MGMT New York University Patagonia Inc Clothing Company Analysis Essay

  

I’m working on a management writing question and need support to help me understand better.

The company paper gives you an opportunity to demonstrate your ability to apply and integrate several of the concepts you’ve learned throughout the semester. For this paper, you will select a company that you are interested in and that you are able to find a lot of information on. You must (1) provide some general information on the company and (2) relate the company (e.g., practices, policies, problems, strategy, current events, etc.) to the material discussed in class. For the latter, you must demonstrate mastery of three core concepts from the course. You may use multiple sources to find information on the company.

For example, you may decide to research and write about Patagonia. You may then decide to discuss (1) leadership at Patagonia, (2) employee motivation at Patagonia, and decision making at Patagonia.

Importantly, your paper should offer a thoughtful analysis of your chosen company. You must do more than just describe the company. The best papers (“A” level work) will include a number of citations, references to material beyond that included in the class, and an integrative analysis. The worst papers (“C” or lower level work) will merely summarize facts. In particular, your paper will be graded based on the following criteria:

Depth of Analysis & Research (90% of points): Have you fully and properly integrated the course concepts? Is your work well-researched? Is your paper interesting? Would your classmates learn something new from reading your paper?

Presentation (10% of points): Is the paper clear, concise, and well-written (i.e., appropriate grammar, sentence structure, etc.)?

REQUIREMENTS: 2 – 4 pages (NOT counting the reference page), single-spaced, 11 font, and 1” margins. Your response must be well-reasoned, clear, and parsimonious and must integrate some of the lecture material. You must also include a reference list (in APA format).

LEADERSHIP
Redona Methasani
Overview
•In this module, you’ll gain insights into an important
topic: Gender and Leadership.
•In particular, you’ll gain insights into:
• Implicit leadership assumptions
• Gender bias
• Backlash Effect
• Why there are so few women leaders
• How we can change these patterns
Leadership and Gender:
Draw a Leader Exercise
•In a recent activity, participants were asked to draw an
effective leader.
•Participants were told to start with a sketch
– add gestures,
objectives, actions, words, context, situation characteristics –
anything that resembles a leader!
•What do you think the pictures looked like? What would the
picture look like if you were asked to draw an effective
leader?
•Let’s look at a few examples in the next slides…
Draw a Leader Exercise
•The idea for this activity came from a recent NYT article,
“Picture a leader. Is she a woman?” (March 2018).
•Here are some of the pictures shared in the article…
Draw a Leader Exercise
Implicit Leadership Assumptions
•This task has been used in numerous studies and
cultures, and the results are almost always the same:
“Both men and women almost always draw men.”
•“Even when the drawings are gender neutral, the
majority of groups present the drawing using language
that indicates male (he) rather than neutral or female”
(Kiefer, 2018).
•What are the implications of the assumption that
effective leaders = male? We’ll talk about this in this
module!
Individual Exercise: IAT
•Go to: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
•Click: PROJECT
IMPLICIT SOCIAL ATTITUDES
•Click: I WISH TO PROCEED
• (Bottom of screen; in the text)
•Click: Gender-Career IAT
•Follow instructions and Play! Write down your results. (Note
that you will need to enter demographic information either
before you play or after you finish playing in order to get your
results.)
Individual Exercise: IAT
What is the IAT?
• In social cognitive theory, implicit associations are “traces of past
experience” initiated without effort, control, awareness, or
intention in response to relevant stimuli (Bargh 1989, 1994;
Greenwald & Banaji 1995).
• Implicit
associations are unconscious and thus can’t be captured
through traditional self-report measures.
• Instead, they must be captured through the implicit association test
(IAT) which uses response time data to measure individuals’
unconscious tendencies.
• Implicit associations are of special interest to researchers, as such
can unconsciously bias behavior for the most well-intended of
people!
Individual Exercise: IAT Results
In the discussion forum, reflect on the following
questions:
•How did you do? Anyone surprised by his/her results?
•From the website: “This IAT often reveals a relative link
between family and females and between career and
males.”
The New York Times, April 2018
The New York Times, April 2018
Why are there so few women leaders?
More Data…
Why are there so few women leaders?
Research on female and male CEO careers
•A recent meta-analysis of 158 studies that examined the
differences between female and male CEO careers (Wang,
Holmes, Devine, & Bishoff, 2018) found:
• Although
female CEOs “attended more elite schools than their male
counterparts … they were less likely to chair their companies’ boards,
had shorter tenures as CEOs and were paid less.”
• “The companies they led also tended to be younger, smaller and less
prestigious.”
• “Although
companies led by women or men took similar levels of risk
and earned similar profits, those with female CEOs generated smaller
investor returns. This finding suggests that Wall Street investors put a
lower value than they should have on the share prices of companies
with women in charge.”
More …
• The Government Accountability
Office conducted a survey 1983 – 2000.
• Here’s what they – and other research – found:
• “Marriage
and parenthood…were associated with higher wages for
men but not for women. ”
• “Promotions come more slowly for women than for men with
equivalent qualifications.”
• “Even
in culturally feminine settings such as nursing, librarianship,
elementary education, and social work …men ascend to supervisory
and administrative positions more quickly than women.”
Experimental research…
• This is supported by experimental research.
• In such research, participants are presented with and asked to evaluate a
hypothetical manager or job candidate.
• All characteristics (e.g., prior position, # of years, etc.) are held constant –
except sex.
• What did they find?
Experimental research…
• This is supported by experimental research.
• In such research, participants are presented with and asked to evaluate a
hypothetical manager or job candidate.
• All characteristics (e.g., prior position, # of years, etc.) are held constant –
except sex.
• What did they find?
For jobs traditionally held by men and gender-integrated jobs: Men are
perceived as more qualified than equivalent women.
“Male leaders receive somewhat more favorable evaluations than
equivalent female leaders, especially in roles usually occupied by men.”
Why?
• These statistics
demonstrate that gender inequality is pervasive in
organizations.
• The important question is WHY – that is, why are there so few
women in leadership positions? Why are the career trajectories for
men and women so different?
• If we can understand the why, perhaps we can reverse this trend.
Why are there so few women leaders?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Gender Ambition Gap?
Not enough women?
Gender Stereotypes
Social factors
• Family and Career Demands
• Childhood
5.
In-group Favoritism
6.
Professional Network
Why?
1. “Gender Ambition Gap”
•One explanation for the gender leadership gap is
simple…
•Women are less ambitious than men.
•I.e., Women don’t miss out on “top jobs,” they just don’t
want them as they get older, become mothers, etc.
Why?
1. “Gender Ambition Gap”
•One explanation for the gender leadership gap is
simple…
•Women are less ambitious than men.
•I.e., Women don’t miss out on “top jobs,” they just don’t
want them as they get older, become mothers, etc.
Is this true?
Why?
1. “Gender Ambition Gap”
•Is this true?  Not really…
•Research says:
• Women start their careers with just as much ambition as men.
• Having children does NOT make women less ambitious.
• Instead, ambition is influenced by company culture.
• In orgs
with positive work cultures (gender diverse orgs or in orgs seeking for
improve gender-diversity), there is no ambition gap between genders (women are
eager to advance and aspire to leadership roles!).
• In orgs with low diversity standards, there is an ambition gap between men and
women.
Why?
1. “Gender Ambition Gap”
Why?
1. “Gender Ambition Gap”
Gender
Ambition Gap
No
Gap
Why?
1. “Gender Ambition Gap”
In short: “Women’s ambition levels do vary, but they vary by
company, not by family status. When companies create a positive
culture and attitude regarding gender diversity, all women—
mothers included—are eager to advance.”
“In other words, the problem is neither inherent nor related to
Gender
motherhood; instead, it hinges on
the day-to-day experiencesNoof
Gap
women at work. Ambition is notAmbition
a fixed Gap
attribute but is nurtured—
or damaged—by the daily interactions, conversations, and
opportunities that women face over time.”
Why?
2. No Women
•There are hardly any women in our
profession/industry!
•Is this true?
Why?
2. No Women
•There are hardly any women in our
profession/industry!
•Is this true?
•Hmmmm….
• In general, women comprise 47.8% of the US workforce (PEW
Research Center Analysis of 2010-2016 national labor).
• Some industries struggle to attract entry-level women, but others
simply fail to advance women into middle management or senior
leadership roles.
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
• “People have these prototypes in their head about what a leader
looks like. When we see an individual, we ask, ‘Do they fit that?’”
(McClean).
• If they don’t — even if they are acting like a leader — it’s harder to
identify them as one.
• Importantly, this effect is strengthened over time: When people are
consistently exposed to leaders who fit one profile, they will be
more likely to notice leaders who fit that same profile in the future.
• This is a great example of the “confirmation
on heuristics and biases!
bias” that we discussed in the lecture
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
Eric
Erica
In a recent experiment in AMJ, participants were asked to call into a monthly sales
team meeting of a fictional insurance company. In the meeting, they heard from
either “Eric” or “Erica.” At the end of the experiment, they rated the speaker on the
degree to which the person had “exhibited leadership,” “influenced the team” or
“assumed a leadership role.” What did they find?
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
Erica
Eric
Erics who demonstrated
leadership behavior in the
meeting (e.g., spoke up and
offered recommendations to
improve performance) were
more likely to be identified as
leaders than Erics who did not
demonstrate this behavior.
In a recent experiment in AMJ, participants were asked to call into a monthly sales
team meeting of a fictional insurance company. In the meeting, they heard from
either “Eric” or “Erica.” At the end of the experiment, they rated the speaker on the
degree to which the person had “exhibited leadership,” “influenced the team” or
“assumed a leadership role.” What did they find?
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
Erica
Eric
Erics who demonstrated
leadership behavior in the
meeting (e.g., spoke up and
offered recommendations to
improve performance) were
more likely to be identified as
leaders than Erics who did not
demonstrate this behavior.
However, this wasn’t true for
Ericas. It didn’t matter if the
Ericas spoke up or not – Ericas
who spoke up weren’t more
likely to be identified as
leaders.
In a recent experiment in AMJ, participants were asked to call into a monthly sales
team meeting of a fictional insurance company. In the meeting, they heard from
either “Eric” or “Erica.” At the end of the experiment, they rated the speaker on the
degree to which the person had “exhibited leadership,” “influenced the team” or
“assumed a leadership role.” What did they find?
