remember!
I've often puzzled why this is."

IMHO, Maslow's theory endures because it explains motivation (albeit
only a part of the picture) so well. People simply understand
motivation better because of Maslow's theory. His hierarchy of needs
illustrates why a single parent administrative clerk stays in a dead-end
job, while a scientist abandons a boring position despite a six figure
income. His view that you cannot motivate people, but rather people are
motivated by their own needs being met is equally important.

My beef is not that Maslow is still quoted, but that he is so often
quoted alone. I would not advocate talking about motivation without
discussing Maslow's theory...but neither would I advocate talking about
it without discussing Herzberg, Vroom, and McClelland. Why? Because
alone each shows only a part of the motivation picture, and together
they show a more complete picture.

It's sad but true, the current state of the art in motivation theory is
that all theories, by themselves, fall well short of providing the
comprehensive explanation we'd like them to provide. My guess is that
the person who manages to develop a comprehensive theory will have a
special place in history...and in the hearts of all of us who have to
teach and explain human motivation.

Ken Estabrook
Supervisor, Training and Development
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Laurel, MD
Ken.Estabrook@jhuapl.edu
(443) 778-8230

Ken Estabrook wrote:

> [snip]
> It's sad but true, the current state of the art in motivation theory
> is
> that all theories, by themselves, fall well short of providing the
> comprehensive explanation we'd like them to provide. My guess is that
>
> the person who manages to develop a comprehensive theory will have a
> special place in history...and in the hearts of all of us who have to
> teach and explain human motivation.

they will also suffer many slings and arrows from academic competitors
and others. Does the inevitability of this outcome help de-motivate the
Great American Motivation Theory?

My best wishes to all who contributed to this thread so far. I have
over 40 emails in the folder on it. It will take a while to digest them
- and then this one comes in, too!

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

Power to the data!

If some one has a good idea of how to research and develop such a
program, they should be able to get a grant from one or more management
associations to undertake such a study. Companies spend millions on
motivation methods and teaching programs. I ended formal education in
1952, so I was never exposed to later theories. Maslow's theory stuck
with me because it worked so well and because it explained what
motivated myself so well.

Ken Estabrook wrote:
>
> John Naylor wrote:
>
> "For many managers, (Maslow's theory) is the only theory they remember!
> I've often puzzled why this is."
>
> IMHO, Maslow's theory endures because it explains motivation (albeit
> only a part of the picture) so well. People simply understand
> motivation better because of Maslow's theory. His hierarchy of needs
> illustrates why a single parent administrative clerk stays in a dead-end
> job, while a scientist abandons a boring position despite a six figure
> income. His view that you cannot motivate people, but rather people are
> motivated by their own needs being met is equally important.
>
> My beef is not that Maslow is still quoted, but that he is so often
> quoted alone. I would not advocate talking about motivation without
> discussing Maslow's theory...but neither would I advocate talking about
> it without discussing Herzberg, Vroom, and McClelland. Why? Because
> alone each shows only a part of the motivation picture, and together
> they show a more complete picture.
>
> It's sad but true, the current state of the art in motivation theory is
> that all theories, by themselves, fall well short of providing the
> comprehensive explanation we'd like them to provide. My guess is that
> the person who manages to develop a comprehensive theory will have a
> special place in history...and in the hearts of all of us who have to
> teach and explain human motivation.
>
> Ken Estabrook
> Supervisor, Training and Development
> Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
> Laurel, MD
> Ken.Estabrook@jhuapl.edu
> (443) 778-8230

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

Larry Pate wrote that Maslow was to motivation as the Wright Brothers
were to flight. Is this logical? The Wrights were right at the time but
aircraft design has moved on. They were technologists. Maslow was either
right or wrong for all time.

He was a scientist, was he not? If he was right then he is right now; or
wrong then and now.... Or have people changed?

Jack Ring is against; yet in preferring Herzberg he's still a 'content'
person. Ken Estabrook, although recognising the incompleteness of
theories, likes Maslow for making a post hoc explanation of why the
single parent clerk stays in a dead end job. David Moon has a sense of
this but others, sorry Larry, continue to try to match Maslow with their
own schema. Martha Finney, although against being too clever about it,
thinks of low and high motivation; Alistair McEwen looks for a fit; and
others (the list people) by implication like to use Maslow.

Richard Montgomery offered a real brush with the famous, having been
taught by Dr Masloff. That's a gem.

I remain puzzled. Why aren't McClelland, Adams, Vroom, Hackman & Lawler
or Locke so well known?

John Naylor
Liverpool Business School
Liverpool John Moores University

> I remain puzzled. Why aren't McClelland, Adams, Vroom, Hackman & Lawler
> or Locke so well known?

It can be explained in many terms: a remnant of the romantic period, a
reaction to pure behaviorism, a natural human inclination towards
mysticism. Simply, we want to be non-determinist, and in control of our
environment. The romantic language of Masloff's hierarchy is what makes it
so attractive; McClelland's theory of achievement motivation is more
alligned with eastern philosophy- we are more alike than different. In the
western world we strive for individuality. In addition it is mechanical in
nature; we don't like to be equal with machines.


Eric S. Berghoff, M.S. student
University of Baltimore
Division of Applied Psychology and Quanitative Methods

======================================================
"Oh brave new world that has such people in it."
-Aldous Huxley
======================================================

John
The principles and theory of flight haven't changed, maybe that's why Maslow
is felt still to be relevant by so many people. The outward appearance may
be different (the new descriptions and theories of motivation) but you can't
escape or change the basics.
Alistair McEwen
Training for Profit
Edinburgh, Scotland
Mailto:amcewen@fife.ac.uk <mailto:amcewen@fife.ac.uk>


> Larry Pate wrote that Maslow was to motivation as the Wright Brothers
> were to flight. Is this logical? The Wrights were right at the time but
> aircraft design has moved on. They were technologists. Maslow was either
> right or wrong for all time.
> John Naylor
> Liverpool Business School
> Liverpool John Moores University

Maslow was a pioneer in proposing his simple need hierarchy back in the
1940s and, in that sense, is both remembered and comparable to other
pioneers, such as the Wright Brothers, who also proposed a simple approach
to flight by today's standards. But Maslow was neither "right" nor "wrong"
at the time. He was merely looking for patterns in the complaints he heard
from his patients and the result of those observations was the hierarchy.
It wasn't until Maslow himself criticized the widespread application of his
"theory" without any research being conducted that the hierarchy was ever
tested. As I recall, the first test didn't come until the mid 60s by Hall
and Nougain, who found that (1) physiological needs were generally well met
in this country, (2) the order of needs did not follow the distinct pattern
suggested by Maslow, but in fact varied across individuals, and (3)
self-actualization is an almost impossible concept to operationalize or measure.

Herzberg, meantime, did 3 degrees at Pitt and found himself running the
mental health program at Case Western. He had been a young Army officer
assigned to clean out the concentration camps at the end of the WWII, a
sight that compelled him at the time to dedicate his life "to keeping sane
people sane." So when he later went into consulting and applied Maslow's
hierarchy, he did so as a way of encouraging management to take care of the
basic and essential "hygiene" aspects of work that (he felt) drove people
insane. The fatal flaw for Herzberg, as people like Steers and Porter have
pointed out (in the various editions of their motivation readings book), is
that he dug in and defended a flawed "theory." His critical incident
methodology alone was enough to make the two-factor theory suspect. When I
knew Herzberg, he was just about to retire from the University of Utah and
he was a very sad and lonely and angry and bitter individual for never
having received the sort of recognition from the field that he believed he
deserved.

The major contributions toward motivation, in my opinion, came not from the
content theories, including McClelland's, but from the cognitive theories,
those of Vroom (expectancy), Adams (equity), Heider (balance), Festinger
(dissonance), Locke (goal setting), and others, along with the integrative
model of the performance-satisfaction relationship proposed by Porter and
Lawler. Alderfer even acknowledged that need theory was practically "dead"
by the late 60's when he proposed his ERG theory as a summary statement.
Vroom's WORK AND MOTIVATION book, in which expectancy theory was presented,
had been published in, as I recall, 1964, and the great value of expectancy
theory was that it was imminently testable. One could ask about
"effort-to-behavior" expectancies, "behavior-to-outcome" instrumentalities,
and "value of the reward" valences, then multiply the scores on each of the
components, and arrive at distinct predictions of motivation and differences
in motivation across individuals. If there was ever any doubt to the value
of expectancy theory, Lawler's little book ended it in 1973.

Every time I teach motivation I'll ask students to raise their hands if
they've heard of Maslow, and almost every hand goes up. Then I ask how many
have heard of Alderfer and maybe one or two people will raise their hands.
And then I ask about Adams or Vroom or Porter/Lawler and no one raises a
hand. Disturbing, yes, but why should we be surprised? We remember John
Glenn because he was a pioneer, but we don't know the names of the
astronauts who came later (which is another reason Glenn's return to space
was so significant). Pioneers like Maslow and Glenn will always be
remembered, even if we don't design motivation programs or space ships the
same way after they're gone.

