Whetten David A., Cameron Kim S. Developing management skills
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
MOTIVATING OTHERS CHAPTER 6 327
workers are assigned to irregular schedules (often
involving night work), commonly known as shift work.
In a recent article on the challenges facing shift workers,
the story was told of a supervisor who sought permis-
sion from the human resources department to fire a
worker because he didn’t “stay on task,” often walked
around talking to others, and occasionally fell asleep on
the job. Research on shift workers suggests the need to
look beyond a simplistic “poor performance equals low
motivation and commitment” explanation for this
worker’s unacceptable behavior. For example, shift
workers sleep two to three hours less per night than day
workers, they are four to five times more likely to expe-
rience digestive disorders due to eating the wrong foods
at the wrong times, chronic fatigue is reported by
80 percent of shift workers, 75 percent of shift workers
report feeling isolated on the job, and drug and alcohol
abuse are three times greater among permanent shift
workers (Perry, 2000).
To avoid falling prey to simplistic, ill-informed
diagnoses of work performance problems, managers
need a model, or framework, to guide their inquiry
process. Various organizational scholars (e.g., Gerhart,
2003; Steers, Porter, & Bigley, 1996; Vroom, 1964)
have summarized the determinants of task perfor-
mance as follows:
Performance
=
Ability
×
Motivation (Effort)
where
Ability
=
Aptitude
×
Training
×
Resources
Motivation
=
Desire
×
Commitment
According to these formulas, performance is the
product of ability multiplied by motivation, ability is
the product of aptitude multiplied by training and
resources, and motivation is the product of desire
and commitment. The multiplicative function in these
formulas suggests that all elements are essential. For
example, workers who have 100 percent of the moti-
vation and 75 percent of the ability required to perform
a task can perform at an above-average rate. However,
if these individuals have only 10 percent of the ability
required, no amount of motivation will enable them to
perform satisfactorily.
Aptitude refers to the native skills and abilities a
person brings to a job. These involve physical and men-
tal capabilities; but for many people-oriented jobs, they
also include personality characteristics. Most of our
inherent abilities can be enhanced by education and
training. Indeed, much of what we call native ability in
adults can be traced to previous skill-enhancement
experiences, such as modeling the social skills of
parents or older siblings. Nevertheless, it is useful to
consider training as a separate component of ability,
since it represents an important mechanism for improv-
ing employee performance. Ability should be assessed
during the job-matching process by screening appli-
cants against the skill requirements of the job. If an
applicant has minor deficiencies in skill aptitude but
many other desirable characteristics, an intensive train-
ing program can be used to increase the applicant’s
qualifications to perform the job.
Our definition of ability is broader than most. We
are focusing on the ability to perform, rather than the
performer’s ability. Therefore, our definition includes
a third, situational component: adequate resources.
Frequently, highly capable and well-trained individuals
are placed in situations that inhibit job performance.
Specifically, they aren’t given the resources (technical,
personnel, political) to perform assigned tasks effectively.
Motivation represents an employee’s desire and
commitment to perform and is manifested in job-
related effort. Some people want to complete a task but
are easily distracted or discouraged. They have high
desire but low commitment. Others plod along with
impressive persistence, but their work is uninspired.
These people have high commitment but low desire.
The first diagnostic question that must be asked
by the supervisor of a poor performer is whether the
person’s performance deficiencies stem from lack of
ability or lack of motivation. Managers need four
pieces of information in order to answer this question
(Michener, Fleishman, & Vaske, 1976):
1. How difficult are the tasks being assigned to
the individual?
2. How capable is the individual?
3. How hard is the individual trying to succeed at
the job?
4. How much improvement is the individual
making?
In terms of these four questions, low ability is gen-
erally associated with very difficult tasks, overall low
individual ability, evidence of strong effort, and lack of
improvement over time.
The answer to the question “Is this an ability or
motivation problem?” has far-reaching ramifications for
manager-subordinate relations. Research on this topic
has shown that managers tend to apply more pressure
to a person if they feel that the person is deliberately
not performing up to expectations, rather than not per-
forming effectively due to external, uncontrollable
328 CHAPTER 6 MOTIVATING OTHERS
forces. Managers sometimes justify their choice of a
forceful influence strategy on the grounds that the sub-
ordinate has a poor attitude, is hostile to authority, or
lacks dedication.