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
Eric
Erica
Erics who demonstrated
However, this wasn’t true for
leadership behavior in the
Ericas. It didn’t matter if the
meeting (e.g., spoke up and
Ericas spoke up or not – Ericas
offeredThis
recommendations
to
who spoke up weren’t
more
study is really important. It demonstrates
that:
improve performance) were
likely to be identified as
more likely to be identified as
leaders.
leaders
than a
Erics
who acts
did notlike a leader, people tend to perceive
When
man
demonstrate this behavior.
him as a leader.
When a woman acts like a leader, people don’t…and it
In a recent experiment in AMJ,
participants
werehard
asked
totries.
call into a monthly sales
doesn’t
matter how
she
team meeting of a fictional insurance company. In the meeting, they heard from
either “Eric” or “Erica.” At the end of the experiment, they rated the speaker on the
degree to which the person had “exhibited leadership,” “influenced the team” or
“assumed a leadership role.” What did they find?
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
• “Women are associated
with communal qualities, which convey a
concern for the compassionate treatment of others.”
• E.g., affectionate, helpful, friendly, kind, sympathetic, gentle, soft-spoken,
etc.
• “Men are associated
with agentic qualities, which convey assertion
and control.”
• E.g., aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, forceful, etc.
• People tend to think that agentic traits (traits associated with men)
are more reflective of effective leadership.
• Therefore,
men are often considered natural leaders when they exhibit aggression,
whereas women might be penalized for appearing unfeminine.
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
•Kim Campbell, who briefly served as the prime minister
of Canada in 1993, described the tension that results:
•“I don’t have a traditionally female way of
speaking….I’m quite assertive. If I didn’t speak the way I
do, I wouldn’t have been seen as a leader. But my way
of speaking may have grated on people who were not
used to hearing it from a woman. It was the right way
for a leader to speak, but it wasn’t the right way for a
woman to speak. It goes against type.”
Why?
3. Gender Stereotypes
•In response to these challenges, female leaders struggle
to develop their leadership style.
•A recent meta-analysis found that: “In general, female
leaders were somewhat more transformational than
male leaders, especially when it came to giving support
and encouragement to subordinates. They also engaged
in more of the rewarding behaviors that are one aspect
of transactional leadership.”
Why?
4. Social Factors: Family & Career Demands
•Women tend to be responsible for a majority of child
and elderly care.
•As such, women tend to leave the workforce for longer
periods of time.
•Employers elect not to assign women more challenging
tasks because of assumed domestic responsibilities.
This limits promotion potential.
Why?
4. Social Factors: Childhood
•As children, males are more likely to be encouraged to
lead and take risks than females.
•As a result, boys have more opportunities to develop
leadership skills that are helpful later in life.
Why?
5. In-group Favoritism
•In-group favoritism = the tendency to evaluate people
who are similar to us more favorably.
• AKA in-group, out-group bias
•This bias hurts women, as most of the people at the top
– i.e., the people who are responsible for hiring and
paying CEOs – are men.
Why?
6. Professional Networks
•Women who juggle familial and work duties have less
time for socializing with colleagues and, therefore, do
not build their professional networks.
•Much of career advancement depends on who you
know!
•In addition: Same place, different experiences
• Men: look up + see many male role models they can aspire to
emulate; easy to find male mentors
Diversity & Inclusion: Why should I care?
21%
33%
There are financial benefits to diversity!
Source: Hunt, Layton, & Prince, 2017 (McKinsey)
Diversity & Inclusion: Why should I care?
Important note: This is correlational
data! The causation is not clear.
Does a more diverse workforce =
fresh perspective and better talent?
21%
33%
Could it be that only the most
talented women rise to the top
(since they have a more difficult
path)?
OR – Is it that companies who are
already doing well are simply more
willing to hire female executives
while struggling companies make
“safer” choices and hire men?
Inclusion and Diversity Contributes to
Performance
1.
2.
A diverse and inclusive workplace is central to
attracting, retaining, developing talent needed to
compete and maintain a competitive advantage.
Diverse and inclusive teams make better decisions!
• Fewer cognitive biases!
• Less groupthink!
3.
4.
Diverse and inclusive teams are more
creative/innovative.
A diverse and inclusive workplace leads to more
satisfied employees and less group conflict.
How can we remedy the situation?
•Policymakers: Gender quotas for corporate boards (e.g.,
California)
How can we remedy the situation?
•Policymakers: Gender quotas for corporate boards (e.g.,
California)
•But this could be harmful! This could undermine women’s
legitimacy (“they’re only on the board because of their
gender”) or could result in the promotion of unqualified
women (thereby reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes!).
How can we remedy the situation? Cont.
•Simple: Make sure women have the same opportunities to
develop as men.
•Give women opportunity to develop leadership skills –earlier
in life.
•Eliminate prejudice – use training sessions and workshops to
change the organizational culture
•Adjust the evaluation process – consider quality of work, not
number of hours worked
•Adopt open-recruitment methods
•Encourage networking and mentoring
•Establish family-friendly practices
•Encourage men to use family-friendly benefits
Thoughts?
• Women are underrepresented
in organizational leadership
positions. Is this a problem?
Why or Why not?
• Is it important to recognize
stereotypes we may have
about leaders?
• If yes, what can we do to solve
it? In your groups, consider the
problem and propose three
solutions.
Optional Video – Why we have too few woman leaders
• Sheryl Sandberg is the COO of

Facebook.
• In this TED talk, she tells us about
why we have too few woman
leaders.
• https://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl
_sandberg_why_we_have_too_fe
w_women_leaders
• ~15mins
POWER
Redona Methasani, PhD
Overview
•In this module, you’ll gain insights into “power”
– and
concepts related to it such as politics and networking.
•We’ll consider:
1. What is power?
2. What are the sources of power?
3. The nature of power: What are the (negative) effects
4.
5.
6.
power?
How can we stop your power from corrupting us?
of
Relationship between power and office politics: How can
we use politics to gain positional power?
Relationship between power and networking: How can
we develop our networks to gain relational power?
WHAT IS POWER?
Power
•Power is a basic force in social relationships.
•Decades of theory and research in management,
theology, philosophy, economics, psychology, and
sociology has studied power to understand the
characteristics and effects of power in everyday life and
organizations.
Power Defined
•Power is the capacity to influence others by (1)
providing or withholding resources or (2) administering
punishment.
• In informal interactions, people can provide resources such as
affection, information, and attention or administer punishments
through practices such as teasing, gossiping, and exclusion.
• In formal interactions, people can provide resources and punish
others as a function of their roles or positions (e.g., providing
others with financial contracts or referrals, or by demoting them or
terminating their employment).
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF
POWER?
Sources of Power
•Individual power is derived from three sources:
1.
Personal Power
2.
Positional Power
3.
Relational Power
Personal Power
•Personal power is derived from your unique personal
attributes and skills (e.g., personality and knowledge).
• E.g., A lead engineer or a highly skilled/trained
employee may
have personal power because of what he/she knows (expertise in
an area, knowledge, etc.)
• E.g., A person who is sensitive to others may have personal power
that allows him/her to build trust and encourage cooperation.
Positional Power
•Positional power is derived from the formal roles (e.g.,
formal hierarchical position) you hold in your
organization, social system, and society.
• E.g., people at the “top” of the org or society have the authority to
shape the culture, norms, goals, etc. of the org. These people have
the power to provide incentives (e.g., rewards, money) and impose
consequences if their directives aren’t followed others in the org.
•People who control resources that others need can also
develop positional power.
Relational Power
•Relational power is derived from your relationships with
others.
•Relational power results from multiple levels. E.g.:
• Direct ties – the people you interact with on a daily basis
• The quality of the relationship (i.e., tie strength) is important. E.g., how
long have
you known your contact, how frequently do you interact, is the relationship
mutual?
• Interactions among your direct ties
• It’s important to examine the connections among your direct ties. Do your direct
ties all know each other? If so, this could be a limitation.
• However, if your direct ties know other people (outside of your network)– these
other people are your indirect ties and can be a valuable source of additional
information!
• In all, you want disconnected ties!
THE NATURE OF POWER:
WHAT ARE THE (NEGATIVE)
EFFECTS OF POWER?
The Nature of Power
•In 1977, Kotter noted that “Americans, as a rule, are not
very comfortable with power or with its dynamics.”
• We tend to distrust those who actively seek power – or who have power.
• We also tend to feel guilty when we use power to influence others
if we think that power is inevitable and needed.
– even
• In fact, the mere mention of “power” can trigger feelings of disgust in
Americans.
•As Charles Reich wrote in the 1970s, “It is not the misuse
of power that is evil; the very existence of power is evil.”
Power and Corruption
•Though power has many positive consequences (e.g.,
getting others to complete a task), it can also have
negative consequences.
•When we think of the negative consequences of power,
we tend to think of corruption.
•Does power really corrupt?
What do you think? Does power corrupt?
19th century historian, politician, and writer
Power and Corruption
• There is strong research evidence that powerful
people are better liars and more morally
hypocritical, unethical, and rude.
• For instance, people in power positions are three
times as likely as those in low power positions to:
• Interrupt coworkers
• Multitask during meetings
• Raise their voices
• Say insulting things to others
• Further, merely feeling powerful leads people to:
• discount advice from others – even experts
• dominate discussions (diminishes team perf)
Power and Corruption
• There is strong research evidence that powerful
people are better liars and more morally
hypocritical, unethical, and rude.
• For instance, people in power positions are three
times as likely as those in low power positions to:
• Interrupt coworkers
• Multitask during meetings
• Raise their voices
• Say insulting things to others
• Further, merely feeling powerful leads people to:
• discount advice from others – even experts
• dominate discussions (diminishes team perf)
Let’s look at two (unexpected) examples…
Power and Corruption: Crosswalk Experiment (UC
Berkley)
• Researchers had a student stand at the edge of a pedestrian
crosswalk and look like he/she was going to cross the street.
• Other people were hiding and coded what the cars did as they
approached this pedestrian.
• They coded the cars that drove by in terms of their power.
• Low-power cars = e.g., Dodge.
• High-power cars = e.g., BMWs.
• What did they find?
Power and Corruption: Crosswalk Experiment (UC
Berkley)
• Researchers had a student stand at the edge of a pedestrian
crosswalk and look like he/she was going to cross the street.
• Other people were hiding and coded what the cars did as they
approached this pedestrian.
• They coded the cars that drove by in terms of their power.
• Low-power cars = e.g., Dodge.
• High-power cars = e.g., BMWs.
