Lecture 3: Rewards & punishments Flashcards
(51 cards)
Types of motivation
Extrinsically motivated behaviours are governed by the prospect of instrumental gain and loss, while intrinsically motivated behaviours are engaged for their own sake like task enjoyment
What is the impact of intrinsic motivation on performance?
Performance is synonymous with behaviour, it is something that people actually do and can be observed. Extrinsic incentives are motivating only to the extent that an individual believes attaining the incentive is dependent on other things of value like foods, cars, housing etc. Unclear the link btw intrinsic motivation and performance
Undermining effect
Refers to the idea that the presentation of incentives on an initially enjoyable task reduces following intrinsic motivation for the task
Self-determination theory
Explains how intrinsic motivation fuels the direction, intensity and persistence of motivated behaviour. There is a relationship between the choice of direction and intrinsic motivation. Those who find a task more intrinsically motivating expend a higher degree of intensity or effort in its production. So IM is linked to performance through their impact on motivational persistence. Tasks emphasising performance quality will have a strong link to intrinsic motivation (due to more complexity + engagement of skill). Tasks emphasizing performance quantity have a weaker link to intrinsic motivation (lower in complexity, less cognitive investment)
Does incentivization moderate the predictive validity of intrinsic motivation?
Intrinsic motivation includes the presence of incentives. Incentive presence is whether it is offered while contingency is how an incentive is dependant on performance. Directly salient incentives provide a clear, unambigious link to performance. Indirectly salient incentives have a tie to performance, but the link is less clear or direct
What is the distinction btw the 4 contingency categories?
Engagement, completion, performance and non-contingent incentives. Categories describe whether an incentive was promised, mere completion of the task, attaining some level of performance or not at all related to the task. These incentive contingencies were developed for use in highly controlled, manipulated lab experiments
Crowding out hypothesis
When incentives are directly performance salient they possess immediacy and salience. If performance motives are intrinsic or extrinsic, then intrinsic motivation is a poorer predictor as it not the sole determinant of performance motivation. When there are direct incentives then there is a crowding out effect as incentives become more salient. So, the predictive utility of intrinsic motivation will be weakened as it is the only determinant. But indirectly performance-salient incentives lack the salience and immediacy factors-> less impact on behaviour
When is intrinsic motivation more important for behaviour?
When indirectly salient incentives are weak or absent. If they are more salient then intrinsic motivation will be less important for behaviour (focus should be on whether incentives reduce the extent to which intrinsic motivation covaries with predicting performance)
What matters more for performance: incentives or intrinsic motivation?
Intrinsic motivation should predict performance depending on how performance is defined and the contingency of incentives provided. External incentives can also explain a large share of performance. For quantity: incentives should be the deciding predictors, while intrinsic motivation should more strongly predict quality performance
What are the hypotheses?
1A: intrinsic motivation is positively related to performance
1B: the relation btw intrinsic motivation and performance is stronger for quality-type tasks
2A : when incentivized, the relationship btw IM and performance is strengthened by indirectly performance-salient incentives
2B : when incentivized, the the relationship btw IM and performance is weakened by directly performance-salient incentives
3A: for performance quantity: extrinsic incentives are a better predictor
3B: for performance quality, intrinsic motivation is a better predictor
What was the method and analysis?
- had to report effect sizes for the relation btw intrinsic motivation and performance
- autonomous regulation: maintained by intrinsic/extrinsic forces
- IM: participation in an activity for enjoyment
- task enjoyment
- free choice task persistence: intentionally given an opportunity to engage in a task for no compensation
- performance was divided into: quality, quantity, or both
What are the results?
Hypothesis 1 received support, as there was a correlation of .26 between intrinsic motivation and performance. Hypothesis 2 received support as the correlation btw IM and performance was stronger for quality performance than quantity. Hypothesis 3 and 4 were supported as IM, incentive presence + incentive contingency interacted. The relationship between IM and performance was stronger for indirectly performance-salient incentives. Hypothesis 5 and 6 were supported as incentives explained quantity performance while IM explained quality performance. Relative importance of intrinsic motivation was identical to that of extrinsic incentives. The IM- perf link was strongest under work, physical contexts, adults, weakest in academics, children, adolescents. Samples that were more IM on average were higher performing on average. Incentive contingency has a strong link to IM, rather than incentives alone. IM increases with age
Collateral damage effect
For example, organizations might boost performance/effectiveness quickly and directly by tying incentives more closely to performance, but if this practice occurs at the expense of other critical factors such as individual well-being, morale, and job satisfaction, such programs
may not be worthwhile. Can foster cognitive/attentional deficits
Implications?