Unfortunately, if the manager’s assessment is incor-
rect and poor performance is related to ability rather
than motivation, the response to increased pressure
will worsen the problem. If poor performers feel that
management is insensitive to their problems—that
they lack resources, adequate training, or realistic
time schedules—they may respond counterproduc-
tively to any tactics aimed at increasing their
effort. Quite likely they will develop a motivational
problem—that is, their desire and commitment will
decrease—in response to management’s insensitive,
“iron-fisted” actions. Seeing this response, manage-
ment will feel that their original diagnosis is con-
firmed, and they will use even stronger forms of
influence to force compliance. The resulting vicious
cycle is extremely difficult to break and underscores
the high stakes involved in accurately diagnosing poor
performance problems.
In this chapter, we will examine the two compo-
nents of performance in more detail, beginning with
ability. We’ll discuss manifestations of low ability and
poor motivation, their causes, and some proposed
remedies. We’ll devote more attention to motivation,
since motivation is more central to day-to-day
manager-subordinate interactions. While ability tends
to remain stable over long periods of time, motivation
fluctuates; therefore, it requires closer monitoring and
frequent recharging.
Enhancing Individuals’ Abilities
A person’s lack of ability might inhibit good performance
for several reasons. Ability may have been assessed
improperly during the screening process prior to
employment, the technical requirements of a job may
have been radically upgraded, or a person who
performed very well in one position may have been pro-
moted into a higher-level position that is too demanding.
(The Peter Principle states that people are typically pro-
moted one position above their level of competence.) In
addition, human and material resource support may
have been reduced because of organizational budget
cutbacks.
As noted by Quick (1977, 1991), managers
should be alert for individuals who show signs of abil-
ity deterioration. Following are three danger signals for
management positions:
1. Taking refuge in a specialty. Managers
show signs of insufficient ability when they
respond to situations not by managing, but by
retreating to their technical specialty. This
often occurs when general managers who feel
insecure address problems outside their area of
expertise and experience. Anthony Jay, in
Management and Machiavelli (1967), dubs
this type of manager “George I,” after the King
of England who, after assuming the throne,
continued to be preoccupied with the affairs of
Hanover, Germany, whence he had come.
2. Focusing on past performance. Another
danger sign is measuring one’s value to the
organization in terms of past performance or
on the basis of former standards. Some cavalry
commanders in World War I relied on their
outmoded knowledge of how to conduct suc-
cessful military campaigns and, as a result,
failed miserably in mechanized combat. This
form of obsolescence is common in organiza-
tions that fail to shift their mission in response
to changing market conditions.
3. Exaggerating aspects of the leadership
role. Managers who have lost confidence in
their ability tend to be very defensive. This
often leads them to exaggerate one aspect of
their managerial role. Such managers might
delegate most of their responsibilities because
they no longer feel competent to perform them
well. Or they might become nuts-and-bolts
administrators who scrutinize every detail to
an extent far beyond its practical value. Still
others become “devil’s advocates,” but rather
than stimulating creativity, their negativism
thwarts efforts to change the familiar.
There are five principal tools available for over-
coming poor performance problems due to lack of abil-
ity: resupply, retrain, refit, reassign, and release. We
will discuss these in the order in which a manager
should consider them.
Once a manager has ascertained that lack of ability
is the primary cause of someone’s poor performance, a
performance review interview should be scheduled to
explore these options, beginning with resupplying and
retraining. Unless the manager has overwhelming evi-
dence that the problem stems from low aptitude, it is
wise to assume initially that it is due to a lack of
resources or training. This gives the subordinate the
benefit of the doubt and reduces the likely defensive
reaction to an assessment of inadequate aptitude.
MOTIVATING OTHERS CHAPTER 6 329
The resupply option focuses on the support needs
of the job, including personnel, budget, and political
clout. Asking “Do you have what you need to perform
this job satisfactorily?” allows the subordinate to express
his or her frustration related to inadequate support.
Given the natural tendency for individuals to blame
external causes for their mistakes, managers should
explore their subordinates’ complaints about lack of sup-
port in detail to determine their validity. Even if employ-
ees exaggerate their claims, starting your discussion of
poor performance in this manner signals your willing-
ness to help them solve the problem from their perspec-
tive rather than to find fault from your perspective.
The next least threatening option is to retrain.
American companies with more than 100 employees
budgeted in excess of $60 billion for formal training. To
deliver this training, these firms spent $42 billion
on corporate trainers and an additional $14.3 billion on
commercial trainers (Reese, 1999; Tomlinson, 2002).
This is a sizeable expenditure for American corpora-
tions, but the reasons for these expenditures are clear.
First of all, technology is changing so quickly that
employees’ skills can soon become obsolete. It has been
estimated that 50 percent of employees’ skills become
outdated within three to five years (Moe & Blodget,
2000). Second, employees will typically fill a number of
different positions throughout their careers, each
demanding different proficiencies. Finally, demographic
changes in our society will lead to an increasingly older
workforce. In order for companies to remain competi-
tive, more and more of them must retrain their older
employees.