They found
thatfind?
drivers of low-power cars
• What
did they
stopped 100% of the time. In contrast, drivers
of high-power cars blazed through the
pedestrian zone 46% of the time.
Power and Corruption: Crosswalk Experiment (UC
Berkley)
• Researchers had a student stand at the edge of a pedestrian
crosswalk and look like he/she was going to cross the street.
• Other people were hiding and coded what the cars did as they
approached this pedestrian.
• They coded the cars that drove by in terms of their power.
• Low-power cars = e.g., Dodge.
Question: Is car type a
• High-power cars = e.g., BMWs.
good proxy for power?
They found
thatfind?
drivers of low-power cars
• What
did they
stopped 100% of the time. In contrast, drivers
of high-power cars blazed through the
pedestrian zone 46% of the time.
Power and Corruption: Cookie Study
• There is also strong evidence that powerful
people are more self-interested.
• In a neat series of experiment, researchers
randomly assigned three people to different
power roles (manager, employee, or
employee) and asked them to complete a
task.
• After they started, the researchers delivered
four fresh baked cookies to them on a plate
(“Here’s a treat. Enjoy!”).
• The researchers were interested in the
question: Who would take the last cookie?
Power and Corruption: Cookie Study Cont.
• There is also strong evidence that powerful
people are more self-interested.
The researchers monitored the experiment…
Each
person tookresearchers
one cookie
• In a neat series
of experiment,
– and the person
randomly assigned
three
to different
assigned
topeople
the power
role (i.e., the manager)
power roles (manager,
or cookie.
always (!)employee,
took the last
employee) and asked them to complete a
task.
(They also noticed that those in the power role
were eating with their mouths open, lips
smacking,
and cookiedelivered
crumbs falling onto their
• After they started,
the researchers
sweaters.)
four fresh baked
cookies to them on a plate
(“Here’s a treat. Enjoy!”).
• The researchers were interested in the
question: Who would take the last cookie?
BUT…Does Power Always Corrupt?
•Some scholars argue that the prior claims (that power
corrupts) are too general and broad.
•These scholars argue that though power tends to
corrupt most people, it does NOT corrupt all – and for
some people, the possession of power enables them to
benefit others and their societies.
Does Power Always Corrupt?
•E.g., In one recent study, researchers consider not only
whether people were powerful, but also whether they
had a strong or weak morals.
•They found that for people with weak morals, power
made them more self-interested and unethical.
•In contrast, for people with strong morals, power made
them less self-interested and unethical.
Does Power Always Corrupt?
•E.g., In one recent study, researchers consider not only
In all,people
this research
shows
that to fully
understand
the
whether
were
powerful,
but
also whether
they
of power,
we need
to understand the moral
had aeffect
strong
or weak
morals.
character of the powerful.
As Robert Green Ingersoll wrote in the 1880s: “Nothing
•They found
that for people with weak morals, power
discloses real character like the use of power. It is easy
madefor
them
more
self-interested
and
the weak
to be
gentle. Most people
canunethical.
bear
adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is,
give him power. This is the supreme test.”
•In contrast, for people with strong morals, power made
them less self-interested and unethical.
Interesting Question:
•In the prior slides, I told you that power tends to corrupt.
•This finding is based on (mostly) experimental studies that
randomly assign people to “low” vs “high” power conditions.
•In practice, people can choose whether or not to seek power
(e.g., to apply or not apply for a exec position, political office,
etc.).
•This leads to an interesting question: Do corrupt
people seek
and rise to positions of power? OR Does power corrupt (as in
the experimental studies)?
The Power Paradox
•People gain power through actions that advance the
interest of others and by being virtuous and kind (“good
qualities”).
•However, once people start to feel powerful they
become increasingly self-centered, and those “good
qualities” begin to fade.
• This eventually leads to the loss of power!
•Keltner (2016) calls this “The Power Paradox.”
HOW CAN YOU STOP POWER
FROM CORRUPTING YOU?
See: Managing Yourself Don’t Let Power Corrupt You (Keltner, 2016)
How can you stop power from corrupting
you?
• Keltner offers strategies that people can use to maintain their morals as
they gain power.
1.
Be mindful of how you feel (powerful or not) and its effects.
• Research in the neuroscience
shows that by merely reflecting on these
thoughts and emotions —“Hey, I’m feeling like I rule the world right now!” —
we can engage regions of our brains that help keep us in check.
2.
Remember and repeat the virtuous behaviors that helped you rise to
power in the first place.
• Keltner argues that three essential practices — empathy, gratitude, and
generosity— can reduce the tendency for power to corrupt AND enhance
performance.
• These three practices may seem “soft” – but they matter…
Google’s Project Oxygen
•Some of the strongest evidence for the need to practice
empathy, gratitude, and generosity is found in Project Oxygen,
a study conducted at Google to determine what makes a
great manager.
•As the Washington Post reported:
• “Project Oxygen shocked everyone by concluding that, among the
eight most important qualities of Google’s top employees, STEM
[Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] expertise comes
in dead last. The seven top characteristics of success at Google are all
SOFT SKILLS: being a good coach; communicating and listening well;
possessing insights into others (including others’ different values and
points of view); having empathy toward and being supportive of
one’s colleagues; being a good critical thinker and problem solver; and
being able to make connections across complex ideas.
Google’s Project Aristotle
•Further evidence comes from a second study at Google:
Project Aristotle. This study was conducted to
understand what makes a team effective at Google.
•The study revealed that though “Google takes pride in its
A-teams, assembled with top scientists, each with the
most specialized knowledge and able to throw down one
cutting-edge idea after another…the best teams at
Google exhibit a range of soft skills: equality,
generosity, curiosity toward the ideas of your
teammates, empathy and emotional intelligence. And
topping the list: emotional safety. No bullying. …”
Other examples
•In one study, researchers found that U.S. senators who
used empathetic facial expressions and tones of voice
when speaking to the floor got more bills passed (!) than
those who used domineering, threatening gestures and
tones in their speeches.
•And in a neat study, researchers found that NBA players
who physically display their appreciation—through bear
hugs, and hip and chest bumps—inspire their
teammates to play better and win nearly two more
games per season (which is often the difference between
making the play-offs and not).
How can you demonstrate these three essential
practices (empathy, gratitude, and generosity)?
•It’s easy to say “practice these three” – it’s more difficult
to understand HOW.
•How do you practice empathy? gratitude? generosity?
How can you demonstrate these three essential
practices (empathy, gratitude, and generosity)?
To practice empathy:
• “Ask a great question or two in every interaction, and paraphrase
important points that others make.”
• “Listen with gusto. Orient your body and eyes toward the person
speaking and convey interest and engagement vocally.”
• “When someone comes to you with a problem, signal concern with
phrases such as ‘I’m sorry’ and ‘That’s really tough.’ Avoid rushing
to judgment and advice.”
• “Before meetings, take a moment to think about the person you’ll
be with and what is happening in his or her life.”
Taken directly from Keltner (2016)
How can you demonstrate these three essential
practices (empathy, gratitude, and generosity)?
To practice gratitude:
• “Make thoughtful thank-yous a part of how you communicate with
others.”
• “Send colleagues specific and timely e-mails or notes of
appreciation for jobs done well.”
• “Publicly acknowledge the value that each person contributes to
your team, including the support staff.”
• “Use the right kind of touch—pats on the back, fist bumps, or high
fives—to celebrate successes.”
Taken directly from Keltner (2016)
How can you demonstrate these three essential
practices (empathy, gratitude, and generosity)?
To practice generosity:
• “Seek opportunities to spend a little one-on-one time with the
people you lead.”
• “Delegate some important and high-profile responsibilities.”
• “Give praise generously.”
• “Share the limelight. Give credit to all who contribute to the
success of your team and your organization.”
Taken directly from Keltner (2016)
From Theory to Practice: Douglas Conant
• In practice:
How can you demonstrate empathy,
gratitude, and generosity – and still “get tough”
to deliver superior performance to benefit
yourself and your firm?
• Douglas Conant, former CEO of Campbell Soup
Co., offers a recommendation:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFCxF-d-
UI8
• In short: He argues that managers and leaders
need to be “tough minded on the issue” – and
“tender hearted with the people.”
From Theory to Practice: Douglas Conant
Cont.
• Conant is not just saying this: Each day he and his executive
assistants would spend up to an hour scanning his e-mail and the
company intranet for news of employees who were “making a
difference.”
• Conant would then personally thank them—everyone from senior
executives to the maintenance staff—for their contributions,
usually with handwritten notes.
• He estimates
that he wrote at least 10 a day, for a total of about
30,000 during his decade-long tenure, and he has stated that he
would often find them hanging in employees’ workspaces.
• To 1:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC1pV3IDp5Q
Outsmarting The Power Paradox
•Keltner (2016) argues that you can “outsmart” the power
paradox through this power principle:
•To “keep and grow power, ‘give’ it away.”
• In Keltner’s perspective:
enduring power is found in giving it away.
Your power expands as you empower others.
• (In fact, sociological studies on who gains power in societies finds
that those who “give it away” (through, e.g., acts of altruism), are
most likely to rise to leadership positions.)
How can you give power away?
•In all, Keltner argues that we give our power away – and
therefore maintain our power – through minor acts of (a)
gratitude, (b) generosity, and (c) empathy.
• Just what we discussed 
•He argues that these acts bring out the best – in
performance and “spirit” – of those around you and, as a
result, enhance your reputation, likeability, etc., and,
ultimately, benefit your interests and those of your
organization.
Related Forms of Unethical Behavior
•Of course, power is not the only factor that influences
corruption and related forms of unethical behavior.
•Individual, team, and organizational factors all influence
the decision to engage in unethical behavior.
•We won’t look at all of these factors, as this would take
an entire semester!
•However, let’s take a brief look at some other research
on this topic.
“Stumbling into Corruption”
•Interestingly, some scholars argue that much of corruption
less intentional than we might think.
is
•As Bazerman and his colleagues’ note, much of “unethical
conduct that goes on, whether in social life or work life,
happens because people are unconsciously fooling
themselves.”
•That is, people are often entirely unaware of their unethical
behavior – or at least delude themselves into believing that
what they are doing is acceptable.
•Read: Stumbling Into Bad Behavior (NYT)
Leadership and Unethical Behavior
• Bazerman and his colleagues consider the process that underlies
unethical behavior. Other research has considered specific factors
that influence this process (and, ultimately, unethical behavior).
• One factor that has been identified as profound is (un)ethical
leadership.