Best,

Larry

At 08:50 PM 3/23/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Larry Pate wrote that Maslow was to motivation as the Wright Brothers
>were to flight. Is this logical? The Wrights were right at the time but
>aircraft design has moved on. They were technologists. Maslow was either
>right or wrong for all time.
>
>He was a scientist, was he not? If he was right then he is right now; or
>wrong then and now.... Or have people changed?
>
>Jack Ring is against; yet in preferring Herzberg he's still a 'content'
>person. Ken Estabrook, although recognising the incompleteness of
>theories, likes Maslow for making a post hoc explanation of why the
>single parent clerk stays in a dead end job. David Moon has a sense of
>this but others, sorry Larry, continue to try to match Maslow with their
>own schema. Martha Finney, although against being too clever about it,
>thinks of low and high motivation; Alistair McEwen looks for a fit; and
>others (the list people) by implication like to use Maslow.
>
>Richard Montgomery offered a real brush with the famous, having been
>taught by Dr Masloff. That's a gem.
>
>I remain puzzled. Why aren't McClelland, Adams, Vroom, Hackman & Lawler
>or Locke so well known?
>
>John Naylor
>Liverpool Business School
>Liverpool John Moores University
>

I have avoided entering into the discussion of motivation, because I
believe it cannot be defined and cannot be harnessed. With all the
research and theories on the subject, we don't seem to be able to DO it.

What if there are some human characteristics that defy measurement and
control? From my own point of view, I am seldom motivated to do what my
organization's "leaders" want me to do. I find a way to trick myself
into doing it by FINDING something that satisfies ME independently of the
job. I simply resist anything that I "have" to do, even when I set it
up! Perverse, but true.

I have studied all the theories, and I have been in management. I found
that freedom to do the job in his/her own way with the outcomes always in
mind works best. I never had to watch anybody as long as I used that
approach. Of course, I have not managed large groups. I just believe we
all want freedom. We want freedom to do our job without interference.
When managers get out of the way, the job gets done beautifully.

Some of us don't even know what motivates us outside of work. Maybe we
just aren't going to find out. Or maybe a new Maslow will come along and
give us something so simple we all missed it.

Edryce Reynolds

Edryce Reynolds <edryce@JUNO.COM> wrote:

>I have avoided entering into the discussion
of motivation, because I believe it cannot be
defined and cannot be harnessed. With all the
research and theories on the subject, we don't
seem to be able to DO it.<

I too have restrained myself from posting a message about motivation
because I have been forewarned that academics are more interested
in what has been published in academic journals than what is being
done in the work place. Our 20,000 clients know that it is more
profitable to hire qualified applicants who are like their top
performers in each job classification than it is to hire and then
try to motivate the most qualified job applicants. Our clients
screen out the unqualified and then use job matching to select
the qualified applicant that best matches the demands of the job
as measured by the most successful employees, e.g., top performers.

Bob

Edryce Reynolds' comments about freedom and control lie at the heart of
many content and process theories of motivation. Besides the many
theorists whose works have already been alluded to, and who, in one way or
another address this issue, we could add the names of Weiner, an other
"attribution" theorists, White, and his work on "competence" motivation,
and especially Brehm, and his theory of "pschological reactance" which
deals with the consequences of losing freedom and control.

Clearly, as several commentators have pointed out, there are no "grand"
theories of motivation that answer all the questions, but there are many
theories which contribute to seeing the whole puzzle. As a teacher, I tell
my students to take those parts of different theories that help them ask
good diagnostic questions and interpret the evidence/feedback when they
encounter people engaging in behavior that they don't understand. As I
said earlier, I assume that most people have their reasons for what they
do, the key is to understand what is sustaining their behavior, and then,
if if appropriate (a moral as well as a managerial issue) try to change it
if it is deemed inappropriate/harmful/etc.

Where I disagree with some of the commentators is that I think I have
observed some folks who were very good motivators of other people. While
they could not always articulate what their own theory of motivation was,
as I observed their behavior, it seemed to me that I could recognize the
application of many sound principals drawn from various theories of
motivation.

Below, are listed some principals I have drawn from popular theories of
motivation.

1. Define a good job - tell subordinates specifically what behavior you
want and what behavors you don't want.

2. Don't treat eveybody the same -make sure rewards are contingent on only
desired baviors.

3. Give big strokes to big folks - make the magnitude of the reward
appropriate to the level of behavor observed or desired.

4. After, not before - make sure the rewards follow, no precede, the
desired behavior.

5. Too soon is not soon enough - reward the person as quickly as is
practical.

6. Children are not born adults - remember that it takes time to learn new
behaviors. Therefore, reward small steps of improvement toward a final
goal. However , do not reward backsliding (regression to less desirable
levels of behavior).

7. Money is not the only game in town - recognition, praise, personal
interest, favorable job assignments, or allowing personal control of time
often mean more tna an extra twenty dollars in take-home pay.

8. Managers get the behavior they reward, and not the behavior they want -
don't engage in wishful thinking. (Boal's 1st Law).

9. Allow people greater control over scheduling ttheir won time.

10. Provide for greater personal control of resources through the use of
individual budgets that make the person accountable for cost.

11. Provide opportunities for psychological growth through new and
meaningful learning.

12. Provide for direct and nonevaluative performance feedback.

13. Provide for contact with the persons who use the workers' product or
service.

14. Allow workers to directly communicate with others, as needed, to get
the job done without going through the hierarchy.

15. Hold people personally responsible for results.

16.If performance is not acceptable, determine whether the performance
should be attributed to the person (the natural assumption), or whether the
fault lies in some other aspect of the situtation. Here look for clues
regarding past performance, performance on other tasks, and the performance
of others on this task. If the cause is external, focus on changing the
work environment and not the person. If the cause is internal, then apply
Boal's 2nd Law: If you want to change people, change people. (I know that
many of you will react negatively to my 2nd Law. I agree, behavior can be
changed, but, as the saying goes, "it ain't easy," and I don't think that
many managers/organizations are willing/able to put forth the concerted
effort/time/resources needed to change the behavior in many, if not most,
cases).

17. Don't just assign blame, (most of the time this is a useless exercise,
though it may full fill some moral sense of justice - you broke it, you fix
it -), focus on assigning responsbility for taking corrective action.

Let the comments role in.

Regards, Kim Boal


At 06:19 PM 3/23/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I have avoided entering into the discussion of motivation, because I
>believe it cannot be defined and cannot be harnessed. With all the
>research and theories on the subject, we don't seem to be able to DO it.
>
>What if there are some human characteristics that defy measurement and
>control? From my own point of view, I am seldom motivated to do what my
>organization's "leaders" want me to do. I find a way to trick myself
>into doing it by FINDING something that satisfies ME independently of the
>job. I simply resist anything that I "have" to do, even when I set it
>up! Perverse, but true.
>
>I have studied all the theories, and I have been in management. I found
>that freedom to do the job in his/her own way with the outcomes always in
>mind works best. I never had to watch anybody as long as I used that
>approach. Of course, I have not managed large groups. I just believe we
>all want freedom. We want freedom to do our job without interference.
>When managers get out of the way, the job gets done beautifully.
>
>Some of us don't even know what motivates us outside of work. Maybe we
>just aren't going to find out. Or maybe a new Maslow will come along and
>give us something so simple we all missed it.
>
>Edryce Reynolds
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

What all this talk about motivation speaks volumes to me about is much
more the NATURE of the work that employees are expected to perform (how
important, valuable, self-enriching etc) and how work processes are
perceived (most likely correctly) to be oriented to serve the system,
the institutions and at best the "masters" than the "people" for whom
all these systems are supposed to exist....please don't hate me because
I'm irrational.


Alienate the work from its ultimate purposes and you stand a good chance
of alienating the people doing it...then you need the carrot and/or the
stick.
--
Louis R. Chauvin
Faculty Lecturer
Faculty of Management
McGill University
Montreal, Canada

Larry,

Bravo!

Thank you for the time this took. An outstanding and eloquent summary
that is worth saving and re-reading from time-to-time.

Best wishes to you for continued success.

Ed
Drive On!

>>> Larry Pate <lpate@BUS.WISC.EDU> 03/23 6:37 PM >>>
Maslow was a pioneer in proposing his simple need hierarchy back in
the
1940s and, in that sense, is both remembered and comparable to other
pioneers, such as the Wright Brothers, who also proposed a simple
approach
to flight by today's standards. But Maslow was neither "right" nor
"wrong"
at the time. He was merely looking for patterns in the complaints he
heard
from his patients and the result of those observations was the
hierarchy.
It wasn't until Maslow himself criticized the widespread application of
his
"theory" without any research being conducted that the hierarchy was
ever
tested. As I recall, the first test didn't come until the mid 60s by
Hall
and Nougain, who found that (1) physiological needs were generally well
met
in this country, (2) the order of needs did not follow the distinct
pattern
suggested by Maslow, but in fact varied across individuals, and (3)
self-actualization is an almost impossible concept to operationalize or
measure.

Herzberg, meantime, did 3 degrees at Pitt and found himself running
the
mental health program at Case Western. He had been a young Army
officer
assigned to clean out the concentration camps at the end of the WWII,
a
sight that compelled him at the time to dedicate his life "to keeping
sane
people sane." So when he later went into consulting and applied
Maslow's
hierarchy, he did so as a way of encouraging management to take care of
the
basic and essential "hygiene" aspects of work that (he felt) drove
people
insane. The fatal flaw for Herzberg, as people like Steers and Porter
have
pointed out (in the various editions of their motivation readings
book), is
that he dug in and defended a flawed "theory." His critical incident
methodology alone was enough to make the two-factor theory suspect.
When I
knew Herzberg, he was just about to retire from the University of Utah
and
he was a very sad and lonely and angry and bitter individual for never
having received the sort of recognition from the field that he believed
he
deserved.