Training programs can take a variety of forms. For
example, many firms are using computer technology
more in education. This can involve interactive techni-
cal instruction and business games that simulate
problems likely to be experienced by managers in the
organization. More traditional forms of training include
subsidized university courses and in-house technical or
management seminars. Some companies have experi-
mented with company sabbaticals to release managers
or senior technical specialists from the pressures of
work so they can concentrate on retooling. The most
rapidly increasing form of training is “distance learn-
ing,” in which formal courses are offered over the
Internet. Web-based corporate learning is expected to
soon top $11 billion (Moe & Blodget, 2000). In a recent
report, the U.S. Department of Education stated that
1,680 academic institutions offered 54,000 online
courses in 1998—for which 1.6 million students
enrolled. That marked a 70 percent increase since
1995 (Boehle, Dobbs, & Stamps, 2000).
In many cases, resupplying and retraining are
insufficient remedies for poor performance. When this
happens, the next step should be to explore refitting
poor performers to their task assignments. While the
subordinates remain on the job, the components of their
work are analyzed, and different combinations of tasks
and abilities that accomplish organizational objectives
and provide meaningful and rewarding work are
explored. For example, an assistant may be brought in
to handle many of the technical details of a first-line
supervisor’s position, freeing up more time for the super-
visor to focus on people development or to develop a
long-term plan to present to upper management.
If a revised job description is unworkable or inad-
equate, the fourth alternative is to reassign the poor
performer, either to a position of less responsibility or
to one requiring less technical knowledge or interper-
sonal skills. For example, a medical specialist in a hos-
pital who finds it increasingly difficult to keep abreast
of new medical procedures but has demonstrated man-
agement skills might be shifted to a full-time adminis-
trative position.
The last option is to release. If retraining and cre-
ative redefinition of task assignments have not worked
and if there are no opportunities for reassignment in
the organization, the manager should consider releas-
ing the employee from the organization. This option is
generally constrained by union agreements, company
policies, seniority considerations, and government reg-
ulations. Frequently, however, chronic poor perform-
ers who could be released are not because manage-
ment chooses to sidestep a potentially unpleasant task.
Instead, the decision is made to set these individuals
“on the shelf,” out of the mainstream of activities,
where they can’t cause any problems. Even when this
action is motivated by humanitarian concerns (“I don’t
think he could cope with being terminated”), it often
produces the opposite effect. Actions taken to protect
an unproductive employee from the embarrassment of
termination just substitute the humiliation of being
ignored. Obviously, termination is a drastic action that
should not be taken lightly. However, the conse-
quences for the unproductive individuals and their
coworkers of allowing them to remain after the previ-
ous four actions have proven unsuccessful should be
weighed carefully in considering this option.
This approach to managing ability problems is
reflected in the philosophy of Wendell Parsons, CEO of
Stamp-Rite. He argues that one of the most challenging
aspects of management is helping employees recognize
that job enhancements and advancements are not
always possible. Therefore, he says, “If a long-term
330 CHAPTER 6 MOTIVATING OTHERS
employee slows down, I try to turn him around by say-
ing how much I value his knowledge and experience,
but pointing out that his production has slipped too
much. If boredom has set in and I can’t offer the
employee a change, I encourage him to face the fact
and consider doing something else with his life”
(Nelton, 1988).
Fostering a Motivating
Work Environment
The second component of employee performance is
motivation. While it is important to see to the training
and the support needs of subordinates and to be
actively involved in the hiring and the job-matching
processes to ensure adequate aptitude, the influence
of a manager’s actions on the day-to-day motivation of
subordinates is equally vital. Effective managers devote
considerable time to gauging and strengthening their
subordinates’ motivation, as reflected in their effort and
concern.
In one of the seminal contributions to management
thought, Douglas McGregor (1960) introduced the term
Theory X to refer to a management style characterized by
close supervision. The basic assumption of this theory is
that people really do not want to work hard or assume
responsibility. Therefore, in order to get the job done,
managers must coerce, intimidate, manipulate, and
closely supervise their employees. In contrast, McGregor
espouses a Theory Y view of workers. He argues workers
basically want to do a good job and assume more respon-
sibility; therefore, management’s role is to assist workers
to reach their potential by productively channeling
their motivation to succeed. Unfortunately, McGregor
believes most managers subscribe to Theory X assump-
tions about workers’ motives.
The alleged prevalence of the Theory X view brings
up an interesting series of questions about motivation.