• Indeed, leaders can directly and indirectly influence the unethical
behavior of their followers, and their influence is perhaps stronger
than any other factor!
• Often, they influence their followers by establishing the “ethical
culture” in the organization.
• Read: Ethical Behavior Starts at the Top, says Johnson Lecturer
(Cornell Chronicle)
Other Factors that Influence Corruption
•Maurice Schweitzer offers a nice discussion on the
importance of this and other organizational factors (e.g.,
leadership, competition, goal setting) in influencing
corruption.
•He considers this in the context of a recent and
particularly striking example of corruption: the VW
scandal.
•Watch:

OFFICE POLITICS TO IMPROVE
YOUR POSITIONAL POWER
See: Playing Office Politics Without Selling Your Soul (Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Lusk, 2017)
Politics in the office
•Politics are pervasive in organizations.
•Employees, managers, and stakeholders often find
themselves engaged in politics – even if they didn’t
intend to.
•An enduring truth is that engaging in politics (in all of its
forms) is integral to the power that you acquire, the
promotions that you receive, and – ultimately – the
career that you land.
Office politics: Good vs Bad
•For many people, politics (merely reading the word)
elicits feelings of disgust. Maybe politics are disgusting,
but office politics are unavoidable.
•And often, we feel this way because we fail to
differentiate between “good politics” and “bad
politics.”
•As managers, we need to understand the difference
between good and bad politics, and we need to acquire
the skills needed to carefully (and strategically) engage in
the former.
Bad Politics
•Kaiser et al. (2017) note that:
“Bad politics are pretty easy to identify. They include the
wrangling, maneuvering, sucking up, backstabbing,
and rumor mongering people use to advance
themselves at the expense of other people or the
organization. Bad politics are, at the heart, about
promoting oneself by any means necessary. And really
bad politics are about being sneaky, perhaps
even Machiavellian or immoral, to intentionally harm
someone else for personal gain.”
Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Lusk (2017)
Good Politics
•In contrast,
“Good politics, on the other hand, involve advancing one’s
interests but not to the neglect of other people’s rights or
the organization’s legitimate interests. Good politics include
acceptable ways of getting recognition for your contributions,
having your ideas taken seriously, and influencing what other
people think and what decisions get made. They may also
involve gossip about selfish, lazy, or untrustworthy
coworkers who undermine the greater good. As long as it
also serves a higher purpose, there is nothing wrong with
advancing your own interests, too. Common phrases for
playing good politics include being savvy, well-networked, or
street smart, socializing ideas, and managing stakeholders.”
Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Lusk (2017)
Self promotion: An important political skill
•If you find politics uncomfortable, you probably find self-
promotion difficult.
•But keep in mind: Self-promotion is merely a way of
getting others to know who you are, what you’ve done,
and – of most interest to a prospective employer – what
they can expect from you (i.e., what you can do for
them).
• Frame it this way, and it becomes entirely acceptable!
Self-Promotion Cont.
•People often confound self-promotion and obnoxious
behaviors.
•That is, people fail to consider that “self-promotion” falls
on a continuum from humble to excessive (or
narcissistic).
•(I tend to think that if we were to separate these
constructs, we would find that it’s not really selfpromotion that people have problems with – it’s the
obnoxious behaviors that accompany it.)
Effective (and Acceptable!) Self-Promotion
•
With this said, how “can you ensure that your talent is recognized without alienating your colleagues and
looking like a jerk?” (Clark, 2014).
1.
Focus on what you can contribute: People don’t have the time to fully understand your interests,
talents, and skill set. Focus on what you can contribute the most (to make their lives easier and help
the company overall).
2.
Focus on facts, not interpretation: “No one can argue if you say that you’re passionate about social
media, or that you’ve been blogging for more than a decade, or that you have X number of Twitter
followers. But they can argue plenty if you call yourself a “social media expert.”
3.
Demonstrate your expertise with stories, not words: Don’t say “I’m great at making the sale!”
which sounds pretty egotistical. Instead, tell a compelling (and perhaps entertaining) tale of how
you closed a difficult deal (so that people can deduce your skill without having to make it explicit).
4.
Ensure that those stories are relevant: Don’t try to steer the conversation in your direction
(“Speaking of soccer, did I tell you about the time I did a $25K sale in 5 min?”); self-promotion is
most effective when it’s natural and unforced.
5.
Express humility: Be sensitive to the possibility that some of your accomplishments may make
others feel jealous or inadequate; also remember to give credit to others when appropriate.
Clark (2014)
NETWORKING TO IMPROVE
RELATIONAL POWER
From Politics and Power to Networking…
•Networking provides a platform to not only engage in
politics, but also acquire power.
• Remember: Relational power is an important source of power!
•Yet, most people REALLY dislike networking.
•This is unfortunate, as networking is essential – both for
careers and the success of organizations.
•In fact, most executives describe the importance of
networking to their careers as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.
How can a network help you?
•It can keep you “in the loop” – what’s going on in your firm,
with competitors, in the industry, etc.
•It can give you a “person” to talk to
your concerns, etc.
– to talk through ideas,
•It can help you “get it done” when you need assistance.
•It can assist you in finding new career opportunities (providing
you with referrals, connect you to recruiters, etc.)
•Many others here!
Problems with networks
• There are some common problems with networks that limit their
usefulness – both in the present and the future.
• In particular,
networks are not very effective when they:
• Are too internal
• i.e., they include few people in different companies/industries.
• Have too many senior people and too few junior people
• As Ibarra (2015) writes: “Your senior leaders don’t need you to connect them with other
seniors; they already know each other. Top management needs you to bring them the
fresh ideas, insights, and best practices that you can only get elsewhere, outside, across,
and below.”
• Lack indirect ties
• i.e., everyone you know knows the same people you do, and information “gets stuck” in
the same office, in the same industry, in the same neighborhood
Problems with networks
To the last point: In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram (recall: electric shock
experiments) conducted an experiment in which a few hundred
peopleproblems
from Boston
andnetworks
Omaha tried
to get
a letter
• There are some common
with
that
limit
theirto a target—a
stranger
Boston.
usefulness – both in complete
the present
andinthe
future.
• In particular,
However, they could only send the letter to a personal friend whom
networks
are
not very
whentothey:
they
thought
was effective
somehow closer
the target than they were.
• Are too internal When Milgram looked at the letters that reached the target, he
• i.e., they include few people in different companies/industries.
found that they had changed hands only about six times. This led to
the concept of “six degrees of separation” – that each person in the
• Have too many senior people and too few junior people
world
only six
links don’t
awayneed
fromyou
anytoother
person
inwith
the world.
• As Ibarra (2015) writes:
“Yourissenior
leaders
connect
them
other
seniors; they already know each other. Top management needs you to bring them the
fresh ideas, insights, and best practices that you can only get elsewhere, outside, across,
But…there is more to the story: many of the letters never got there,
and below.”
because the people Milgram’s participants contacted first (“first
• Lack indirect ties degree people”) didn’t have networks that reached outside their local
• i.e., everyone you know
knows the same
people you
do, andknows
information
“getspeople!
stuck” in
environment.
In general,
everyone
the same
the same office, in the same industry, in the same neighborhood
So, many of the letters never got out of Nebraska. They merely
circulated inside the same circle of people who all knew each other.
Some common network and networking
misconceptions..
There are some common misconceptions related to networks and networking that
hold us back from developing our networks and networking effectively.
1.
Networking is a waste of time. It’s not.
•
2.
People are either naturally gifted at networking or they are not, and it’s
generally difficult to change that. Not true.
•
3.
Recall that most executives believe that, in terms of importance, it is a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.
Indeed, a recent paper shows that if you believe that networking is a skill that you can develop (i.e., a
malleable mindset), you are more likely to be motivated to improve it, to work harder at it, and to get
better returns for your networking (than if you have a fixed mind-set).
The relationships we need will form naturally (i.e., there’s no need to actively try
to develop your network). Not true.
•
In fact, decades of research in social psychology shows that we tend to form and maintain relationships
with people who are just like us and with people who are convenient to meet. This leads to poor networks
(e.g., lack of new info, etc.).
A final misconception: “Catering strategy”
•When people are meeting important others, they often
try to learn the other person’s expectations and
interests and then tailor (“cater”) the discussion to
these important others.
•Yet, empirical research shows that this approach doesn’t
work.
•Why?
A final misconception: “Catering strategy”
•When people are meeting important others, they often
try to learn the other person’s expectations and
interests and then tailor the discussion to these
important others.
•Yet, empirical research shows that this approach doesn’t
work.
1.
People often inaccurately predict what the person wants to see
and hear. (Indeed, research shows that when people try to take
the perspective of others, their accuracy is surprisingly poor.)
2.
And, even if their predictions are accurate, people who use a
“catering strategy” may act in an unconvincing manner
because they feel inauthentic or anxious.
•Why?
A final misconception: “Catering” strategy
•In one study examined entrepreneurs’ pitches of their
ideas to potential investors.
• The study shows that entrepreneurs who used an authentic
approach were more likely to receive funding for their ideas than
those who catered their pitches to the investors’ expectations and
interests.
•A second study replicated this finding in an interview
context: compared to candidates who were authentic,
candidates who catered to the expectations of
interviewers experienced higher levels of anxiety in the
interview process and, as a result, performed worse and
were less likely to be hired.
PERSUASION
Redona Methasani, PhD
Overview
•What’s neat, I think, about this lecture is that it is offers
practical insights into the question: How can you
become a more PERSUASIVE manager, leader, and
negotiator?
•That is, you will learn exactly what you can do to
become more persuasive in your interactions and your
organizations.
Overview Cont.
We’ll focus on Cialdini’s Six Persuasion Principles:
1. Liking
2. Reciprocity
3. Consensus (Social Proof)
4. Consistency
5. Authority
6. Scarcity
Persuasion
•Persuasion is central to interpersonal interactions in
organizations and everyday life – and (much!) more complex
than lay intuition suggests.
•In fact, researchers who study persuasion describe the
systematic principles that underlie persuasion as the science
of persuasion.
•For instance: Did you know that saying the word “because”
when asking for something increases your persuasive power
from 60% to 93% – even if you don’t have an actual reason? It
does.
Persuasion Defined
•Persuasion is the art and science of getting people to say
“yes.”
•It is the process through which one can change or
reinforce the attitudes, opinions, or behaviors of others.
“Dale Carnegie once noted that the only way to get someone to do
something is to get that person to want to do something.”