The major contributions toward motivation, in my opinion, came not from
the
content theories, including McClelland's, but from the cognitive
theories,
those of Vroom (expectancy), Adams (equity), Heider (balance),
Festinger
(dissonance), Locke (goal setting), and others, along with the
integrative
model of the performance-satisfaction relationship proposed by Porter
and
Lawler. Alderfer even acknowledged that need theory was practically
"dead"
by the late 60's when he proposed his ERG theory as a summary
statement.
Vroom's WORK AND MOTIVATION book, in which expectancy theory was
presented,
had been published in, as I recall, 1964, and the great value of
expectancy
theory was that it was imminently testable. One could ask about
"effort-to-behavior" expectancies, "behavior-to-outcome"
instrumentalities,
and "value of the reward" valences, then multiply the scores on each of
the
components, and arrive at distinct predictions of motivation and
differences
in motivation across individuals. If there was ever any doubt to the
value
of expectancy theory, Lawler's little book ended it in 1973.

Every time I teach motivation I'll ask students to raise their hands
if
they've heard of Maslow, and almost every hand goes up. Then I ask how
many
have heard of Alderfer and maybe one or two people will raise their
hands.
And then I ask about Adams or Vroom or Porter/Lawler and no one raises
a
hand. Disturbing, yes, but why should we be surprised? We remember
John
Glenn because he was a pioneer, but we don't know the names of the
astronauts who came later (which is another reason Glenn's return to
space
was so significant). Pioneers like Maslow and Glenn will always be
remembered, even if we don't design motivation programs or space ships
the
same way after they're gone.

Best,

Larry

At 08:50 PM 3/23/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Larry Pate wrote that Maslow was to motivation as the Wright Brothers
>were to flight. Is this logical? The Wrights were right at the time
but
>aircraft design has moved on. They were technologists. Maslow was
either
>right or wrong for all time.
>
>He was a scientist, was he not? If he was right then he is right now;
or
>wrong then and now.... Or have people changed?
>
>Jack Ring is against; yet in preferring Herzberg he's still a
'content'
>person. Ken Estabrook, although recognising the incompleteness of
>theories, likes Maslow for making a post hoc explanation of why the
>single parent clerk stays in a dead end job. David Moon has a sense
of
>this but others, sorry Larry, continue to try to match Maslow with
their
>own schema. Martha Finney, although against being too clever about
it,
>thinks of low and high motivation; Alistair McEwen looks for a fit;
and
>others (the list people) by implication like to use Maslow.
>
>Richard Montgomery offered a real brush with the famous, having been
>taught by Dr Masloff. That's a gem.
>
>I remain puzzled. Why aren't McClelland, Adams, Vroom, Hackman &
Lawler
>or Locke so well known?
>
>John Naylor
>Liverpool Business School
>Liverpool John Moores University
>

Robert Gately wrote:

> Edryce Reynolds <edryce@JUNO.COM> wrote:
>
> >I have avoided entering into the discussion
> of motivation, because I believe it cannot be
> defined and cannot be harnessed. With all the
> research and theories on the subject, we don't
> seem to be able to DO it.<
>
> I too have restrained myself from posting a message about motivation
> because I have been forewarned that academics are more interested
> in what has been published in academic journals than what is being
> done in the work place. Our 20,000 clients know that it is more
> profitable to hire qualified applicants who are like their top
> performers in each job classification than it is to hire and then
> try to motivate the most qualified job applicants. Our clients
> screen out the unqualified and then use job matching to select
> the qualified applicant that best matches the demands of the job
> as measured by the most successful employees, e.g., top performers.
>
> Bob

Bob,
In other words, you would 'inspect in' the 'good ones' for employment.
In the above academia, a now outmoded approach was to inspect out the
weak ones, keeping those who learned stuff at an acceptable pace. What
does this say about the skills of the instructor who works only with
those left in senior year?

In manufacturing, we call that trying to inspect Quality into a
product. Doesn't work.

What happens when you have more work to do than your selected bunch can
accomplish? Which case is true locally just now (North Central midwest
USA). Or when someone else gets your selected bunch?

Does the knowledge (speaking of a lucky winner) that you were amongst
the select provide motivation to you, or not? Perhaps the select group
is already motivated. If so, and you do not know how to instill more of
it in them, then they will get demotivated for equally unclear reasons,
and go their way. Again, if you have enough people to do the work, this
might be OK.

What we are looking for here is a realistic 'model,' which we can apply
in reality to get our own selected people to do things they didn't think
to do. And come up with occasional bright ideas the managers think is
worth pursuing.

Maybe the key word is 'incentive,' maybe not.

Keep the thoughts coming in. I don't think we've resolved it yet.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

Power to the data!

Hi!

Getting a pay raise can actually lower your final income. With tax laws the
way they are, a small pay raise can actually push the worker over into the
next tax bracket and require them to pay more taxes and thus ending up with
a smaller income. From the workers perspective, the increase actually was a
decrease and there is no incentive to work overtime if the final outcome is
more work for less money in the workers pocket. Adding to this the workers
may interpret that management is not really looking out for their
interest. No wonder businesses are baffled when workers are unsatisfied
with a pay increase, as far as the business is concerned they are shelling
out more money to the workers ignoring that it is in the workers best
interest to receive other kind of incentives instead. (

Saludos Esteban

Dr. Jay Warner <a2q@execpc.com> wrote

>In other words, you would 'inspect in'
the 'good ones' for employment.<

It is all about reducing selection mistakes not good or bad people.
Good people in the wrong jobs make bad employees. Poor performers
reassigned to the right job may become good employees.

>In the above academia, a now outmoded approach
was to inspect out the weak ones, keeping those
who learned stuff at an acceptable pace.<

I thought colleges were ranked according to the SAT scores of their
entering freshmen? Don't the higher ranked schools have higher SAT
scores for their freshman class?

>does this say about the skills of the instructor
who works only with those left in senior year?<

It is easier to teach those who are still around in their senior year,
perhaps? It seemed that way when I was senior. :-)

>In manufacturing, we call that trying
to inspect Quality into a product. Doesn't work.<

If we presume people are machines or processes we are making a huge
mistake. We do not "inspect in quality" since quality in a person is
in the eye of the beholder and not in the job. However, we do "inspect
in" people who are predisposed to behave in the manner demanded by
the job. Different jobs require different behaviors.

>What happens when you have more work
to do than your selected bunch can
accomplish?<

What happens when we have more work to do than an unselected bunch can
accomplish? The point is that when hiring employees someone has to
decide who gets hired. Most manager admit that once the applicants
are deemed qualified to be hired the final hiring decision is often
based on gut feel or other nebulous selection criteria. There is a
better method to use when selecting which of the qualified applicants
best fits the demands of the job.

>What we are looking for here is a realistic
'model,' which we can apply in reality to
get our own selected people to do things
they didn't think to do. And come up with
occasional bright ideas the managers think is
worth pursuing.<

As long as managers don't have the foggiest idea how their employees fit
the demands of the jobs, managers will continue to be baffled by
motivational theory and practice. Our clients find that when the
match employees to the demands of the job their need to motivate
their employees is reduced.

>Maybe the key word is 'incentive,' maybe not.<

We can use incentives, but what motivates you may well demotivate me.

>Keep the thoughts coming in.
I don't think we've resolved it yet.<

All we can resolve is to keep talking. :-)

Bob
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/welcome.htm

----- Original Message -----

Robert Gately said:

It is all about reducing selection mistakes not good or bad people.
Good people in the wrong jobs make bad employees. Poor performers
reassigned to the right job may become good employees.
___________________

We had an application of this in a municipal office. One of the maintanence
workers had an on-going performance problem. However, the manager had never
addressed this issue so when he retired, the new manager wasn't going to
fire this person because the performance issue hadn't been documented.
Instead, the new manager decided to promote the poor performer and then
document all the problems, expecting to fire him after a short time.

What happened? Well, the poor performer turned out to be the best right
hand man the manager ever had. The now exceptional performer revelled in
his new authority and responsibility, and turned out to be a natural at
motivating the other employees (previously he was expert at demotivating
them). He organized the works crews like they had never been organized
before and (as far as my memory serves), he empowered them - a risky thing
to do back then and in that organizational culture.

Jean V. Dickson

Ron,

Your post reminded me of a person who had trouble sleeping and started to
read what they considered the most boring subject. At first the solution
worked, reading the matterial put the person to sleep. Over time, their
interest arroused, reading the subject keept them from going to sleep. This
story seems to contradict the statement that a person who doesn't like a
job will never be fully "motivated" to pursue the task. True, the person
attitude towards the subject changed and he got motivated to pursue the
subject because they now like it. If we can find how to duplicate this in
the workplace we may be able to motivate people to perform a particular
job. That is their attitude towards the subject matter changes. The
question is how can we influence it to change or make it change?

Saludos Esteban


Louis

Not sure I agree with totally here. If a person just doesn't like the job
that they are doing then surely they will never be fully "motivated" to
pursue the task with complete enthusiasm.... and there are a lot of people
who would prefer to be anywhere else other than at work.


Ron Smith
Royal Mail
UK
smithro@royalmail.co.uk

This entire stream seems to be confusing some very different, yet related,
concepts -- motive, motivation, performance, and reward.

"Motives" are generally described as the things we want and that drive us,
as reflected in our belief system, such as wanting a healthy relationship
or wanting a good job or wanting to hurt someone. The content theories
(e.g., Maslow, Herzberg, McClelland, Alderfer), in my opinion, tell us much
more about motives than how to motivate.

"Motivation" is generally described as the effort the individual is willing
to expend in order to achieve something or accomplish something, such as
putting effort into school, into work, into marriage, all on the belief
that doing so will be rewarding. The process theories (e.g., expectancy,
equity, dissonance, attribution, reactance) tell us about the cognitive
process that prompts an individual to be motivated or not.