Figure 6.1 Relationship Between Satisfaction and Performance
What is the purpose of teaching motivation skills to
managers? Should managers learn these skills so they
can help employees reach their potential? Or are we
teaching these skills to managers so they can more effec-
tively manipulate their employees’ behavior? These
questions naturally lead to a broader set of issues regard-
ing employee-management relations. Assuming a man-
ager feels responsible for maintaining a given level of
productivity, is it also possible to be concerned about the
needs and desires of employees? In other words, are
concerns about employee morale and company produc-
tivity compatible, or are they mutually exclusive?
Contemporary research, as well as the experience
of highly acclaimed organizational motivation pro-
grams (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002), supports the
position that concerns about morale and performance
can coexist. As Figure 6.1 shows, effective motiva-
tional programs not only can, but must focus on
increasing both satisfaction and productivity. A high
emphasis on satisfaction with a low emphasis on per-
formance represents an irresponsible view of the role
of management. Managers are hired by owners to look
after the owners’ interests. This entails holding employ-
ees accountable for producing satisfactory results.
Managers who emphasize satisfaction to the exclusion
of performance will be seen as nice people, but their
indulging management style undermines the perfor-
mance of their subordinates.
Bob Knowling, former head of a group of internal
change agents at Ameritech that reported directly to
the CEO, joined US West in February 1996 as vice
president of network operations and technology. His
new job was to lead more than 20,000 employees in a
large-scale change effort to improve service to US
West’s more than 25 million customers.
When asked what the biggest challenge facing
companies is, even successful ones, he responded: “For
me, it begins with changing a culture of entitlement into
EMPHASIS ON PERFORMANCE
EMPHASIS ON
SATISFACTION
High
High
Low
Low
Indulging
Ignoring
Integrating
Imposing
MOTIVATING OTHERS CHAPTER 6 331
a culture of accountability. My first week on the job [at
US West], it was immediately apparent that nobody had
been accountable for the reengineering effort. Beyond
that, no one had been accountable for meeting cus-
tomer expectations or for adhering to a cost structure. It
was acceptable to miss budgets. Service was in the tank,
we were overspending our budgets by more than $100
million—yet people weren’t losing their jobs and they
still got all or some of their bonuses. That’s very much
like Ameritech had been. When people failed, we
moved them to human resources or sent them to inter-
national. When I got to US West, I felt like I was walk-
ing into the same bad movie” (Tichy, 1997).
A strong emphasis on performance to the exclusion
of satisfaction is equally ineffective. This time, instead of
indulging, the manager is imposing. In this situation,
managers have little concern for how employees feel
about their jobs. The boss issues orders, and the employ-
ees must follow them. Exploited employees are unhappy
employees, and unhappy employees may seek employ-
ment with the competition. Thus, while exploitation
may increase productivity in the short run, its long-term
effects generally decrease productivity through increased
absenteeism, employee turnover, and in some cases,
even sabotage and violence.
Jim Stuart, who ran several companies before
accepting the position of executive director of the Florida
Aquarium in 1995, reflected on how life’s experiences
convinced him to alter his authoritarian leadership style:
My classmates at Harvard Business School
used to call me the Prussian General: For many
years, that was my approach to leadership.
Then I was hit by a series of personal tragedies
and professional setbacks. My wife died. A
mail-order venture that I had started went
bankrupt. The universe was working hard to
bring a little humility into my life. Rather than
launch another business, I accepted a friend’s
offer to head an aquarium project in Tampa.
I spent the next six years in a job that gave me
no power, no money, and no knowledge. That
situation forced me to draw on a deeper part of
myself. We ended up with a team of people
who were so high-performing that they could
almost walk through walls. Why, I wondered,
was I suddenly able to lead a team that was so
much more resilient and creative than any
team that I had run before? The answer:
Somewhere, amid all of my trials, I had begun
to trust my colleagues as much as I trusted
myself. (McCauley, 1999)
When managers emphasize neither satisfaction
nor performance, they are ignoring their responsibili-
ties and the facts at hand. The resulting neglect reflects
a lack of management. There is no real leadership, in
the sense that employees receive neither priorities nor
direction. Paralyzed between what they consider to be
mutually exclusive options of emphasizing perfor-
mance or satisfaction, managers choose neither. The
resulting neglect, if allowed to continue, may ulti-
mately lead to the failure of the work unit.
The integrating motivation strategy emphasizes
performance and satisfaction equally. Effective man-
agers are able to combine what appear to be competing
forces into integrative, synergistic programs. Instead of
accepting the conventional wisdom that says compet-
ing forces cancel each other out, they capitalize on the
tension between the combined elements to forge new
approaches creatively. However, this does not mean
that both objectives can be fully satisfied in every spe-
cific case. Some trade-offs occur naturally in ongoing
work situations. However, in the long run, both objec-
tives should be given equal consideration.