Robert Cialdini
•The most influential researcher
in the area of persuasion is
Robert Cialdini, Professor
Emeritus of Psychology and
Marketing at Arizona State
University.
•In 1984, Robert published
Influence: The Psychology of
Persuasion.
• His book has been translated into 26
languages and included on the New
York Times Business Best Seller List
and the Fortunate Magazine 75
Smartest Business Books List.
Cialdini’s 6 Persuasion Principles
In a classic paper, “Harnessing the Science of Persuasion,”
Cialdini provides a summary of his research and offers a
series of “Persuasion Principles.”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Liking
Reciprocity
Social Proof (or Consensus)
Consistency
Authority
Scarcity
1. Liking: Summary
•Principle: “People like those who like them.”
•In other words, “if you want to influence people, win
friends.”
•Application: “Uncover real similarities and offer genuine
praise.”
1. Liking: What do we know?
•What do we know about liking?
• I.e., what causes us to like someone?
1. Liking: What do we know?
•What do we know about liking?
• I.e., what causes us to like someone?
•We like people who are similar to us.
•We like people who compliment us.
•We like people who cooperate with us.
1. Liking: Online Negotiation Experiment
•Researchers conducted an experiment in an online
negotiation experiment.
Group 1:
Group 2:
Participants in group 1
were told: time equals
money; get straight to
business.
Participants in group 2 were told:
Before you begin negotiating, get to
know your counterpart, provide
some personal information, and
look for any similarities.
•What happened?
1. Liking: Online Negotiation Experiment
•Researchers conducted an experiment in an online
negotiation experiment.
Group 1:
Group 2:
Participants in group 1
were told: time equals
money; get straight to
business.
Participants in group 2 were told:
Before you begin negotiating, get to
know your counterpart, provide
some personal information, and
look for any similarities.
55% reached agreement.
90% reached agreement.
•What happened?
1. Liking: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
1. Liking: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
•Get people to like you!
•How can you get people to like you?
1. Liking: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
•How can you get people to like you?
•“Uncover
real similarities and offer genuine praise.”
•Similarity: “use similarities to create
bonds” in the workplace.
• Use informal conversations to discover what you have in common with others.
• People are more trusting of those who are similar to them (e.g., people are more likely
to purchase from a salesperson who is of similar age, political affiliation, religion, etc.).
•Praise
• Note: it doesn’t even have to be merited to be effective.
• Praise generates liking and compliance.
• Praise can also be used to repair relationships.
2. Reciprocity: Summary
•Principle: “People repay in kind.”
•In other words, people have a tendency to treat people
the way that they are treated.
• You smile at coworker because he smiled at you first.
• Your colleague does you a favor; you feel owe him in return.
• Friend invites you to a party; you feel you must invite her.
•Application: “Give what you want to receive.”
• “People are more likely to say yes to those that they owe.”
2. Reciprocity: Restaurant Study Example
• We often encounter the reciprocity
principle of persuasion in our daily lives.
• E.g., How many of you have received a
mint with your bill for dinner?
• Will a mint influence
behavior?
your tipping
2. Reciprocity: Restaurant Study Example
• Researchers found that tips increase by:
• 3% when a waiter includes ONE mint
with the bill.
• 14% when a waiter includes TWO
mints with the bill.
• 23% when a waiter includes ONE mint,
pauses and says “for you nice people,
I’ll give a second mint” increases tips
by 23%.
2. Reciprocity: Charity Example
• With hopes of increasing
donations, charities include a small
gift (personalized address labels) in
the envelope.
• Does this small gift persuade
people to donate to the charity?
2. Reciprocity: Charity Example
• With hopes of increasing
donations, charities include a small
gift (personalized address labels) in
the envelope.
• Does this small gift persuade
people to donate to the charity?
• It does! The response rate goes
from 18% to 35%.
2. Reciprocity: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
2. Reciprocity: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
•This principle is very often used in the workplace!
• E.g., Pharma sales reps bring
gifts to the doctors they visit (this is
legal!). In turn, doctors are more willing to prescribe products.
•In the workplace: remember to give “gifts.”
•Here’s an important point: Gifts can come in different forms,
from gifting physical objects to helping a member of your
team.
•In turn, “you will significantly increase your chance of getting
help when you need it.”
3. Social proof (or consensus)
•Principle: “people follow the lead of similar others.”
•In other words, people look to the actions and behaviors
of others to determine how to think, feel, and act.”
• Indeed, “influence is best exerted horizontally rather than
vertically.”
• Note: this is especially true under uncertainty.
•Application: “Use peer power whenever it’s available.”
3. Social proof (or consensus): Charity
•In one study, people went
door-to-door with hopes
of receiving donations for
a charity.
•How can we use the
consensus principle of
persuasion to increase
donations?
3. Social proof (or consensus): Charity
• We need to create a “form of
social evidence about how they
[those solicited for donations]
should respond.”
• How can we provide
social
evidence? By displaying a list of
neighborhood residents who
have already donated to the
charity.
• It turns out that “the longer the
donor list, the more likely those
solicited would be to donate as
well.”
3. Social proof (or consensus): Return lost
wallet
• In another study, NYC residents
were asked to return a lost
wallet to its owner.
• How can we get people to
return the lost wallet?
3. Social proof (or consensus): Return lost
wallet
• How can we get people to
return the lost wallet?
• We can tell people that
another New Yorker also
attempted to return the wallet.
• Indeed, people were more
likely to try to return the wallet
when they were told the prior.
This wasn’t true if people were
told that someone from a
foreign country who attempted
to return the wallet.
3. Social proof (or consensus): Hotel Towel
Reminder
• Many hotels include a sign
similar to the one on the right
(i.e., reuse your towels!).
• Can we make this sign any
better to increase compliance?
3. Social proof (or consensus): Hotel Towel
Reminder
• Can we make this sign any
better to increase compliance?
• We can note the
environmental benefits of
towel reuse. This leads to 35%
compliance.
• BUT: Can we do any better?
3. Social proof (or consensus): Hotel Towel
Reminder
• Can we make this sign any
better to increase compliance?
• We can note the environmental
benefits of towel reuse. This
leads to 35% compliance.
• We know that 75% of guests
reuse their towels at some time
during their four day stay. Let’s
include this information. Now,
towel reuse rises by 26%.
• BUT: can we do any better?
3. Social proof (or consensus): Hotel Towel
Reminder
• We can note the environmental
benefits of towel reuse. This leads
to 35% compliance.
• We know that 75% of guests reuse
their towels at some time during
their four day stay. Let’s include
this information. Now, towel reuse
rises by 26%.
• We can modify the prior slightly:
75% of guests who have stayed in
THIS EXACT ROOM have reused
their towels. Now, towel reuse
rises by 33%.
3. Social proof (or consensus): How can we
use this principle of persuasion?
3. Social proof (or consensus): How can we
use this principle of persuasion?
•Take-away: “Persuasion can be extremely effective
when it comes from peers!”
•In short: rather than relying on our own ability to
persuade, rely on similar others.
• E.g.., Mgr who is trying to persuade employees to support a new
corporate initiative could ask an employee who supports the
initiative to speak up during a meeting. This will be much more
convincing than “another speech from the boss.”
4. Consistency: Summary
•Principle: “people align with their clear commitments.”
•In other words, people like to be consistent with the
things they have previously said or done.
• In particular, people are more likely to hold to their commitments
“once they take a stand or go on record in favor of it.”
•Application: “Make commitments active, public, and
voluntary.”
4. Consistency: Rec Center Example
• In one study, residents were asked to
sign a petition in favor of establishing
a rec center for the handicapped.
• Almost all who were asked to sign the
petition did.
• A few weeks later, researchers went
to the home of these people – and
some other people who were not
asked to sign the original petition.
They asked for donations for the
cause.
• What happened?
4. Consistency: Rec Center Example
• What happened?
• ~50% of those who were not
asked to sign the petition
made contribution.
• 92% of those who signed the
petition made a contribution.
• It turns out, that “people feel
obligated to live up to their
commitments.”
“Even small, trivial commitments can have a powerful effect on future actions.”
4. Consistency: Missed appointments
• Often, people schedule
appointments, but fail to show up.
• This is especially common in the
healthcare industry.
• How can health providers (doctors,
dentists, clinics, etc.) reduce missed
appointments?
4. Consistency: Missed appointments
• How can health providers (doctors,
dentists, clinics, etc.) reduce missed
appointments?
• Simply by asking patients (rather than
the staff) to write down future
appointment details.
• In one study, this reduced missed
appointments by 18%.
4. Consistency: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
4. Consistency: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
•In short: “look for voluntary, active, public commitments
and
get them in writing.”
•A manager who wants to persuade employee should: “get it in
writing.”
• E.g., want employee to submit reports on time? Gain commitment
verbally, then ask the employee to summarize in a memo and send it
back to you. Employee will be more likely to fulfill the commitment
that he/she has made in writing.
•Commitments
that are made public are even more effective.
• How can you make commitments public? Send employee
an email: “I
think your plan is just what we need. I showed it to Diane in
manufacturing and Phil in shipping, and they thought it was right on
target, too.”
5. Authority: Summary
•Principle: “People defer to experts.”
•In other words, people follow the advice of “credible,
knowledgeable, experts.”
•Application: “Expose your expertise. Don’t assume it’s
self-evident.”
• The key here is: you must “establish
attempt to exert influence.”
your expertise before you
5. Authority: Physical Therapists Example
• Physical therapists often instruct
their patients to maintain exercise
routines.
• In order to increase compliance,
they often explain why patients
should keep up with their exercises
(e.g., crucial to becoming
independent again).
• However, most patients do not
comply with their requests.
• How can they increase compliance
with recommended exercise
programs?
5. Authority: Physical Therapists Example
• To increase compliance,
physical
therapists could display awards,
diplomas, certifications on the
walls of the therapy rooms.
• In one study, exercise compliance
increased by 34% when “staffs
expertise was more visible” to
the patients.
5. Authority: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
5. Authority: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
•You can establish expertise by displaying diplomas,
certificates, etc.
•You can (tastefully) offer examples of how you
successfully solved a similar problem in the past or offer
some information about your background and expertise
(NOT in a boastful way).
•Should you go around telling people how brilliant you
are?
5. Authority: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
•You can establish expertise by displaying diplomas,
certificates, etc.
•You can (tastefully) offer examples of how you
successfully solved a similar problem in the past or offer
some information about your background and expertise
(NOT in a boastful way).