Simple tasks, high stakes, productivity, compliance-> direct salient incentives. But then creativity and teamwork will be disincentivized
How is transactional leadership effective?
Leader contingent reward behaviour is more strongly correlated than transformational leadership to some employee outcomes. Contingent and noncontingent punishment behaviours have important relationships with employee attitudes, perceptions, behaviours
Why has there been a trendy away from transactional leadership?
- strategic, visionary, transformational leadership seem more important as it addresses more complex and important issues, while transactional focusses on day-to-day interactions
- issues with the definition as an exchange with followers (rewards seen as an inducement, explicit agreement to receive rewards as criticisms)
- leaders administer feedback noncontingently (positive feedback to those not doing well and vice versa)
Contingent reward behaviour
leader’s administration of positive feedback in the form of recognition, praise, and/or acknowledgment to
those employees who demonstrate good performance, show improvements in performance, or exhibit desirable behaviours
Contingent punishment behaviour
leader’s administration of negative feedback in the form of reprimands, criticism, or disapproval to employees who exhibit poor or declining performance, or undesirable behaviours
What are the relationships between leader reward, punishment behaviour and employee satisfaction?
- transformational leadership had stronger positive relationships than contingent reward behaviour with satisfaction with leader and effectiveness
- contingent reward behaviour had stronger positive relationships with job satisfaction + performance
- contingent reward behaviour had the strongest relationships with all employee satisfaction, followed by noncontingent reward behaviour etc, same with leader contingent reward behaviour
- leader contingent rewards was positively related to all aspects of employee satisfaction
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)
Individual behaviour that is not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, that promotes the effective functioning of the organization. Included OCB1- aimed at helping other individuals
and OCB-O is aimed at the organization itself
4 types of performance
Task performance (performance on requirements of the job), OCB-I, OCB-O and group or unit level performance
What are the relationships between leader reward, punishment behaviour and employee performance?
- the strength of the positive relationship between leader contingent reward behaviour and performance was as strong as the negative relationship btw noncontingent punishment behaviour and performance
- leader contingent punishment had no relationship with individual measures of employee performance but was effective for groups
- noncontingent punishment had a stronger impact on group performance than contingent reward behaviours
What are the mechanisms through which leader reward + punishment behaviour work?
- role clarity: feedback can help clarify expectations, related to satisfaction through reduce role ambiguity, send signals to other employees (when contingent)
- perceptions of fairness: contingent rewards are positively related to perceptions of justice, which is positively related to satisfaction and performance
- job satisfaction: due to clarifying expectations, get what they deserve, satisfied when inappropriate behaviours are punished
- trust in leader: noncontingent behaviour has negative effects, as it makes up credibility, being able to influence attitudes and perceptions, directly related to performance
- perceived organizational support: perceptions that the org values their contribution + cares about wellbeing, leaders represent this-> value of these contributions
- organizational commitment: more committed as followers believe that leaders are fair, credible, more support, satisfaction, while noncontingent punishments have a negative relationship
What are the misconceptions about leader reward + punishment behaviour?
- transformational leadership is more effective than transactional for org change : contingent rewards decrease cynicism with organizational change, enhance trust
- to be effective, leaders should provide rewards to all employees: should be dependent on specific employee behaviour, like should not reward individual effort but wanting teamwork
- punishment does not work in org settings: linking discipline to poor performance can improve performance, increase satisfaction, is avoided due to potential negative feelings but should clarify to avoid this
- leaders should reward publically, punish privately: negative feedback can be used as a learning experience, public punishment is not public humiliation
- positive feedback is always better than negative feedback: when rewards are not linked to performance they have little effect but rewards can have a positive effect on discipline, rewards cannot always be used
- enough recognition and praise is provided: not always accurate, should be given more often and frequently
- rewarding employees will decreases their IM to perform: non monetary rewards have the opposite effect
- in a competitive environment, org do not have resources to provide rewards to employees: non-monetary incentives are meaningful, many low cost methods of providing recognition, can lose resources without rewards
- providing recognition or paise is not part of a manager’s job, salary is enough: effective managers provide more specific feedback, white collar workers do not desire praise less than blue collar workers
- annual performance reviews provide enough recognition or discipline: rewards + punishments should be given timely, large lag usually and should be given regularly , no feedback seen as negative by employees