The integrative view of motivation proposes that
while the importance of employees’ feeling good about
what they are doing and how they are being treated
cannot be downplayed, this concern should not over-
shadow management’s responsibility to hold people
accountable for results. Managers should avoid the
twin traps of working to engender high employee
morale for its own sake or pushing for short-term
results at the expense of long-term commitment. The
best managers have productive people who are also
satisfied with their work environment (Kotter, 1996).
Elements of an Effective
Motivation Program
We now turn to the core of this discussion: a step-by-
step program for creating an integrative, synergistic
motivational program grounded in the belief that
employees can simultaneously be high performers and
personally satisfied. The key assumptions underlying
our framework are summarized in Table 6.1.
It is useful to note the prevailing wisdom among
organizational scholars regarding the relationships
between motivation, satisfaction, and performance
has changed dramatically over the past several
decades. When the authors took their first academic
courses on this subject, they were taught the following
model:
Satisfaction
→
Motivation
→
Performance
332 CHAPTER 6 MOTIVATING OTHERS
However, over the course of our careers we have
observed the following criticisms of this “contented
cows give more milk” view of employee performance.
First, as researchers began collecting longitudinal
data on the predictors of performance, they discovered
that the satisfaction, motivation, performance causal
logic was wrong. For reasons we will discuss later in
this chapter, it is now believed that:
Motivation
→
Performance
→
Satisfaction
Second, the correlations among these three vari-
ables was very low, suggesting there were a large num-
ber of additional factors that needed to be added to this
basic model. For example, we now know high
performance leads to high satisfaction if workers
believe that their organization reinforces high perfor-
mance by contingently linking it to valued rewards.
(“I want X and I am more likely to get X if I perform
well.”) In other words, performance leads to satisfac-
tion when it is clear rewards are based on perfor-
mance, as compared with seniority or membership.
The addition of this intermediate link between perfor-
mance and rewards (more generally referred to as
outcomes) has so dramatically improved our under-
standing of the organizational dynamics associated
with work performance that it has been incorporated
into a revised model:
Motivation
→
Performance
→
Outcomes
→
Satisfaction
The remainder of this chapter is basically an
account of the improvements that have been made
Table 6.1 Key Assumptions Underlying
Our Framework
1. Employees typically start out motivated. Therefore, a
lack of motivation is a learned response, often fos-
tered by misunderstood or unrealistic expectations.
2. The role of management is to create a supportive,
problem-solving work environment in which facilitation,
not control, is the prevailing value.
3. Rewards should encourage high personal perfor-
mance that is consistent with management objectives.
4. Motivation works best when it is based on self-
governance.
5. Individuals should be treated fairly.
6. Individuals deserve timely, honest feedback on work
performance.
over the past few decades in this basic “four factors”
model of work motivation. We will not only discuss in
more detail the causal logic linking these core vari-
ables, but we will also introduce several additional fac-
tors that we now know must also be included in a
comprehensive motivation program. For example, ear-
lier in this chapter we introduced the notion that
people’s performance is a function of both their moti-
vation and their ability. This suggests we need to add
ability to the basic model as a second factor (besides
motivation) contributing to performance. Each of the
following sections of this chapter introduce additional
variables that, like ability, need to be added to the
basic, four-factor model. Table 6.2 shows the key
building blocks of the complete model, in the form of
six diagnostic questions, organized with reference to
the “four-factor” model of motivation. A model encap-
sulating these questions will be used to summarize our
presentation at the end of the chapter (Figure 6.5), and
a diagnostic tool based on these questions will be
described in the Skill Practice section (Figure 6.7).
ESTABLISH CLEAR
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
As shown in Table 6.2, the first two elements of our
comprehensive motivational program focus on the
Motivation → Performance link. We begin by focusing
on the manager’s role in establishing clear expectations
and then shift to the manager’s role in enabling mem-
bers of a work group to satisfy those expectations.
It is important to point out we’re not just talking
about hourly employees. Based on data collected since
1993, Right Management Consultants reported that
one-third of all managers who change jobs fail in their
new positions within 18 months (Fisher, 2005).
According to this study, the number-one tip for getting
off to a good start is asking your boss exactly what’s
expected of you and how soon you’re supposed to
deliver it. In fact, there tends to be a negative correla-
tion between the level of one’s position in an organiza-
tion and the likelihood of receiving a job description or
detailed performance expectations. Too often the boss’s
attitude is, “I pay people to know without being told.”