"Performance" is another word for behavior or action and it's what we
actually do. Motivation doesn't equal performance or action. A person can
be highly motivated to beat Pete Sampras at tennis, for example, and yet
perform poorly against Sampras on the tennis court. That's because more
than just motivation determines performance. The person has to have the
necessary skills and abilities at tennis, and also be motivated to use
those skills and abilities, in order to play well. Some people have said
Performance = Motivation x Ability. Others, notably Porter and Lawler,
have said that Performance is determined by (1) Motivation, (2) Skills and
Abilities, and (3) Role Perceptions.

"Rewards" represent what we receive for our actions, and these are
occasionally divided into "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" categories. Some
research has said that such distinction is meaningless since extrinsic
rewards (e.g., pay) carry an intrinsic quality (e.g., social comparisons).
Certainly we have beliefs about the rewards we will receive, and these
beliefs influence our level of motivation and our subsequent performance,
but what we actually receive can be dramatically different from the rewards
we imagine in advance. Whether a reward is "motivating" or not will depend
on the individual's motives, or what the person wants.

I hope these distinctions proves helpful.

Larry


At 12:39 PM 3/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Colleagues,
>
>Ed Hampton wrote, in part
>
>Over the years, I have come to understand and define motivation as
>simply "actions taken (behavior) to satisfy a need(s)".
>
>To continue, instead of focusing on "motivating people", I have found
>it helpful to shift the paradigm towards "managing" motivations.
>
>--------------
>
>Once we accept the link between motivation and need satisfaction, as I do,
>then we see motivating as a marketing process.
>
>A case of motivation I've not noticed in this thread is that of gaining buy
>in to a vision, initiative, or strategy. Companies need to change, and they
>need to motivate all management and staff to buy in.
>
>How? First find the needs that the new vision/initiative/strategy will
>meet. If none can be found, then change the vision, because no one will
>support it without receiving benefits.
>
>Needs vary within a staff, just as within a marketplace. Managers want to
>keep control and protect their turf. Staff want more empowerment. Whatever
>the situation, motivation becomes a matter of matching benefits of the
>vision to the needs of those who will implement the vision.
>
>Internal marketing, as I see it on the walls of client companies, is often
>lots of words that don't connect with true benefits. A lot of wishful
>thinking, hoping that rah-rah will create a patriotic fervor. But the best
>management now find that true benefits can be delivered (empowerment, full
>information to all, better teaming, concurrent processes, and so many more)
>that staff really want. Give them the ability to do their job instead of do
>a set of tasks, and we tap their natural motivations.
>
>So internal marketing is about finding the real motivators, then building
>visions around what makes a difference.
>
>Gary
>----------------------------
>Dr. Gary Lundquist - The Scientist-Marketer
> The Power of Marketing to Change Companies and Change Lives
> garyl@market-engineering.com
>Market Engineering International
> The Bridge Between Science and Marketing
> www.market-engineering.com
>303-840-9929 - FAX 303-841-6636
>12006 N. Antelope Trail
>Parker, Colorado 80138, USA
>

Interesting conversation on Maslow. I think to understand Maslow you have to
work from the primary sources instead of the watered down and sometimes
inaccurate descriptions in our text book. Some examples:

--The third level need is not social -- but "love and belongingness" with an
emphasis on giving and receiving love

--Maslow never said the hierarchy of relative prepotency was fixed -- the
same for all -- it could vary in the order in which needs emerge

--Maslow stated a precondition for this hierarchy -- you needed a just and
fair society

--And actually Maslow proposed two separate hierarchies -- the other
including a need for the aesthetic.

Why is Maslow so popular? But for Douglas McGregor the larger world of
business may never have heard of him. McGregor popularized Maslow by
referencing him in The Human Side of Enterprise in the early 1960s, the 7
Habits of his day. On the other hand how may recognize the predominant
psychology theory in 7 Habits? Probably few if any. I suggest reviewing the
work of Joseph Rycklak, specifically his work from the AT&T Management
Progress Study on personality and life styles of male managers. A great
classroom example on the importance of referencing your work. McGregor did.

John B.

______________________________
John A. Ballard, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Management
College of Mount St. Joseph
Cincinnati, OH 45233

Louis

Not sure I agree with totally here. If a person just doesn't like the job
that they are doing then surely they will never be fully "motivated" to
pursue the task with complete enthusiasm.... and there are a lot of people
who would prefer to be anywhere else other than at work.


Ron Smith
Royal Mail
UK
smithro@royalmail.co.uk

----------
> From: Louis Chauvin <chauvin@MANAGEMENT.MCGILL.CA>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Motivation
> Date: 24 March 1999 16:47
>
> What all this talk about motivation speaks volumes to me about is much
> more the NATURE of the work that employees are expected to perform (how
> important, valuable, self-enriching etc) and how work processes are
> perceived (most likely correctly) to be oriented to serve the system,
> the institutions and at best the "masters" than the "people" for whom
> all these systems are supposed to exist....please don't hate me because
> I'm irrational.
>
>
> Alienate the work from its ultimate purposes and you stand a good chance
> of alienating the people doing it...then you need the carrot and/or the
> stick.
> --
> Louis R. Chauvin
> Faculty Lecturer
> Faculty of Management
> McGill University
> Montreal, Canada

Apologies for joining this thread late, especially if I
repeat ground
already well covered) but i don't agree with those
who conclude (as Prof Keup and others seem to) that all
motivation
theories are of equal value, as none is totally true or
false. Wahba and
Bridwell (in OBHP or OBHDP - it was long enough ago I can't
remember
if it was before the name change) published an article
critical of need
theories (Maslow included) that suggested it really wasn't
an adequate
description of motivation. Any useful theory ought at
least:

1 - be testable
2 - be accurate (in a stochastic, not deterministic sense,
and
recognizing that it can be an "As if" standard, such
that the
theoryneed not be isomorphic with the reality of human
biology)
3 - be parsimonious (so that it's useable)
4 - help predict future motivation/behavior

Need theories suffer on point four especially - it is very
difficult to use a
need theory to anticipate the direction of behavior people
may choose
to fulfill an unmet need. As needs are not defined by most
authors as
work-specific (Alderfer's ERG may be an exception), the
pursuit of fulfillment
may or may not be job-related. Some need fulfillment may be
downright
counterproductive (e.g., someone fulfilling their social or
affiliative needs by
sexually harassing a coworker).

So, while a need theory approach may make sense for clinical
therapy
(as was Maslow's use) it may not be particularly helpful in
thinking through
workplace motivation issues. BTW, my vague recall from grad
school days
was that Maslow had written an article that expressed
reservations about
lifting his

Social comparison theories (e.g., equity, distributive
justice theory) also
pose problems when using the models for predicting direction
of behavior,
as is necessary for workplace applications.

By contrast, expectancy theories can subsume much of the
useful thoughts
in need theories, social comparison theories, and
behaviorism within its
theoretical framework. While VIE type models may not
literally describe
what people go through in motivated conduct, we can use them
"as if" they
do, and make better forecasts of future motivation/behavior
than we can
using either need-based or social comparison based models.
Check out John Campbell's motivation chapter in the old
Dunnette (ed)
I/O Psych handbook (1976ish, Rand McNally), wherein he
discusses
the generality of expectancy models.

As a consequence, I'd just as soon that we not even bring
Maslow up in
OB/HR/IO psych classes, except as an historical note.

Again, apologies if I covered old news.

Cordially,

Howard Miller

hmiller2@uswest.net
(612) 927-7099

Louis,

THIS IS GETTING HOT! Before proceeding I will cool down... I interpreted
a public hostility in your post and I respond through the list because that
is the forum you chose for the attack. Besides some good may come by
following this tread.

Who is to say what are "jobs that matters, that are useful"?

There are jobs like garbage collectors, police officers and others that
are both useful and that matters to the well being of societies which can
be interpreted as dehumanized or could be interpreted as contributing to
human society. The point I raised is that regardless of the particular job,
the attitude we have towards that job is what determine our interpretation
of the job. If we interpret our job as a required burden we endure to
obtain what we "really" want, then certainly we will have difficulty
getting motivated. If on the other hand we see our job as an means of
development and a way of expressing who we are then any job takes a whole
new meaning. On a side note, pain can be seen as a sacrifice to endure or
as a gift ( a sacrifice on our part for some one else), it all depends on
the meaning we give to our pain, just ask any loving mother what they
experienced in the process of giving birth to their descendants.

Continuing on the direction of your post, and following the reasoning that
attitude is what gives meaning could you explain how drinking alcohol after
clubbing a ball around a grass field is motivating and human and not a
dehumanized activity? If we had asked Mother Teresa what is motivating and
human would we had come up with golf and drinking?

My intention of responding to what I interpreted as a public hostility is
to challenge your statements asking to substantiate what you declare and an
invitation to focus on what role attitude plays in motivation. That is can
we influence, manage attitudes to promote motivation.

Saludos Esteban

That's just the point Ron. As in most other things (medicine for
example) we're attacking the symptoms rather than the root cause. Why
doesn't he like his job? Why does he/she feel the need to continue at a
job one doesn't like? Does motivation attempt to deal with these issues
or with making individuals productive for the system? Perhaps even more
importantly, or maybe just the same thing on a macro scale, why is it
that "a lot of people would rather be anywhere else other than work"?
This is especially crucial if we are to believe psychological and
sociological theory that says how important work is to being human and
feeling fully human. What is it about the existing system that appears
to have made this irrelevant?

I know this isn't very academic but there's days, with bombs falling on
peoples' heads (which could very well be realted to this subject), when
one just doesn't feel too "academic".