•Should you go around telling people how brilliant you
are? NO! But, you can arrange for someone to do it for
you…
5. Authority: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
• You can arrange for someone to explain
why you are an expert, credible,
knowledgeable, etc.
• In one study, real estate agents increased #
property appraisals and # of contracts by
arranging for staff who answer the phone
to first mention the expertise and
credentials of the person who would be
helping them.
• “Oh, you’re looking for a new home. Let me
connect you to John, he has 10 years of
experience and is an expert in blablabla.”
• This led to a 20% increase in appointments
and 15% increase in signed contracts.
6. Scarcity: Summary
•Principle: “People want more of what they can have less
of.”
•In other words, “items and opportunities are seen to be
more valuable as they become less available.”
•Application: “Highlight unique benefits and exclusive
information.”
6. Scarcity: British Airways Example
• British Airways announced that
they’re no longer offering the
London  NY flight because it
was no longer economical to
run.
• Sales took off the next day –
even though nothing changed
about the flight.
• Why? Bc it became a scarce
resource.
6. Scarcity: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
6. Scarcity: How can this principle of
persuasion be used in the workplace?
•“Managers can offer: limited time, limited supply, one of a
kind offers.”
•Limited time: “inform coworker of a closing window of
opportunity… can mobilize action dramatically”
•Loss frame: “frame offers not in terms of what people stand to
gain but in terms of what they stand to lose if they don’t act
on the information.”
•Exclusive news: “remember that exclusive information
more persuasive than widely available data.”
is
In your groups, identify one more universal
principle of persuasion.
The 7th universal principle of persuasion:
Unity
•Cialdini recently revised his six principles of persuasion to
include one more: Unity.
•He says:
“…now I believe that there is a seventh universal
principle that I had missed – not because some new
cultural phenomenon or technological shift brought it to
my attention but because it was hiding beneath the
surface of my data all along.”
7. Unity: Summary
•Unity is the experience of a shared identity between the
influencer and influencee.
• Note: It’s similar
to the liking principle. However, it goes beyond
“surface level” similarities. Instead, the key is shared identities, or
the need to belong.
•In other words, it indicates that we are more likely to be
persuaded by people who we have a shared identity
with.
•Application: To be more persuasive, remind people of
your shared identity.
7. Unity: Family Ties
•“The most powerful manifestation of unity is being in
the same family. People go to great lengths, even risking
their lives, to help genetically close relatives” (Dooley).
•How can you use this concept of “family” in the
workplace?
7. Unity: Family Ties and Warren Buffet
• A key question many investors
have is: “What Happens to
Berkshire Hathaway After
Warren Buffett?”
• In a memo, Warren Buffet
discusses his plan for the next 50
years at Berkshire.
• In it, he includes the following
statement: “…I will tell you what I
would say to my family today if
they asked me about Berkshire’s
future.”
7. Unity: Family Ties and Warren Buffet
• A key question many investors
have is: “What Happens to
Berkshire Hathaway After
Warren Buffett?”
• In a letter to shareholders, Warren
Buffet discusses his plan for the
next 50 years at Berkshire.
 Wow! He’s offering the same
statement: “…I will tell you what I
advice to his investors as he is to
would say to my family today if
his family. Is this pretty
they asked me about Berkshire’s
persuasive? Yes. Investors are
future.”
more likely to trust his overall
message.
• In it, he includes the following
7. Unity: Family Ties and Warren Buffet
• A key question many investors
have is: “What Happens to
Berkshire Hathaway After
Warren Buffett?”
• In a letter to shareholders, Warren
Buffet discusses his plan for the
next 50 years at Berkshire.
• In it, he includes the following
statement: “…I will tell you what I
would say to my family today if
they asked me about Berkshire’s
future.”
You can do the same thing. “Let me tell you what I would tell me children, parents,
siblings, etc.”
Important caveat…
•These principles aren’t meant to give you insights into
how to “trick” people.
•Organizations, teams, relationships, etc. function
properly only when there is trust and cooperation.
•Though deceptive tactics may work in the short run,
they’re unlikely to serve you well in the future.
• (Remember the rule of reciprocity!)
Pre-suasion
• Cialdini has a new book,
Pre-Suasion.
• In it, he demonstrates that “the
secret
to persuasion doesn’t lie in the
message itself, but in the key moment
before that message is delivered.”
• He explains that the “best persuaders
spend more time crafting what they do
and say before making a request.”
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e
57X7GCFafo
• ~7 minutes
Optional: Review of the seven principles
•Q&A with Cialdini:
•https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af7Yqe_54w
• ~10 minutes
•Review of examples:
•https://www.influenceatwork.com/principles-of-
persuasion/
• ~12 mins
MOTIVATION
Redona Methasani, PhD
MOTIVATION AND MONEY
Overview
•
An important question is: Does money motivate employees?
•
Many people assume that higher pay will lead to happier, more productive
employees. However, research suggests that this is not necessarily true.
•
In the following slides, let’s look at a few (fun!) examples on money and
motivation. These examples demonstrate that we mispredict the effect of money.
•
•
E.g., We think fines will motivate people not to do things (e.g., day care, prostitution).
E.g., We think bonuses will motivate people to do things (e.g., Ariely experiments, real
estate agents).
Does $$ influence job satisfaction?
•
Study:
Judge et al. (2010) conducted a meta analysis to determine
whether $$ influences job satisfaction.
Note: This statistical technique allows researchers to estimate the correlation of pay level and job
satisfaction across multiple studies.
They looked at 120 years of research (92 studies; 15,000 individuals)
•
Results:
They found that the correlation between pay level and job
satisfaction = .15. This means: People’s satisfaction with their
job is mostly independent of their pay level! (Salary explains
ONLY 2.25% of the variance in job satisfaction!)
“Employees earning salaries in the top half of our data range
reported similar levels of job satisfaction to those employees earning
salaries in the bottom-half of our data range” (Judge et al., 2010).
Implications of Judge et al. (2010)
Implications for you (the employee):
“If the ultimate goal in a job is to find one that is satisfying, given a
choice, individuals would be better off weighing other job
attributes more heavily than pay…” (Judge et al., 2010, p. 163).
Implications of Judge et al. (2010)
Implications for employers and organizations:
“For employers, several aspects of the results are salient. First, it is important to
be mindful of the fact that even though level of pay may have a limited ability to
satisfy, that does not mean that pay is not motivating. Although scholars differ
on the motivating effects of incentives (see Gerhart & Rynes, 2003; Pfeffer,
1998), it is clear that to many individuals, pay is motivating. Second, employers
should realize that being a pay leader is not likely, by itself, to result in a
satisfied workforce. Given that job satisfaction is related to employee withdrawal
(Hulin, 1991), and the financial effects of positive job attitudes are welldocumented (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002), employers interested in having a
satisfied workforce may need to turn elsewhere to raise job satisfaction levels”
(Judge et al., 2010, p. 163).
A few examples…
•
Example A: Lottery Winners
•
Example B: Day Care Center
•
Example C: Prostitution
•
Example D: AARP
•
Example E: Bonuses
•
Example F: Meaning (Lego study)
Example A: Lottery Winners
•
Study:
Brickman et al., 1978 interviewed participants and asked several
open-ended questions about their prior, current, and expected
happiness.
Participants included:
Lottery winners – 12 winners [$1M (n=7), $400K (n=6),
$300K (n=2), $100K (n=4), $50K (n=3)
Control group – 22 people (i.e., people who did NOT win the
lottery and live in locations similar to lottery winners)
•
Question:
Who is happier: lottery winners or the control group?
Example A: Lottery Winners Cont.
•
Results:
Lottery winners and controls were not significantly different in their
ratings of past, present, and future happiness.
(This means that even large sums of money have little effect on
present and predicted happiness!)
Example B: Day Care Center
•
Situation:
Parents at a day care center consistently arrive late to pick up their
children. The result is anxious children and anxious teachers.
•
Question:
What can the day care do to stop the late pickups?
Example B: Day Care Center Cont.
•
Study:
Gneezy & Rustichini (2000) conducted a 20-week study of 10 day
care centers in Haifa, Israel.
•
Design:
First four weeks: They simply kept track of # of late pickups (avg. late = 8)
Fifth week: Fine enacted… Any parent arriving more than ten minutes late
would pay $3 per child, per incident. Fee would be added to the monthly
bill.
(Note: avg. monthly bill = $350)
•
From a simple economics perspective: What do you think happened? (e.g., did late
pickups go up, down, or stay the same as a result of the new fine?
Example B: Day Care Center Cont.
•
Results: The number of late pick-ups… increased!!
•
•
•
Avg. # of late pick-ups per week originally: 8
Avg. # of late pick-ups per week after fine: 20
Why? (i.e., why would a fine encourage – rather than discourage – parents to pick
up their children late?
•
•
Pre-fine: What incentive was in place?
Post-fine: What incentive was in place?
Example B: Day Care Center Cont.
•
Before the fine, parents arrived on time for moral incentives (e.g., it’s morally
right to comply with the terms of the contract, it’s responsible to care for your
children) and social incentives (e.g., they didn’t want to be known as “You know,
Mary, the woman who always arrives late to pick up her daughter”).
•
The fine, however, “washed out” these incentives – and replaced these with an
economic incentive. Now, parents could simply pay a fee. This allowed them to
escape the moral or social guilt that they would otherwise feel!
Takeaway: Money doesn’t always motivate people in the desired direction!
Example C: Prostitution
•
Why don’t more people make use of prostitutes?
•
What public policy is most effective in curtailing prostitution?
Example C: Prostitution Cont.
Let’s think of the incentives to NOT employ the services of a
prostitute:
1.
Economic Incentives
•
2.
Moral Incentives
•
3.
Services cost money, fines cost money, etc.
An incentive is a
source of
motivation!
Taking advantage a potentially troubled individual; is this the right thing to do?, etc.
Societal Incentives
•
Your mug shot appears in the front of the Sunday paper with the caption: “MAN/WOMAN
CAUGHT WITH…” and your parents, grandparents, and boss get the paper.
Example C: Prostitution Cont.
•
Historically:
Public policy focused on the economic incentive (e.g.,
fines) and moral incentive (e.g., harming another).
•
More recently:
Many cities (in the US) now use a social incentive to
fight prostitution, “posting pictures of convicted johns
(and prostitutes) on websites or on local-access
television” (Levitt & Dubner).