Discussions of goal setting often make reference to
an insightful conversation between Alice in Wonderland
and the Cheshire Cat. When confronted with a choice
among crossing routes, Alice asked the Cat which one
she should choose. In response, the Cat asked Alice
where she was heading. Discovering Alice had no real
destination in mind, the Cat appropriately advised
her any choice would do. It is surprising how often
MOTIVATING OTHERS CHAPTER 6 333
supervisors violate the commonsense notion that they
need to make sure individuals under their charge not
only understand which road they should take but what
constitutes an acceptable pace for the journey.
With this parable in mind, managers should begin
assessing the motivational climate of their work envi-
ronment by asking, “Is there agreement on, and accep-
tance of, performance expectations?” The foundation
of an effective motivation program is proper goal set-
ting (Locke & Latham, 2002). Across many studies of
group performance it was shown that the average per-
formance of groups that set goals is significantly higher
than that of groups that didn’t set goals. Goal-setting
theory suggests goals are associated with enhanced per-
formance because they mobilize effort, direct attention,
and encourage persistence and strategy development
(Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002). The salience of goal setting is
so well recognized that it has been incorporated in sev-
eral formal management tools, such as management by
objectives (MBO). Effective goal setting has three criti-
cal components: goal-setting process, goal characteris-
tics, and feedback.
A common theme in this book is, “The way you
do things is very often as important as what you do.”
Applied to the goal-setting process, this means
the manner by which goals are established must be
Table 6.2 Six Elements of an Integrative Motivation Program
MOTIVATION → PERFORMANCE
1. Establish moderately difficult goals that are understood and accepted.
Ask:
“Do subordinates understand and accept my performance expectations?”
2. Remove personal and organizational obstacles to performance.
Ask:
“Do subordinates feel it is possible to achieve this goal or expectation?”
PERFORMANCE → OUTCOMES
3. Use rewards and discipline appropriately to extinguish unacceptable behavior and encourage exceptional performance.
Ask:
“Do subordinates feel that being a high performer is more rewarding than being a low or average performer?”
OUTCOMES → SATISFACTION
4. Provide salient internal and external incentives.
Ask:
“Do subordinates feel the rewards used to encourage high performance are worth the effort?”
5. Distribute rewards equitably.
Ask:
“Do subordinates feel that work-related benefits are being distributed fairly?”
6. Provide timely rewards and specific, accurate, and honest feedback on performance.
Ask:
“Are we getting the most out of our rewards by administering them on a timely basis as part of the feedback
process?”
Ask:
“Do subordinates know where they stand in terms of current performance and long-term opportunities?”
considered carefully. The basic maxim is goals must be
both understood and accepted if they are to be effec-
tive. To that end, research has shown subordinates are
more likely to “buy into” goals if they feel they are part
of the goal-setting process. It has been well docu-
mented that the performance of work groups is higher
when groups choose their goals rather than have them
assigned (Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002).
The motivating potential of chosen goals is espe-
cially important if the work environment is unfavor-
able for goal accomplishment (Latham, Erez, & Locke,
1988). For example, a goal might be inconsistent with
accepted practice, require new skills, or exacerbate
poor management-employee relations. To be sure, if
working conditions are highly conducive to goal
accomplishment, subordinates may be willing to com-
mit themselves to the achievement of goals in whose
formulation they did not participate. However, such
acceptance usually occurs only when management
demonstrates an overall attitude of understanding and
support. When management does not exhibit a sup-
portive attitude, the imposed goals or task assignments
are likely to be viewed as unwelcome demands. As a
result, subordinates will question the premises under-
lying the goals or assignments and will comply only
reluctantly with the demands.
334 CHAPTER 6 MOTIVATING OTHERS
Sometimes it is difficult to allow for extensive par-
ticipation in the establishment of work goals. For
example, a manager frequently is given directions
regarding new tasks or assignment deadlines that must
be passed on. However, if subordinates believe man-
agement is committed to involving them in all discre-
tionary aspects of the governance of their work unit,
they are more willing to accept top-down directions
regarding the nondiscretionary aspects of work assign-
ments. For example, a computer programming unit
may not have any say about which application pro-
grams are assigned to the group or what priority is
assigned each incoming assignment. However, the
manager can still involve unit members in deciding
how much time to allocate to each assignment (“What
is a realistic goal for completing this task?”) or who
should receive which job assignment (“Which type of
programs would you find challenging?”).
Shifting from process to content, research has
shown that goal characteristics significantly affect
the likelihood that the goal will be accomplished
(Locke & Latham, 2002). Effective goals are specific,
consistent, and appropriately challenging.