Louis

Ron Smith wrote:
>
> Louis
>
> Not sure I agree with totally here. If a person just doesn't like the job
> that they are doing then surely they will never be fully "motivated" to
> pursue the task with complete enthusiasm.... and there are a lot of people
> who would prefer to be anywhere else other than at work.
>
> Ron Smith
> Royal Mail
> UK
> smithro@royalmail.co.uk
>
> ----------
> > From: Louis Chauvin <chauvin@MANAGEMENT.MCGILL.CA>
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Motivation
> > Date: 24 March 1999 16:47
> >
> > What all this talk about motivation speaks volumes to me about is much
> > more the NATURE of the work that employees are expected to perform (how
> > important, valuable, self-enriching etc) and how work processes are
> > perceived (most likely correctly) to be oriented to serve the system,
> > the institutions and at best the "masters" than the "people" for whom
> > all these systems are supposed to exist....please don't hate me because
> > I'm irrational.
> >
> >
> > Alienate the work from its ultimate purposes and you stand a good chance
> > of alienating the people doing it...then you need the carrot and/or the
> > stick.
> > --
> > Louis R. Chauvin
> > Faculty Lecturer
> > Faculty of Management
> > McGill University
> > Montreal, Canada

--
Louis R. Chauvin
Faculty Lecturer
Faculty of Management
McGill University
Montreal, Canada

Robert,
If your expression 'qualified applicants like their top performers' means
that their behaviours and 'fitting in-ness' complement their top performers
then I would agree 100% with your sentiments. What you've described is the
reality of worklife (and not theory) as research here and overseas has
consistently discovered over the past ten years.

I've often said that people are hired for their skills and fired for their
behaviour, so why not look for behaviour first and worry about the skills
later? This is the basic principle of competency-based performance,
assessment and training. Unfortunately, like you intimated, theorists have
a different view based only on what has been published as opposed to what
has been proven.

Phil Rutherford
Academic Director and Lecturer
Competency-based systems specialist
robnphil@ozemail.com.au
http://www.competency-au.com


----------
From: Robert Gately <gately@COMPUSERVE.COM>
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Motivation
Date: Thursday, 25 March 1999 0:29

Edryce Reynolds <edryce@JUNO.COM> wrote:

>I have avoided entering into the discussion
of motivation, because I believe it cannot be
defined and cannot be harnessed. With all the
research and theories on the subject, we don't
seem to be able to DO it.<

I too have restrained myself from posting a message about motivation
because I have been forewarned that academics are more interested
in what has been published in academic journals than what is being
done in the work place. Our 20,000 clients know that it is more
profitable to hire qualified applicants who are like their top
performers in each job classification than it is to hire and then
try to motivate the most qualified job applicants. Our clients
screen out the unqualified and then use job matching to select
the qualified applicant that best matches the demands of the job
as measured by the most successful employees, e.g., top performers.

Bob

In a message dated 99-03-25 14:50:10 EST, you write:

<< a lot of people would rather be anywhere else other than work" >>
That's a question I spend a lot of time pondering, discussing, exploring, etc.
While there may be 100's of reasons, there are a few which seem obvious...
1) Many people are doing the wrong work ie. they have chosen jobs or careers
for the wrong reasons - status, money, parents mis-guidance, etc. Often,
these folks may not even realize that is why they are so unhappy with work.
Our high schools and colleges need to do a much better job of career
counseling.

2) When you get right down to it, most organizations, particularly the larger
organizations, are basically prisons we check into for 8+ hours a day. There
is very little freedom, empowerment, ability to participate or be involved,
etc. In spite of all the theories of late, most workplaces are quite Theory X
and Taylor still lives.

3) The 90s - the decade of layoffs - has completely changed the workforce.
Workers used to tolerate a lot for the payoff of lifelong security. Now that
that is clearly gone, workers are more disgruntled and distrusting than ever.

I believe we will actually see a workers revolt in a few more years. It has
already begun as the Gen Xers begin to tell the employer what they want and
what they will do. It's just the beginning.

Nancy

Saludos,

Thank you for a very thought provoking post. It helped me crystalize a nagging thought that something was missing from the discussion about motivation: the relationship between motivation and expectations.

I think combined expectations - personal, leader/manager, organizational - act as a governor device for motivations.

A person's expectations will determine in large part what needs he/she will seek to satisfy and how much energy will be devoted to that end. Expectations expressed by the leader/manager and/or the organization tend to create influencing or shaping pressures on a person's expectations. Those expectations can serve three salient purposes: 1) to provide a means for a person to measure how realistic his expectations are and 2) to define what the leader/manager or organization expects of the person, and to provide a frame of reference regarding consequences, good or bad. Such expectations can curb or induce behavior, depending on expression.

A friend of mine coined the term "expectation management" for actions designed shape customer expectations/demands so to reduce the chance of dissatisfaction based on unrealistic expectations.

Likewise, properly shaped expectations can provide a key leverage function for shaping employee motivations. I believe that attitudes get affected or changed in that shaping process.

So, to address your question directly, the shaping and expression of expectations can provide an operational tool to help change attitudes and, subsequently or consequently, change motivations and performance.

Best wishes.

Ed
Drive On!



>>> ESTEBAN_TREVIÑO_MUGUERZA <esteban@CEMEX.COM> 03/25 8:47 AM >>>
Ron,

Your post reminded me of a person who had trouble sleeping and started to
read what they considered the most boring subject. At first the solution
worked, reading the matterial put the person to sleep. Over time, their
interest arroused, reading the subject keept them from going to sleep. This
story seems to contradict the statement that a person who doesn't like a
job will never be fully "motivated" to pursue the task. True, the person
attitude towards the subject changed and he got motivated to pursue the
subject because they now like it. If we can find how to duplicate this in
the workplace we may be able to motivate people to perform a particular
job. That is their attitude towards the subject matter changes. The
question is how can we influence it to change or make it change?

Saludos Esteban


Louis

Not sure I agree with totally here. If a person just doesn't like the job
that they are doing then surely they will never be fully "motivated" to
pursue the task with complete enthusiasm.... and there are a lot of people
who would prefer to be anywhere else other than at work.


Ron Smith
Royal Mail
UK
smithro@royalmail.co.uk

Hi Nancy,

I'm not sure I'd compare it as much to a prison as a new type of
slavery. Thought you were out of bondage....guess again. Slave owners
used to not understand why their slaves weren't happy...after all, they
were fed, clothed, lodged even had their physical ails cared for
sometimes and employers now don't understand why employees aren't happy
when they're paid a decent wage with which they can feed, clothe and
lodge themselves...

Is it just a reflection of the state of things that radio stations start
saying on Wednesday morning that half the week is already gone and then
of course TGIF!!!!!!!

Somebody STOP me!!!!!!

Can't anybody else see that we have to do more than just apply patches?
Wooops that's a bit presumptuous :) I know a lot of you do but I guess
it's just not proper to rant...and I promise to stop soon....this is my
monthly rant day.



Louis



NProbst261@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> In a message dated 99-03-25 14:50:10 EST, you write:
>
> << a lot of people would rather be anywhere else other than work" >>
> That's a question I spend a lot of time pondering, discussing, exploring, etc.
> While there may be 100's of reasons, there are a few which seem obvious...
> 1) Many people are doing the wrong work ie. they have chosen jobs or careers
> for the wrong reasons - status, money, parents mis-guidance, etc. Often,
> these folks may not even realize that is why they are so unhappy with work.
> Our high schools and colleges need to do a much better job of career
> counseling.
>
> 2) When you get right down to it, most organizations, particularly the larger
> organizations, are basically prisons we check into for 8+ hours a day. There
> is very little freedom, empowerment, ability to participate or be involved,
> etc. In spite of all the theories of late, most workplaces are quite Theory X
> and Taylor still lives.
>
> 3) The 90s - the decade of layoffs - has completely changed the workforce.
> Workers used to tolerate a lot for the payoff of lifelong security. Now that
> that is clearly gone, workers are more disgruntled and distrusting than ever.
>
> I believe we will actually see a workers revolt in a few more years. It has
> already begun as the Gen Xers begin to tell the employer what they want and
> what they will do. It's just the beginning.
>
> Nancy

--
Louis R. Chauvin
Faculty Lecturer
Faculty of Management
McGill University
Montreal, Canada

Esteban,

How about giving them jobs that matter, that ARE useful (as opposed to
making them FEEL useful), that don't dehumanize but actually boost one's
belonging to a human society rather than a robotic one etc....

If there are no such jobs THEN we have a different kind of problem which
is a total rethinking of the concept of providing for human needs.

Anyone here remember the concept of the leisure society that said that
when our basic needs were met and when computers and robots did our
menial work we could all discuss painting, music, politics, raising
kids, loving relationships around Budweisers after a good round of
golf? Now THAT's motivating. Now THAT's human.

Louis


ESTEBAN TREVI�O MUGUERZA wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Your post reminded me of a person who had trouble sleeping and started to
> read what they considered the most boring subject. At first the solution
> worked, reading the matterial put the person to sleep. Over time, their
> interest arroused, reading the subject keept them from going to sleep. This
> story seems to contradict the statement that a person who doesn't like a
> job will never be fully "motivated" to pursue the task. True, the person
> attitude towards the subject changed and he got motivated to pursue the
> subject because they now like it. If we can find how to duplicate this in
> the workplace we may be able to motivate people to perform a particular
> job. That is their attitude towards the subject matter changes. The
> question is how can we influence it to change or make it change?
>
> Saludos Esteban
>
> Louis
>
> Not sure I agree with totally here. If a person just doesn't like the job
> that they are doing then surely they will never be fully "motivated" to
> pursue the task with complete enthusiasm.... and there are a lot of people
> who would prefer to be anywhere else other than at work.
>
> Ron Smith
> Royal Mail
> UK
> smithro@royalmail.co.uk

--
Louis R. Chauvin
Faculty Lecturer
Faculty of Management
McGill University
Montreal, Canada

Larry,

Another home run!