Note: Shively (2008) interviewed and surveyed officers at 200 police departments nationwide. He found that the best way to curb
prostitution is to target customers (i.e., those seeking prostitutes) – as they fear publicity about the charges more than fines or even jail
time. Indeed: “What they [prospective prostitution seekers] usually ask is, ‘Is my wife going to find out? Is my boss going to find out? Is
my name going to be in the paper?’” In all: The more recent focus is on the social incentives.
Example C: Prostitution Cont.
Steven Leavitt (economics professor at U of Chicago): “Which is a more horrifying deterrent: a
$500 fine for soliciting a prostitute or the thought of your friends and family googling you on
www.HookersAndJohns.com?”
Takeaway: People are not always motivated by money. There are other – more powerful – sources of motivation.
Example D: AARP
•
The AARP asked lawyers if they would offer less expensive services (~$30 per hour)
to needy retirees.
•
What did the lawyers say?
Example D: AARP
•
The AARP asked lawyers if they would offer less expensive services (~$30 per hour)
to needy retirees.
•
What did the lawyers say?
Example D: AARP
•
Later, the AARP asked lawyers if they would offer their services to needy retirees
for FREE.
•
Did the lawyers agree to this?
Example D: AARP
•
Later, the AARP asked lawyers if they would offer their services to needy retirees
for FREE.
•
Did the lawyers agree to this?  YES!
•
What’s going on here? (“How could zero dollars be more attractive than $30?”)
Example D: AARP Cont.
•
“How could zero dollars be more attractive than $30? When money was
mentioned, the lawyers used market norms and found the offer lacking, relative to
their market salary. When no money was mentioned they used social norms and
were willing to volunteer their time. Why didn’t they just accept the $30, thinking
of themselves as volunteers who received $30? Because once market norms enter
our considerations, the social norms depart.” – Dan Ariely
Example E: Bonuses
•
Do bankers deserve high bonuses?
•
“Bankers routinely defended their
excessive pay saying it simply amounted
to exceptional rewards for exceptional
performance. The implication was that if
you cut bonuses, you’d cut performance.”
– Dan Ariely
•
But… What do we really know about the
relationships between large bonuses and
performance?
Example E: Bonuses, Experiment 1
•
Study:
Dan Ariely conducted a series of experiments. Participants were
presented with an array of tasks (e.g., memory game, throw tennis balls at
targets, etc.) that demanded attention, memory, concentration, and
creativity.
•
Location:
India, where the cost of living is relatively low. This allowed Dan to pay
people amounts that were substantial to them – but still within his research
budget.
Low bonus = 50 cents (equivalent to one day’s work in rural India)
Medium bonus = $5 (equivalent to two weeks’ pay)
High bonus = $50 (equivalent to five months’ pay)
•
Question:
What did he find? Did bonuses increase performance?
Example E: Bonuses, Experiment 1 Cont.
Results:
•
The people offered the highest bonus (~5 months pay) performed worse than the
other two groups – in every single task.
•
The people offered medium bonuses (~2 weeks pay) performed no better or
worse than those offered low bonuses.
•
What does this tell us about motivation? Does money motivate?
•
You might be thinking: This study was conducted in rural India. Would the results hold here?
Example E: Bonuses, Experiment 2
Dan replicated the results in a study at MIT…
•
Study:
Undergrads were offered the chance to earn a high bonus ($600) or a lower
one ($60) by performing two four-minute tasks: one that called for some
cognitive skill (adding numbers) and another that required only mechanical
skill (tapping a keypad as fast as possible).
•
Results:
If the task involved only mechanical skill, bonuses worked as we usually
expect: the higher the pay, the better the performance.
But when the task required even rudimentary cognitive skill (as investment
banking presumably does), the outcome was identical to the India study: A
higher bonus on the line led to poorer performance.
Example E: Bonuses, Lessons
What can we learn from Dan’s research?
1.
Financial rewards are a double-edged
sword. They provide motivation to
work well, but they also cause stress
and preoccupation with the reward
that can actually hurt performance.
2.
If the tests mimic the real world, then
higher bonuses may hinder executives
from working to the best of their
ability.
Example F: Meaning
Dan Ariely
•
Dan Ariely is a behavioral economist at Duke.
•
He’s the author of several bestsellers, including:
•
•
•
•
Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions,
The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at
Work and at Home
The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone –
Especially Ourselves
“Through his research and his (often amusing and unorthodox)
experiments, he questions the forces that influence human
behavior and the irrational ways in which we often all behave.”
Video:
What makes us feel good about our work?
•
Ariely explored how meaning influences performance at work.
•
Video:
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_what_makes_us_feel_good_about_our_wo
rk?language=en
Things to think about…
1.
What does Ariely’s TED talk tell us about motivation at
work? Does this surprise you?
2.
What are some lessons for managers in organizations?
3.
Think about a course you’ve been really motivated in.
What motivated you? (In a course, the economic
incentive = grade.)
4.
Have you been in situations where an incentive
backfired?
5.
What study do you like/do you not like? Why?
In short… What do all of these examples
tell us?
•
We mispredict the effect of money.
•
•
•
E.g., We think fines will motivate people not to do things (e.g., day care, prostitution).
E.g., We think bonuses will motivate people to do things (e.g., Ariely experiments, real
estate agents).
We also exhibit a bias, such that we think that though we’re foremost motivated by
factors other than money, other people are primarily motivated by money.
MOTIVATION: PART II
Redona Methasani, PhD
MOTIVATION:
IMPORTANT THEORIES
Overview
•
In trying to understand work motivation, researchers have developed many theories.
•
In particular, researchers have developed need-based theories and process-based theories.
•
•
According to need-based theories, people are motivated by a desire to satisfy a yet unsatisfied
need. In contrast, “process theories focus primarily on the psychological mechanisms that
explain motivation inside employees’ heads” (Grant & Shin, 2011).
In the following slides, you’ll gain insights into:
•
•
•
The definition of motivation
Why motivation is important
Important motivation theories:
•
•
•
•
•
Motivation-Hygiene Theory (Hertzberg, 1959)
Expectancy Theory (Vroom)
Equity Theory (Adams)
Goal Setting Theory (Locke and Latham)
Potential drawbacks to goals (“goals gone wild”)
MOTIVATION: DEFINED
Motivation Defined
(Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Kanfer, 1990)
•
Simply: Motivate is a set of forces that influence behavior.
•
That is: Motivation is a set of forces (both within and outside an individual) that
Think:
initiates work-related effort, and determines its direction, intensity, and
DIP
persistence.
•
•
•
E.g., internal forces include sense of purpose or confidence
E.g., external forces include goals or incentives that the employee is given
Note: Motivation is the result of the interaction between the person and the situation.
Three key elements:
Motivation determines the…
•
Direction of effort
•
•
•
Intensity of effort
•
•
Effort that is channeled toward, and consistent with, organizational goals.
E.g., What are you doing right now? (a) the assignment your boss gave you, (b) send
emails to your friends, (c) surf the web
E.g., How hard are you going to work on it? As hard as you can, or only half-speed?
Persistence of effort
•
E.g., How long are you going to work on it? For five hours or five minutes.
WHY IS MOTIVATION
IMPORTANT?
Gallup data collected in 2014,
2015, 2016 from 155 countries.
• Engaged = “highly involved in
and enthusiastic about their
work and workplace”
• Not engaged = “lack motivation
and are less likely to invest
discretionary effort in
organizational goals or
outcomes”
• Actively disengaged= “unhappy
and unproductive at work and
liable to spread negativity to
coworkers”
• Note: Engaged = Motivated
Worldwide:
15% of employees are engaged (or motivated), 67% are not engaged, 18% are actively disengaged
US: 31% of employees are engaged, 52% are not engaged, 17% are actively disengaged.
This is concerning!
Why is this a concern?
Why should we care?
In all…
•
There are MANY benefits to having engaged employees – to both employees and
the organization.
•
The costs of “disengagement” are HUGE.
•
•
Disengaged employees are one of the top reasons why businesses fail, why office culture
becomes toxic (“spillover effects of disengagement”), and why companies lose their
competitive edge.
For this reason, this lecture focuses on an important question: How can we
motivate employees to perform their best in organizations? To answer this
question, we’ll look at a few important theories of motivation.
IMPORTANT
MOTIVATION THEORIES
How can we motivate employees? Let’s look at a
few theories of motivation to answer this
question…
• Important theories include:
• Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
• Process Theories:
Expectancy Theory (Vroom)
• Equity Theory (Adams)
• Goal Setting Theory (Locke and Latham)
•
MOTIVATION-HYGIENE
THEORY
(HERZBERG, 1959)
The Needs Perspective
•
According to the Needs Perspective: Behavior is driven by a desire to satisfy a yet
unsatisfied need. That is, people are motivated by unsatisfied needs.
•
Classic theories in this perspective include: Maslow (1954) and Hertzberg (1959).
•
Note: Many of you might be familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs from your
psychology class. We won’t discuss Maslow in this class; however, you’ll notice several
similarities between Maslow and Hertzberg.
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
(1959)
•
Herzberg’s research focused on the sources of
employee motivation (i.e., what motivates
employees?).
•
He surveyed many employees in various fields and
asked them to explain what factors in their work
environment lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
•
He developed Motivation-Hygiene Theory.
•
•
Also known as: Two-factor theory or dual-factor theory.
This theory extends Maslow’s theory to the workplace.
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
(1959)
•
Herzberg found that there are two completely separate factors that lead to
feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
That is, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not the opposite of each other. Instead, the
opposite of satisfaction is NO satisfaction; the opposite of dissatisfaction is NO
dissatisfaction.
• Note: According to Herzberg, being satisfied with one’s job is equivalent to being
•
motivated; “a satisfied worker is a motivated worker.”
•
He termed these two needs (1) hygiene/maintenance factors and (2) motivators.
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
(1959)
Motivator Factors
Hygiene Factors
• Achievement
• Recognition
• Work itself (interest in the task, challenge)
• Responsibility
• Professional growth and advancement
• The organization, its policies & administration
• Kind of supervision (leadership &
management, including perceptions)
• Relationship with supervisor
• Work conditions
• Salary
• Status
• Job security
• Interpersonal relations
These factors lead directly to employees’
feelings of satisfaction or motivation.
Employers should focus on improving
motivator factors to increase job satisfaction.
These factors are needed to ensure an employee
does not become dissatisfied. They do not lead to
higher levels of motivation, but without them
employees are dissatisfied.