Goals that are specific are measurable, unambigu-
ous, and behavioral. Specific goals reduce misunder-
standing about what behaviors will be rewarded.
Admonitions such as “be dependable,” “work hard,”
“take initiative,” or “do your best” are too general and
too difficult to measure and are therefore of limited
motivational value. In contrast, when a new vice presi-
dent of operations was appointed at a major midwestern
steel factory, he targeted three goals: Reduce finished
product rejection by 15 percent (quality); reduce aver-
age shipment period by two days (customer satisfac-
tion); and respond to all employee suggestions within
48 hours (employee involvement).
Goals should also be consistent. An already hard-
working assistant vice president in a large metropolitan
bank complains she cannot increase both the number
of reports she writes in a week and the amount of time
she spends “on the floor,” visiting with employees
and customers. Goals that are inconsistent—in the
sense that they are logically impossible to accomplish
simultaneously—or incompatible—in the sense that they
both require so much effort they can’t be accomplished at
the same time—create frustration and alienation. When
subordinates complain goals are incompatible or inconsis-
tent, managers should be flexible enough to reconsider
their expectations.
One of the most important characteristics of goals is
that they are appropriately challenging (Knight,
Durham, & Locke, 2001). Simply stated, hard goals are
more motivating than easy goals. One explanation for
this is called “achievement motivation” (Atkinson, 1992;
Weiner, 2000). According to this perspective, workers
size up new tasks in terms of their chances for success
and the significance of the anticipated accomplishment.
Based only on perceived likelihood of success, one
would predict that those who seek success would
choose an easy task to perform because the probability
for success is the highest. However, these individuals
also factor into their decisions the significance of com-
pleting the task. To complete a goal anyone can reach is
not rewarding enough for highly motivated individuals.
In order for them to feel successful, they must believe
an accomplishment represents a meaningful achieve-
ment. Given their desire for success and achievement,
it is clear these workers will be most motivated by chal-
lenging, but reachable, goals.
Although there is no single standard of difficulty
that fits all people, it is important to keep in mind high
expectations generally foster high performance and low
expectations decrease performance (Davidson & Eden,
2000). As one experienced manager said, “We get
about what we expect.” Warren Bennis, author of The
Unconscious Conspiracy: Why Leaders Can’t Lead,
agrees. “In a study of schoolteachers, it turned out that
when they held high expectations of their students, that
alone was enough to cause an increase of 25 points in
the students’ IQ scores” (Bennis, 1984, 2003).
In addition to selecting the right type of goal, an
effective goal program must also include feedback.
Feedback provides opportunities for clarifying expecta-
tions, adjusting goal difficulty, and gaining recognition.
Therefore, it is important to provide benchmark oppor-
tunities for individuals to determine how they are
doing. These along-the-way progress reports are partic-
ularly critical when the time required to complete an
assignment or reach a goal is very long. For example,
feedback is very useful for projects such as writing a
large computer program or raising a million dollars for
a local charity. In these cases, feedback should be
linked to accomplishing intermediate stages or com-
pleting specific components.
REMOVE OBSTACLES
TO PERFORMANCE
One of the key ingredients of an effective goal program
is a supportive work environment. After setting goals,
managers should shift their focus to facilitating suc-
cessful accomplishment by focusing on the ability part
of the performance formula. From a diagnostic per-
spective, this can be done by asking, “Do subordinates
MOTIVATING OTHERS CHAPTER 6 335
Figure 6.2 Leader Involvement and Subordinate Performance
feel it is possible to achieve this goal?” Help from man-
agement must come in many forms, including making
sure the worker has the aptitude required for the job,
providing the necessary training, securing needed
resources, and encouraging cooperation and support
from other work units. It is the manager’s job to make
the paths leading toward the targeted goals easier for
the subordinate to travel.
This management philosophy can be illustrated
readily with examples from sports. Instead of assuming
the role of the star quarterback who expects the rest of
the team to make him look good, the facilitative man-
ager is more like the blocking fullback or the pulling
guard who specializes in downfield blocking and
punching holes in the opposition’s defenses. In a bas-
ketball example, this type of leader is like the player
who takes more pride in his number of assists than in
the number of points he has scored.