Your comments help a great deal.

Best wishes.

Ed
Drive On!

>>> Larry Pate <lpate@BUS.WISC.EDU> 03/25 11:07 AM >>>
This entire stream seems to be confusing some very different, yet
related,
concepts -- motive, motivation, performance, and reward.

"Motives" are generally described as the things we want and that drive
us,
as reflected in our belief system, such as wanting a healthy
relationship
or wanting a good job or wanting to hurt someone. The content
theories
(e.g., Maslow, Herzberg, McClelland, Alderfer), in my opinion, tell us
much
more about motives than how to motivate.

"Motivation" is generally described as the effort the individual is
willing
to expend in order to achieve something or accomplish something, such
as
putting effort into school, into work, into marriage, all on the
belief
that doing so will be rewarding. The process theories (e.g.,
expectancy,
equity, dissonance, attribution, reactance) tell us about the
cognitive
process that prompts an individual to be motivated or not.

"Performance" is another word for behavior or action and it's what we
actually do. Motivation doesn't equal performance or action. A person
can
be highly motivated to beat Pete Sampras at tennis, for example, and
yet
perform poorly against Sampras on the tennis court. That's because
more
than just motivation determines performance. The person has to have
the
necessary skills and abilities at tennis, and also be motivated to use
those skills and abilities, in order to play well. Some people have
said
Performance = Motivation x Ability. Others, notably Porter and
Lawler,
have said that Performance is determined by (1) Motivation, (2) Skills
and
Abilities, and (3) Role Perceptions.

"Rewards" represent what we receive for our actions, and these are
occasionally divided into "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" categories.
Some
research has said that such distinction is meaningless since extrinsic
rewards (e.g., pay) carry an intrinsic quality (e.g., social
comparisons).
Certainly we have beliefs about the rewards we will receive, and these
beliefs influence our level of motivation and our subsequent
performance,
but what we actually receive can be dramatically different from the
rewards
we imagine in advance. Whether a reward is "motivating" or not will
depend
on the individual's motives, or what the person wants.

I hope these distinctions proves helpful.

Larry


At 12:39 PM 3/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Colleagues,
>
>Ed Hampton wrote, in part
>
>Over the years, I have come to understand and define motivation as
>simply "actions taken (behavior) to satisfy a need(s)".
>
>To continue, instead of focusing on "motivating people", I have found
>it helpful to shift the paradigm towards "managing" motivations.
>
>--------------
>
>Once we accept the link between motivation and need satisfaction, as I
do,
>then we see motivating as a marketing process.
>
>A case of motivation I've not noticed in this thread is that of
gaining buy
>in to a vision, initiative, or strategy. Companies need to change,
and they
>need to motivate all management and staff to buy in.
>
>How? First find the needs that the new vision/initiative/strategy
will
>meet. If none can be found, then change the vision, because no one
will
>support it without receiving benefits.
>
>Needs vary within a staff, just as within a marketplace. Managers
want to
>keep control and protect their turf. Staff want more empowerment.
Whatever
>the situation, motivation becomes a matter of matching benefits of
the
>vision to the needs of those who will implement the vision.
>
>Internal marketing, as I see it on the walls of client companies, is
often
>lots of words that don't connect with true benefits. A lot of
wishful
>thinking, hoping that rah-rah will create a patriotic fervor. But the
best
>management now find that true benefits can be delivered (empowerment,
full
>information to all, better teaming, concurrent processes, and so many
more)
>that staff really want. Give them the ability to do their job instead
of do
>a set of tasks, and we tap their natural motivations.
>
>So internal marketing is about finding the real motivators, then
building
>visions around what makes a difference.
>
>Gary
>----------------------------
>Dr. Gary Lundquist - The Scientist-Marketer
> The Power of Marketing to Change Companies and Change Lives
> garyl@market-engineering.com
>Market Engineering International
> The Bridge Between Science and Marketing
> www.market-engineering.com
>303-840-9929 - FAX 303-841-6636
>12006 N. Antelope Trail
>Parker, Colorado 80138, USA
>

Phillip Rutherford <robnphil@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
(Hi Phil)

>If your expression 'qualified applicants like
their top performers' means that their behaviours
and 'fitting in-ness' complement their top performers
then I would agree 100% with your sentiments.<

If we want to hire more top performers we should hire people who are
as much like our top performers as we can find--which is hard to do
sometimes.

Each job has its own success traits so that a company's corporate
culture, department's as well, consists of all the different
patterns of all the different jobs--there is no single corporate-
wide success pattern for any position.

>What you've described is the reality of worklife
(and not theory) as research here and overseas
has consistently discovered over the past ten years.<

Interesting, the psychologist who developed our method is from England.

>I've often said that people are hired
for their skills and fired for their
behaviour, so why not look for behaviour
first and worry about the skills later?<

It certainly is easier to hire an eagle than to try to train a pig to soar.
Since only 20% of the jobs in the US require a 4 year degree and only 27%
of the labor force has a four year degree, we should know how to select
our employees better than our competitors.

>This is the basic principle of competency-
based performance, assessment and training.
Unfortunately, like you intimated, theorists
have a different view based only on what has
been published as opposed to what has been proven.<

Yes, our 20,000 clients laugh all the way to the bank after hearing
experts say they cannot do what it is they are doing.

Bob
http://go.ourworld.nu/gately/

Louis and Nancy:

The "slavery" comments got my attention. With all the choices,
opportunities, etc., how do people get themselves into such situations. Do
people choose to be slaves? Does it take years for the sense of "slavery"
to sink in?

And, does all this apply to the knowledge worker?

Paul Lyons

Sorry Esteban, didn't mean to get you hot under the collar. I teach
Ethics and Sustainable Development here and sometimes the issues I have
the privilege of covering just get me going. This was one of those days.
Most of the time I'm a pretty cool guy :). And I beg you to please not
take any of this personally. Part of the exercise for me revolves in
seeing what happens to this conversation when it takes an unexpected
tangent.


> Who is to say what are "jobs that matters, that are useful"?
>

I realize evaluation of the worth of employment is a pretty subjective
thing but then that's what humans do best...make normative judgements.
We need to do it all the time. When we try to replace subjective
judgement by putting our faith in "serious science" on which new
religious movements like risk assessment are based we get ourselves into
all kinds of trouble. When we stop trusting our intuitive capacities
and fear of making decisions that aren't based on "hard data" creeps in
we lose our creative edge. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say
that garbage collectors and police officers and plumbers and farmers are
much more useful in building a society that revolves around human needs
than investment bankers and stock brokers and hedge fund managers. And
yet what has happened to our society that it values the latter so much
more than the former? The value, or lack of, that we arbitrarily put on
types of jobs functions to dehumanize them to some extent. So I guess
that when I see us buying into the concept and trying to find ways to
feed the system its human fodder sometimes I get upset. A good garbage
workers' strike in the middle of a hot summer in one of our metropolises
serves as a quick reminder of "usefulness".



> There are jobs like garbage collectors, police officers and others that
> are both useful and that matters to the well being of societies which can
> be interpreted as dehumanized or could be interpreted as contributing to
> human society. The point I raised is that regardless of the particular job,
> the attitude we have towards that job is what determine our interpretation
> of the job. If we interpret our job as a required burden we endure to
> obtain what we "really" want, then certainly we will have difficulty
> getting motivated. If on the other hand we see our job as an means of
> development and a way of expressing who we are then any job takes a whole
> new meaning.

For the few who feel they have a real choice of working at what they
want to work at I would almost be tempted to agree with you but even
then with reservations, because in that case they don't need a
"perception adjustment".

On a side note, pain can be seen as a sacrifice to endure or
> as a gift ( a sacrifice on our part for some one else), it all depends on
> the meaning we give to our pain, just ask any loving mother what they
> experienced in the process of giving birth to their descendants.

I don't know how many birthings you've been at but the loving mothers I
was with when it happened were sure happy to get that epidural or a good
general anaesthetic. But I must admit to my cultural bias in this
instance. However I won't go as far as saying they were less loving than
those who put up with the pain (voluntarily or not).

>
> Continuing on the direction of your post, and following the reasoning that
> attitude is what gives meaning could you explain how drinking alcohol after
> clubbing a ball around a grass field is motivating and human and not a
> dehumanized activity? If we had asked Mother Teresa what is motivating and
> human would we had come up with golf and drinking?

I thought it would be understood that the golf and Bud suds were just
accessory props to addressing "important" issues. As for Mother Teresa
I've had the privilege of meeting with her a few times (around a chalice
of red wine :)...definitely no golf though) when I was in Rome about 10
years ago and she certainly would have agreed as to the importance of
the subjects I suggested would be broached. Now there's a woman who was
not afraid to challenge the system and its values, who was not afraid to
express value judgements unsupported by theory. Rumor has it she even
gave the Pope what for!
>
> My intention of responding to what I interpreted as a public hostility is
> to challenge your statements asking to substantiate what you declare and an
> invitation to focus on what role attitude plays in motivation. That is can
> we influence, manage attitudes to promote motivation.

You see, this is where I again raise the objection. If I feel I have to
work at "managing" attitudes a bell rings in my head warning me that
there's a more fundamental issue that I'm missing. If my wife's
"attitude" towards me changes, if there is less motivation in her
affections I won't try to influence or "manage" her attitude. To me
there is a certain dishonesty, lack of respect and more than a hint of
"power over" in that approach (again I beg you not to see this as a
personal attack) somewhat like my skin crawls when I see a book entitled
"Managing Business Ethics" (ouch! here I go making friends again). How
can we even begin to think about "managing" moral values?