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
(1959)
Motivator Factors
Hygiene Factors
• Achievement
• Recognition
• Work itself (interest in the task, challenge)
• Responsibility
• Professional growth and advancement
• The organization, its policies & administration
• Kind of supervision (leadership &
management, including perceptions)
• Relationship with supervisor
• Work conditions
• Salary
• Status
• Job security
• Interpersonal relations
These factors lead directly to employees’
feelings of satisfaction or motivation.
Improving motivator factors increases job
satisfaction.
These factors are needed to ensure an employee
does not become dissatisfied. They do not lead to
higher levels of motivation, but without them
employees are dissatisfied.
Herzberg and Maslow
Implications for Management
•
In order to avoid employee dissatisfaction, employers must provide
hygiene/maintenance factors.
•
In order to ensure employees are satisfied, employers must provide motivation
factors (intrinsic motivators).
Next, let’s look at a few Process Theories
•
“Process theories focus primarily on the psychological mechanisms that explain
motivation inside employees’ heads” (Grant & Shin, 2011).
•
Key theories include:
•
•
•
Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964)
Equity Theory (Adams, 1963, 1965)
Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2006)
EXPECTANCY THEORY
(VROOM, 1964)
Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964)
•
Victor Vroom (1964) proposed that employees “choose to
invest effort in courses of action by weighing their relative
utilities—i.e., their probabilities of achieving desired
outcomes.”
•
Effort (or motivation) is a (positive) function of three beliefs:
Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence.
Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964)
•
In particular: people will be motivated if they…
1: believe that effort will lead to performance (This is what Vroom termed “Expectancy”)
2: believe that performance will lead to a outcome (e.g., reward, recognition, etc.) (This is
what Vroom termed “Instrumentality”)
3: value the outcome (This is what Vroom termed “Valence”)
Effort
Performance
Outcomes
Expectancy:
Instrumentality:
Valence:
If I exert a lot of
effort, will I perform
well?
If I perform well, will I
receive outcomes?
Will the outcomes
be satisfying?
Example: Expectancy Theory
Example: Expectancy Theory
For instance: What motivates a student to study?
1.
2.
3.
belief that if they study, they will do well on the exam (EP)
belief that if they do well on the exam, they will receive an A in the course, increase
in GPA, $10 from parents, etc. (PO)
must value the A-grade, increase in GPA, or $10 (Value the Outcome)
Effort
Performance
Expectancy:
If I exert a lot of
effort (i.e., study),
will I perform well?
Outcome
Instrumentality:
If I perform well,
will I receive an A in
the course?
Valence:
Do I value a high
GPA?
Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964) Cont.
•
What if employees do not hold expectancy beliefs? They will feel that their effort is
pointless.
•
What if employees do not hold instrumentality beliefs or valence beliefs? They will
question whether they should put forth any effort.
•
In short: Expectancy Theory “is designed to account for the within-person decisions
that employees make about whether, where, and how to invest their time and
energy, rather than for differences in effort between employees” (Grant & Shin,
2009).
Expectancy Theory: Implications for
Managers
•
Managers need to offer employees valued outcomes (high valences).
•
Managers need to ensure that they help employees who are willing to put
forth effort to succeed (i.e., provide tools, info, training, support). (Maintain
the Expectancy link.)
•
Managers need to ensure that they follow through with reward system that
is tied to performance. (Maintain the Instrumentality link.)
•
Employees are willing to work harder if they believe that their actions will get them an
outcome they desire. E.g., employees may be willing to work long and hard hours if they
know that they will be rewarded through promotion, recognition, praise, or pay in
response to their hard work.
Expectancy
Instrumentality
Valence
EQUITY THEORY
(ADAMS, 1963, 1965)
Equity Theory (Adams, 1963, 1965)
•
John Stacey Adams proposed Equity
Theory. Equity theory is a model of
motivation that explains how people
strive for fairness and justice in social
exchanges or give-and-take
relationships.
•
It indicates that employees are
motivated by comparing their inputs
(e.g., effort) and outcomes (e.g.,
income) with those of referent
others.
Equity Theory: Five Key Features
1.
People hold beliefs about their inputs (e.g., things they bring to the workplace,
like education, quality of work, experience) and their outcomes (e.g., things they
receive from their work, like pay, rewards, recognition, praise).
2.
People compare themselves to a referent other (e.g., anyone in their
department, a friend, a family member, previous self, etc.).
3.
People form beliefs about others’ inputs and outcomes.
4.
People compare their input/outcome ratio with others’ input/outcome ratio.
5.
Perceptions of inequity motivate behavior to restore equity.
Equity Theory Cont.
•
In short: According to equity theory, individuals strive to maintain balance between
their inputs and outcomes, such that they will expend effort (they will be
motivated) to restore equity when inputs and outcomes are perceived to be out
of balance.
•
Individuals examine and evaluate their own inputs in relation to their own
outcomes.
•
•
Inputs: An employee’s inputs (for which he/she expects a just return) include
education/training, knowledge, skills, abilities, creativity, effort, time…
Outcomes include: pay/bonuses, fringe benefits, challenging assignments, promotions,
status, recognition, sense of purpose, etc.
Equity Theory Cont.
•
Individuals also examine their output/input ratio in relation to
relevant others.
•
•
•
When ratios are equal: State of equity exists – there is no tension; the
situation is considered fair.
Negative Inequity: Comparison in which another person receives
greater outcomes for similar inputs. (Anger!)
Positive inequity: Comparison in which another person receives lesser
outcomes for similar inputs. (Guilt!)
This creates tension,
and employees
become motivated to
act to reduce tension
and make the
situation equitable.
In this sense, the
decision to exert
effort is a function of
social comparison.
Employee Reactions to Inequity
•
Employees react strongly to inequitable situations.
•
Employees may engage in the following behaviors to create equity (or reduce
inequity):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Change inputs (e.g., slack off if they feel they are working harder than others; produce
more if they feel they are overpaid)
Change outcomes (e.g., alter outcomes by demanding raise, by stealing, etc.)
Distort/change perceptions of self
Distort/change perceptions of others
Choose a different referent person
Leave the field/Seek new employment (quit the job)
Example: Gravity Payments
•
In April 13, 2015, NYT reported that the CEO of a Seattle-based company (Dan
Price) will increase the minimum wage of all employees to $70K!
•
•
•
Total employees: 120
New policy means that the salaries of ~70 employees will increase, with ~30 employees
doubling their pay!
What are your thoughts? What do you think happened? Is there a flaw in Price’s
well-intentioned plan?
Example: Gravity Payments Cont.
Results:
•
The most valuable employees left the company.
•
•
•
Ms. McMaster noted: “He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the
least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much
of a bump.”
Mr. Moran noted: “Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the
same as me. It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”
Customers also left.
•
They told NYT that they viewed the increase in wages as a political statement that may
result in higher customer fees.
Example: Gravity Payments Cont.
•
This is an excellent example of Equity Theory!
•
Again, what do we know about equity theory?
People calculate a ratio of their inputs (e.g., time, effort, skills, experience, etc.) to the
outputs the organization gives them (salary, benefits, recognition, security, etc.). When
their ratio appears equitable to that of their coworkers, the organization runs smoothly.
When their ratio is not equitable, employees become motivated to return to equity.
•
“Giving large raises to lower paid, lower contributing employees may be well
intentioned, but unless it’s paired with equitable raises for higher contributing
employees, it is bound to cause dissatisfaction and turnover.”
Equity Theory: Implications
•
Managers should avoid under or over paying employees. Employees will be motivated to
maintain equity and this could have serious implications for the organization.
•
Employees may be happy with their own input/outcome ratio until they see that it differs
from another person’s ratio.
•
Related to this, managers should treat employees equitably. In doing so, managers can
promote cooperation and teamwork among group members by treating them equitably.
•
Managers should give employees an opportunity to contribute to the decision making
process and to influence and appeal decisions that affect their welfare.
•
Managers must be sensitive to fairness issues. No matter how fair management thinks the
organization’s policies, procedures, and reward systems are, each employee’s perception of
the equity of those factors is what counts.
GOAL SETTING THEORY
(LOCKE & LATHAM, 1990)
Goal-Setting Theory (Locke & Latham)
• The basic premise of goal-setting theory is that goals serve as an
important source of employee motivation.
• Research has found that: specific and difficult goals lead to
higher performance than “do your best goals.”
•
•
The more difficult and specific the goal, the harder people work to achieve it!
If you tell a salesperson to “try his/her best” he/she will perform worse than if you tell
him/her to “try to get at least 9 sales.”
Goal-Setting Theory: How do goals
influence performance?
•
Goals  Performance
•
What are the mechanisms (i.e., mediators) by which specific, difficult goals affect
performance?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Goals serve a directive function (toward goal-reliant activities). Specific goals direct
our attention to relevant activities and filter out distractions!
Goals serve an energizer function (energize people to work harder).
Goals affect persistence (“keep trucking along”). They help us follow through on
long, difficult tasks.
Goals lead to the arousal, discovery, and/or use of task-relevant knowledge (e.g.,
goals enhance discovery of relevant knowledge to complete the task; that is, they
make us more effective and efficient).
Goal Setting Theory: MODERATORS
•
Recall: Difficult, Specific Goals  Performance
•
Is this relationship constant across all factors? NO! Some factors strengthen the
relationship (make it more “positive”); other factors weaken the relationship (make
it less “positive”). These factors are known as moderators.
•
What, then, does this relationship depend on?
Moderator 1: Goal Commitment
1: Goal commitment: Higher goal commitment = stronger relationship
Note: Goal commitment = f(importance, self-efficacy).
If you can increase perceived importance and/or increase self-efficacy, you can increase
goal commitment.
A: How to increase importance? Ex: Public commitment, leader commitment,
subordinate participation, provide rationale for goal.
B: How to increase self-efficacy? Ex: Train subordinates, use role models, and express
confidence to subordinate. Also: emotional support!
Moderators 2 and 3: Feedback and Task
Complexity
2: Feedback: For goals to be effective, managers need to provide feedback. If there’s
no feedback, the employee can’t adjust level of effort, direction, or strategy.
3: Task Complexity: Goal-setting theory is MOST effective for less complex tasks
(though it still effective for complex). (That is, high task complexity = weaker
relationship between goals and performance.)
SMART Goals
When you start your first job, your organization will likely ask you to create “SMART” goals.
This is the “industry” version of Goal Setting Theory. However… there are some problems with “SMART” goals.
However……
Purchase answer to see full
attachment