However, as with all general management guide-
lines, effective results follow from sensitive, informed
implementation tailored to specific circumstances. In
this case, the manner in which this enabling, facilitative
role should be implemented varies considerably among
individuals, organizational settings, and tasks. When
subordinates believe strong management support is
needed, leaders who are not aware of the obstacles to
performance, or not assertive enough to remove them,
probably will be perceived as part of the employee’s
problem, rather than the source of solutions. By the
same token, when management intervention is not
needed or expected, managers who are constantly
involved in the details of subordinates’ job performance
will be viewed as meddling and unwilling to trust. This
view of management is incorporated in the “path goal”
theory of leadership (House & Mitchell, 1974; see also,
Schriesheim & Neider, 1996; Shamir, House, & Arthur,
1993), shown in Figure 6.2. The key question it
addresses is, “How much help should a manager pro-
vide?” In response, the model proposes that the level of
involvement should vary according to how much sub-
ordinates need to perform a specific task; how much
they expect, in general; and how much support is avail-
able to them from other organizational sources.
The key task characteristics of the path-goal
model are structure and difficulty. A task that is highly
structured, as reflected in the degree of built-in order
and direction, and relatively easy to perform does not
require extensive management direction. If managers
offer too much advice, they will come across as con-
trolling, bossy, or nagging, because from the nature of
the task itself, it is already clear to the subordinates
what they should do. On the other hand, for an
unstructured and difficult task, management’s direc-
tion and strong involvement in problem-solving activi-
ties will be seen as constructive and satisfying.
The second factor that influences the appropriate
degree of management involvement is the expectations
of the subordinates. Three distinct characteristics influ-
ence expectations: desire for autonomy, experience,
and ability. Individuals who prize their autonomy and
Leader’s
involvement
(How much
help should
I provide?)
Subordinates’
expectations
(How much
help do they
want?)
Task
characteristics
(How much
help is
needed?)
Organizational
structure and
systems
(How much
help is already
available?)
Subordinates’
performance
and
satisfaction
336 CHAPTER 6 MOTIVATING OTHERS
independence prefer managers with a highly participa-
tive leadership style because it gives them more latitude
for controlling what they do. In contrast, people who
prefer the assistance of others in making decisions,
establishing priorities, and solving problems prefer
greater management involvement.
The connection between a worker’s ability and
experience levels and preferred management style is
straightforward. Capable and experienced employees
feel they need less assistance from their managers
because they are adequately trained, know how to
obtain the necessary resources, and can handle polit-
ical entanglements with their counterparts in other
units. They appreciate managers who “give them their
head” but periodically check to see if further assistance
is required. On the other hand, it is frustrating for
relatively new employees, or those with marginal
skills, to feel that their manager has neither the time
nor interest to listen to basic questions.
An important concept in the path-goal approach
to leadership is management involvement should com-
plement, rather than duplicate, organizational sources
of support. Specifically, managers should provide
more “downfield blocking” in situations wherein
work-group norms governing performance are not
clear, organizational rewards for performance are
insufficient, and organizational controls governing
performance are inadequate.
One of the important lessons from this discussion
of the path-goal model is managers must tailor their
management style to specific conditions, such as those
shown in Table 6.3. Although managers should focus
on facilitating task accomplishment, their level of direct
involvement should be calibrated to the nature of the
work and the availability of organizational support, as
well as the ability and experience of the individuals. If
managers are insensitive to these contingencies, they
probably will be perceived by some subordinates as
interfering with their desires to explore their own way,
while others will feel lost.
This conclusion underscores how important it is
that managers understand the needs and expecta-
tions of their subordinates. Bill Dyer, a leading business
consultant, observed that effective managers regu-
larly ask their subordinates three simple questions:
“How is your work going?” “What do you enjoy the
most/least?” “How can I help you succeed?” Asking these
questions communicates a supportive style; hearing
the answers allows managers to fine-tune their facilita-
tive actions.
REINFORCE PERFORMANCE-
ENHANCING BEHAVIOR
Referring back to the basic “four-factor” model of moti-
vation, we now shift our focus from the antecedents of
work performance (the Motivation → Performance link)
to its consequences (the Performance → Outcomes
link). Once clear goals have been established and the
paths to goal completion have been cleared by
management, the next step in an effective motiva-
tional program is to encourage goal accomplishment
by contingently linking performance to extrinsic out-
comes (rewards and discipline) and fostering intrinsic
outcomes. Given our overall emphasis in this book on
improving management skills that are used day in and
day out, the majority of this section will focus on link-
ing performance to extrinsic outcomes.
Table 6.3 Factors Influencing Management Involvement
CONDITIONS APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS APPROPRIATE
FOR
HIGH MANAGEMENT FOR LOW MANAGEMENT
CONTINGENCIES INVOLVEMENT INVOLVEMENT
Task structure Low High
Task mastery Low High
Subordinate’s desire for autonomy Low High
Subordinate’s experience Low High
Subordinate’s ability Low High
Strength of group norms Low High
Effectiveness of organization’s controls and rewards Low High