At the risk of repeating myself, If a person has the right attitude you
don't need motivation; if a person is not motivated look not to
motivating them to do what you or the system think they should be doing,
look rather to providing them with what they need for "their" motivation
to return...if what's important is the person in front of us and her/his
self-fulfillment rather than the job that needs to be done.


Respects, Louis

--
Louis R. Chauvin
Faculty Lecturer
Faculty of Management
McGill University
Montreal, Canada

Hi Paul,

Hmmmm!! The knowledge worker??? That's the guy with the cell phone and
the laptop on the beach during his holiday isn't it?? Slave? Naw! Not
her!! :)

Just had to rush that one in and I'll give you another slavery bit on
the weekend...1:00 a.m. here and time to get some shut-eye!!

Louis



Paul Lyons wrote:
>
> Louis and Nancy:
>
> The "slavery" comments got my attention. With all the choices,
> opportunities, etc., how do people get themselves into such situations. Do
> people choose to be slaves? Does it take years for the sense of "slavery"
> to sink in?
>
> And, does all this apply to the knowledge worker?
>
> Paul Lyons

--
Louis R. Chauvin
Faculty Lecturer
Faculty of Management
McGill University
Montreal, Canada

> I too have restrained myself from posting a message about motivation
> because I have been forewarned that academics are more interested
> in what has been published in academic journals than what is being
> done in the work place.

Sums up my feelings on the matter.
I have participated in business, corporate, and industry
advisory council meetings. The working world wants
our product (students) to be able to work day one.

Rather than teach our students what we think they should
know, why not ask our ultimate customers what attributes
and skills they deem necessary for worker success on the job?

What is covered in tertiary needs to address the performance
factor not the scholarly contemplation we in ACKademia
push. In other words, let's get "real."

--
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
~~ Jargon ~~ Any sufficiently advanced terminology
is indistinguishable from magic words. ;^P ~~ Daily Whale

Paul,
Interesting questions and ones which I ponder all the time. The question i
would love the chance to research deeply is....Why do people stay in toxic
situations when they have the talents to leave and find something better.
What traps them besides their own insecurities? I have heard these folks
offer many reasons for staying. The most common include:
*I'm the primary breadwinner and and I can't risk losing my security here
*This is a great learning lab for what not to do - I'm learning everyday
*This company needs me to help make a difference. I need to stay and help
rather than run away
*Many security issues such as - accrued vacation, pension plans, other
benefits, etc.
*I need good health insurance and I have it here.

I could go on and on. And many of these reasons are valid. But there also
has to be a deeper reason that people would suffer year after year in toxic
environments. Exploring these reasons might prove interesting to this list.

To your question on Knowledge workers....yes, I've seen some of them wallowing
in the same traps.

Nancy

Ouch! Does this hit home!

I have a person that is in residence with this
problem. Have been trying for years to gently
suggest a move elsewhere to a better working
environ.

>>>Problem comes down to... "will I jump from the frying pan into the fire?"<<<

Still seeking a good solution/recommendation to that one.

Thoughts?

> Interesting questions and ones which I ponder all the time. The question i
> would love the chance to research deeply is....Why do people stay in toxic
> situations when they have the talents to leave and find something better.

Good one! I am personally involved in this very situation.

I have 0 answers but lots and lots of questions...

--
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
~~ Jargon ~~ Any sufficiently advanced terminology
is indistinguishable from magic words. ;^P ~~ Daily Whale

Louis,

Thanks for the response. No personal offense taken.
I believe we are addressing the same issue and getting sidetracked with
the meaning we interpret are behind the words.

"At the risk of repeating myself, If a person has the right attitude you
don't need motivation; if a person is not motivated look not to
motivating them to do what you or the system think they should be doing,
look rather to providing them with what they need for "their" motivation
to return...if what's important is the person in front of us and her/his
self-fulfillment rather than the job that needs to be done".

Agree 100%.

I interpreted managing attitudes as taking care of attitudes, providing
what it takes for attitudes to exist which I interpret is the point you are
making expressed in other words. A manager can be characterized as a
manipulative egoist or as a servicefull allay. The characterization depends
on the meaning that the individual at the job exemplifies not the given
position per say. Just like any job can be seen as a burden or as a means
to realization depending on the attitude the worker resolves to give it.
There is a whole ethical issue that you raise as to whose best interest are
served and maintained by particular actions. Here again I believe we are
getting sidetracked into the ethical issues related to the form of applying
knowledge. I too believe that there is an ethical responsibility in any
knowledge that we need to discuss, attend and even manage. At the moment I
believe we are exploring and inquiring about the knowledge of motivation I
wondering how do we incorporate the ethical responsibility inherent in the
knowledge generated. Are we concerned to discuss and confront the issues as
a group or do we prefer to let each individual manage them as they see fit.

Job matching you say...???

Decode... elucidate... urls?

New ACKroym on me... I *think* I know?!?

> Have you thought about job matching?

> >>"will I jump from the frying pan into the fire?"<<<

> Still seeking a good solution/recommendation to that one.<

> Job matching. <

???

Hmmmm contemplating... contemplating... contemplating...

--
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
~~ Jargon ~~ Any sufficiently advanced terminology
is indistinguishable from magic words. ;^P ~~ Daily Whale

Louis,

Yes my belief is that "ANY job can be self-fulfilling" depending on the
meaning which the worker places on performing it, just as we can give
meaning to any suffering. That is not to say that I defend suffering or
the fact that some jobs are painful, boring or tedious to perform. My
interpretation was that the central issue of interest to the forum is
Management and specifically to this tread how to achieve motivation. My
post at the moment center on the idea that motivation depends on the
attitudes we have towards the work performed, that there may be a way to
motivate individuals by influencing their attitudes or perceived meaning in
doing the work. I was wondering what were the academic tough’s on this.

More specifically on this tread I would focus on "exploring and inquiring
about the knowledge of motivation..." not
in "... the ethical responsibility inherent in the knowledge generated" nor
the values that exist within the world. That is not to say I ignore the
importance of ethics or the impact when instant gratification is valued
over sustainable gratification. We all know that an executive can take
actions to boost the numbers in the short run get the rewards (ascension)
and leave behind all sort of time bombs that may explode in the future.

Saludos Esteban

You appear to be right Esteban that we agree on several issues. Our
main point of contention may be what appears to be your belief that ANY
job can be self-fulfilling as long as the individual can "convince"
him/herself of it. Through all kinds of means (self-hypnosis being one
of many) I imagine that that can be the case. I question the validity
of such means (sounds like somebody taking drugs or alcohol to bear the
pain) rather than questioning WHY it is that an individual would have to
resort to such means. When certain jobs are not only neutral in this
(ethical?) respect but come to be perceived possibly in a negative light
by society at large, as being destructive one has to wonder. Heavily
polluting and tobacco industry jobs come to mind here as a possibility
(oh! oh! more enemies). More pernicious perhaps is the whole paper
economy sector that is being seen more and more as an important part of
an exploitative system. For the first time ever, in 1998 absenteeism
from mental/psychological ailments surpassed that from physical
ailments. Maybe that's what all our bright ideas about motivating people
into doing work that they basically can't see the usefulness,
practicality of, is doing to them. Do we really want to contribute to
perpetuating this? So what do we do? We set up EAPs! After all we have
to show that we care. In the meantime we keep sending the implicit
message that what we value are those employees that live their lives for
the corporations (see the latest TV ad about the consultant -computer
screen head- still working at solving the client's problems while she's
on the dance floor). The corporation owns 121 a week of your time but
being very generous they let you have 50 or 60 for yourself...UNLESS
they happen to need it evenings, weekends. Then they have priority. And
if you're not ready to accept that, they make it quite clear that there
are hundreds (who were downsized a few weeks ago) who are.

Louis

ESTEBAN TREVI�O MUGUERZA wrote:
>
> Louis,
>
> Thanks for the response. No personal offense taken.
> I believe we are addressing the same issue and getting sidetracked with
> the meaning we interpret are behind the words.
>
> "At the risk of repeating myself, If a person has the right attitude you
> don't need motivation; if a person is not motivated look not to
> motivating them to do what you or the system think they should be doing,
> look rather to providing them with what they need for "their" motivation
> to return...if what's important is the person in front of us and her/his
> self-fulfillment rather than the job that needs to be done".
>
> Agree 100%.
>
> I interpreted managing attitudes as taking care of attitudes, providing
> what it takes for attitudes to exist which I interpret is the point you are
> making expressed in other words. A manager can be characterized as a
> manipulative egoist or as a servicefull allay. The characterization depends
> on the meaning that the individual at the job exemplifies not the given
> position per say. Just like any job can be seen as a burden or as a means
> to realization depending on the attitude the worker resolves to give it.
> There is a whole ethical issue that you raise as to whose best interest are
> served and maintained by particular actions. Here again I believe we are
> getting sidetracked into the ethical issues related to the form of applying
> knowledge. I too believe that there is an ethical responsibility in any
> knowledge that we need to discuss, attend and even manage. At the moment I
> believe we are exploring and inquiring about the knowledge of motivation I
> wondering how do we incorporate the ethical responsibility inherent in the
> knowledge generated. Are we concerned to discuss and confront the issues as
> a group or do we prefer to let each individual manage them as they see fit.

--
Louis R. Chauvin
Faculty Lecturer
Faculty of Management
McGill University
Montreal, Canada

I understand Esteban. Good luck with my academic confreres :).

Louis

ESTEBAN TREVI�O MUGUERZA wrote:
>
> Louis,
>
> Yes my belief is that "ANY job can be self-fulfilling" depending on the
> meaning which the worker places on performing it, just as we can give
> meaning to any suffering. That is not to say that I defend suffering or
> the fact that some jobs are painful, boring or tedious to perform. My
> interpretation was that the central issue of interest to the forum is
> Management and specifically to this tread how to achieve motivation. My
> post at the moment center on the idea that motivation depends on the
> attitudes we have towards the work performed, that there may be a way to
> motivate individuals by influencing their attitudes or perceived meaning in
> doing the work. I was wondering what were the academic tough�s on this.
>
> More specifically on this tread I would focus on "exploring and inquiring
> about the knowledge of motivation..." not
> in "... the ethical responsibility inherent in the knowledge generated" nor
> the values that exist within the world. That is not to say I ignore the
> importance of ethics or the impact when instant gratification is valued
> over sustainable gratification. We all know that an executive can take
> actions to boost the numbers in the short run get the rewards (ascension)
> and leave behind all sort of time bombs that may explode in the future.
>
> Saludos Esteban

--
Louis R. Chauvin
Faculty Lecturer
Faculty of Management
McGill University
Montreal, Canada

NProbst261@AOL.COM wrote:

> Paul,
> Interesting questions and ones which I ponder all the time. The
> question i
> would love the chance to research deeply is....Why do people stay in
> toxic
> situations when they have the talents to leave and find something
> better.
> What traps them besides their own insecurities? I have heard these
> folks
> offer many reasons for staying. The most common include:
> *I'm the primary breadwinner and and I can't risk losing my security
> here
> *This is a great learning lab for what not to do - I'm learning
> everyday
> *This company needs me to help make a difference. I need to stay and
> help
> rather than run away
> *Many security issues such as - accrued vacation, pension plans, other
>
> benefits, etc.
> *I need good health insurance and I have it here.
>
> I could go on and on. And many of these reasons are valid. But there
> also
> has to be a deeper reason that people would suffer year after year in
> toxic
> environments. Exploring these reasons might prove interesting to this
> list.

Clearly, we need to get at the reasons underneath the stated ones. I am
reminded most of Berne, Eric, _Games People Play_, and the deeper book
by Stern (or Steiner?), _Scripts People Live_. For example, the 'game,'
"Help me... Yes, but." Every time I offer a solution, there is a reason
why it won't work. Repeatedly. Must be a really difficult problem, if
a visiting expert can't resolve it. Personally, it is very hard for me
as answer-man to recognize this game, and drop out of it. However, I
get hit with it about once per client visit, so I'm learning fast.

In this game, as in others, the real rewards and objectives are hidden.
Sometimes I can hear the real objectives in the sound of the voice, not
the words. What survey people do, I can't imagine.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

Power to the data!

Hi all - the portion of the message reproduced below represents a common
misperception. At least in the United States, the income tax laws are
written so that when one moves into a higher tax bracket, the higher tax
rate applies ONLY to that income that is above the dividing point. You
always get to keep some of the increase, because the income in the lower
tracket still is taxed at the rate applicable to that bracket.

Tim Edlund, Morgan State Univ.

>
> Getting a pay raise can actually lower your final income. With tax laws the
> way they are, a small pay raise can actually push the worker over into the
> next tax bracket and require them to pay more taxes and thus ending up with
> a smaller income. From the workers perspective, the increase actually was a
> decrease and there is no incentive to work overtime if the final outcome is
> more work for less money in the workers pocket. Adding to this the workers
> may interpret that management is not really looking out for their
> interest. No wonder businesses are baffled when workers are unsatisfied
> with a pay increase, as far as the business is concerned they are shelling
> out more money to the workers ignoring that it is in the workers best
> interest to receive other kind of incentives instead. (

However, it is true that some benefits cost less IF paid by the
employer, since they are pre-tax, not paid for out of post-tax money.

Nancy ... are you intending to lead the revolution then?

I am not sure that many people actually get the choice of the job they do.
Very often geography dictates for manual workers who will try their best
just to get into the local factory/office.

Ron Smith
Royal Mail
UK
smithro@royalmail.co.uk

----------
> From: NProbst261@AOL.COM
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Motivation
> Date: 25 March 1999 22:22
>
> In a message dated 99-03-25 14:50:10 EST, you write:
>
> << a lot of people would rather be anywhere else other than work" >>
> That's a question I spend a lot of time pondering, discussing, exploring,
etc.
> While there may be 100's of reasons, there are a few which seem
obvious...
> 1) Many people are doing the wrong work ie. they have chosen jobs or
careers
> for the wrong reasons - status, money, parents mis-guidance, etc. Often,
> these folks may not even realize that is why they are so unhappy with
work.
> Our high schools and colleges need to do a much better job of career
> counseling.
>
> 2) When you get right down to it, most organizations, particularly the
larger
> organizations, are basically prisons we check into for 8+ hours a day.
There
> is very little freedom, empowerment, ability to participate or be
involved,
> etc. In spite of all the theories of late, most workplaces are quite
Theory X
> and Taylor still lives.
>
> 3) The 90s - the decade of layoffs - has completely changed the
workforce.
> Workers used to tolerate a lot for the payoff of lifelong security. Now
that
> that is clearly gone, workers are more disgruntled and distrusting than
ever.
>
> I believe we will actually see a workers revolt in a few more years. It
has
> already begun as the Gen Xers begin to tell the employer what they want
and
> what they will do. It's just the beginning.
>
> Nancy

Louis

I welcome your society ... please bring it in quickly and I'll see you at
the bar. However I wonder if this would suit eveyone .... Ifeel that many
people would still require some task (preferably of their own choice maybe)
rather than increasing leisure time. And of course there is the subject of
money and the capitalistic society that we live in.

Ron Smith
Royal Mail
UK
smithro@royalmail.co.uk

----------
> From: Louis Chauvin <chauvin@MANAGEMENT.MCGILL.CA>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Motivation
> Date: 25 March 1999 23:18
>
> Esteban,
>
> How about giving them jobs that matter, that ARE useful (as opposed to
> making them FEEL useful), that don't dehumanize but actually boost one's
> belonging to a human society rather than a robotic one etc....
>
> If there are no such jobs THEN we have a different kind of problem which
> is a total rethinking of the concept of providing for human needs.
>
> Anyone here remember the concept of the leisure society that said that
> when our basic needs were met and when computers and robots did our
> menial work we could all discuss painting, music, politics, raising
> kids, loving relationships around Budweisers after a good round of
> golf? Now THAT's motivating. Now THAT's human.
>
> Louis
>
>
> ESTEBAN TREVI�O MUGUERZA wrote:
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > Your post reminded me of a person who had trouble sleeping and started
to
> > read what they considered the most boring subject. At first the
solution
> > worked, reading the matterial put the person to sleep. Over time, their
> > interest arroused, reading the subject keept them from going to sleep.
This
> > story seems to contradict the statement that a person who doesn't like
a
> > job will never be fully "motivated" to pursue the task. True, the
person
> > attitude towards the subject changed and he got motivated to pursue the
> > subject because they now like it. If we can find how to duplicate this
in
> > the workplace we may be able to motivate people to perform a particular
> > job. That is their attitude towards the subject matter changes. The
> > question is how can we influence it to change or make it change?
> >
> > Saludos Esteban
> >
> > Louis
> >
> > Not sure I agree with totally here. If a person just doesn't like the
job
> > that they are doing then surely they will never be fully "motivated" to
> > pursue the task with complete enthusiasm.... and there are a lot of
people
> > who would prefer to be anywhere else other than at work.
> >
> > Ron Smith
> > Royal Mail
> > UK
> > smithro@royalmail.co.uk
>
> --
> Louis R. Chauvin
> Faculty Lecturer
> Faculty of Management
> McGill University
> Montreal, Canada

Ron,

No, I'm not going to lead the revolution. As an OD practitioner, I'm just
trying to do all I can to help the leaders in organizations truly understand
what their workforce has gone through in the past ten years and how those
experiences have drastically changed their expectations of work.

Nancy

Welcome back Ron.

Ron Smith wrote:
>
> Louis
>
> I welcome your society ... please bring it in quickly and I'll see you at
> the bar. However I wonder if this would suit eveyone .... Ifeel that many
> people would still require some task (preferably of their own choice maybe)
> rather than increasing leisure time.

And I have no problem with that Ron. Hey! If they wanna do stuff they
should be able to. There are definitely tasks in any case that WILL
have to be accomplished and those have to be shared/distributed on some
sort of basis. In any case that paragraph was just added to that post
as a sort of tongue in cheek...the point being that maybe we have to
reassess the value scheme we have developed for human activity which
seems doesn't seem to be meeting expectations people had of it...is all.

Louis

Ron Smith wrote:

> Nancy ... are you intending to lead the revolution then?
>
> I am not sure that many people actually get the choice of the job they
> do.
> Very often geography dictates for manual workers who will try their
> best
> just to get into the local factory/office.

In our area (north central USA) we are currently experiencing a severe
skilled worker shortage. Simple lack of prepared warm bodies.
Compensating for whining managers and the difficulty of getting any good
help :) there still is a problem. One result is that highly educated
people expect their significant others, who are equally highly educated,
to be able to find suitable employment within commuting distance. A
compromise is in the offing, when the specialized jobs do not come in
suitable pairs.

It can get rough, Ron, when you have to make a choice between job and
spouse. And I don't mean that the little woman [groan] dutifully
sacrifices her professional dreams for hubby. This is the '90's. Not
every person is eager to walk into the house and say, 'will you move to
X with me?' Who knows what the answer might be.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

Power to the data!