Incentives and Expectancies of Motivation - Dissertation Example

? Research Proposal Incentives and expectancies in the aim of motivation: how do employees see the situation? Introduction Within the realm of economics the notion that incentives or rewards provided by employers to employees based on performance and effort are a major means of obtaining and ensuring staff motivation and output, is widespread and unbridled. Some empirical research provides evidence in support of such an assumption (Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta & Shaw, 1998; Brown and Heywood, 2002), others however, within the realms of psychology indicate that incentives can in fact have adverse effects on performance (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan 2003). A growing and more substantial body of research and studies provide evidence of conflict between intrinsic motivation (a person’s own motivation for undertaking a task) and extrinsic motivation (external and conditionally imposed motivation for undertaking a task) (Benabou & Tirole, 2003; Holmstrom & Milgrom, 1991; Kreps 1997). In response to the diverse range of motivational studies a number of motivational theories have emerged that endeavor to account for the various findings. Such theories include those that focus either on incentives, expectancies or goals, and those that seek explanation of how employees respond to different types of incentives provided. The objective of this study is to take an investigative approach to research the various motivational theories and how they are being implemented within the workplace. A study will then be undertaken in order to determineundertaking a study that will focus on employee perceptions of the motivational incentive systems operating within their company, and how they impact on their performance and effort. Research Question: How do employees of XXX perceive the effectiveness of the company’s incentive/motivational system? Hypothesis 1: the majority of employees will consider tangible external incentives as not being sufficient enforcers of motivation Hypothesis 2: the majority of employees will perceive extrinsic motivation as impacting negatively on their intrinsic motivation It is envisaged that this research will contribute to the existing body of research literature in relation to motivational systems and theories used within the workplace, and has the potential to provide suggestions for future incentive systems that take both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors into account and foster best opportunities and maximum efficiency and effectiveness of personnel. Literature review Motivational theorists consider that for each and every thing we do (behavior and actions) there is a fundamental reason or cause. They also believe that appreciation of the causes will enable prediction and thus allow for influence on those behaviors or actions (Franken, 2002). Motivational research today focuses mainly on the determination of what spurs motivation - what stimulus is required to increase motivation - and takes both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation into consideration. Intrinsic motivation according to Oudeyer & Kaplon (2007) is best understood when contrasted with extrinsic motivation, which relates to any activity that is undertaken because of some of kind of reward or discrete outcome. Intrinsic motivation by contrastive definition refers to activities that are undertaken solely for pleasure with no price or value imposed on it (Ryan & Deci, 2000). An important distinction however, is that intrinsic and extrinsic do not mean the same as internal and external and are not synonyms. Internal motivations receive internal rewards, whereas external motivation receives external rewards; intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation however is not determined by where the reward comes from but on the type of reward that is given (Oudeyer & Kaplon, 2007). The theory of incentives has traditionally assumed that concrete and/or intangible rewards such as money, power or investments (Hoy & Miskel, 1991) that are given for specific activities with the intent of their re-occurrence will manifest motivation and in turn output; to some, this translates as the more money given by the employer the more effort there will be from the employee (Festre & Garrouste, n.d.). Researchers such as Benabou & Tirole (2003) have shown that monetary or tangible rewards are not always the best means for obtaining employee effort; they claimed that intrinsic incentives can be ‘crowded out’ by extrinsic incentives (p.490). They further explained how incentives based on performance can have adverse effects on the perceptions of the activity or of a person’s own abilities, and are thus in the short term no more than feeble boosts and in the long term become negative forces. Boje & Rosile (2004), in agreement with Benabou & Tirole (2003) took the argument a step further by claiming that incentive theories are ‘a doomed quest’ because managers are in effect manipulating their employees’ productivity and fail to take individual personalities, needs, or behaviors into account. They are in pursuit of ‘perfection, self-sacrifice and corporeal control, achieved through performativity (Boje & Rosile, 2004, conclusion). Such studies fail to address the individual needs and preferences of employees and the fact that different people can place different meanings on the same information or activity. The expectancy theory of motivation (first coined by Vroom in 1964) claims that individuals have differing objectives and goals, and if those individuals have particular expectations they are able to be motivated. He ascertained that a person’s skills, experience, knowledge and personality impacts on their performance whereupon he devised his (VIE model) ‘valence (anticipated satisfaction),– instrumentality (the belief that performance will lead to rewards) – expectancy (the belief that effort will lead to the performance needed to attain the rewards)’ (van Eerde & Thierry, 1996, p.575; Locke & Latham, 2002, p.706 ), which has provided the foundation for a plethora of empirical studies. Researchers however, have not agreed on the denotations of Vroom’s (1964) concepts, nor have they been able to agree on the best means of measuring them; such difficulties have resulted in many researchers claiming that the expectancy theory should be merged with other methods (van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). Much research today is now focusing on the development of tools and means of explaining how individuals respond when confronted with different and specific types of incentives. Theories pertaining to such research include the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) and the Self Determination Theory (SDT) that focus on the analysis of the ways on which incentives impact on intrinsic motivation (Festre & Garrouste, n.d.). Research method Creswell (2003) suggests that interviews or case studies offer a sound foundation for effective qualitative research efforts. As this study aims to take a qualitative approach to determine staff perceptions (500 in total) it will use one-to one semi-structured and in-depth interviews and focus groups. Interviews have been selected because they allow the interviewer more flexibility in terms of changing direction within the interview, allowing the interviewee to steer the focus, whereby emerging themes may appear (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Such method selection will allow the interviewee the opportunity to talk freely without pressure and in a non-directive manner (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007) on their feelings, beliefs and experiences within the company’s incentives system. It is proposed that a sample group of 50 staff (10%) be selected from various companies for one-to-one interviews. All interviews will be audio taped for later transcription and analysis. The focus group method of attaining data has been selected because it allows employees to come together and share their points of view and perceptions of incentive/motivational systems. This group interviewing (groups of 10 are anticipated) provides a less stressful process for those who may feel intimidated in a one-to one interview. A group interview also provides opportunity for more diverse perceptions to which others can respond (Bryman & Bell, 2007), and is also a more efficient means of interviewing such a large number of participants. All focus group proceedings will also be audio taped and transcribed for further analysis. The research will begin with an exploratory pilot study that will be interview based in order to determine any problems that may arise on the part of the interviewer or the question format. The pilot study will be undertaken with one participant in a one-to one interview which, as in the actual study, will be recorded and later transcribed for analysis. Sampling It is anticipated that 500 participants will take part in this research and will be selected from volunteers equally distributed among different companies. Selection in this way will ensure an even sampling across different companies and incentive/motivational systems. Practical Issues In terms of practical issues the only problems that be identified at present include my ability in undertaking interviews appropriately, necessary logistics of undertaking such a large number of interviews and ethical concerns. In order to eliminate any interview problems a pilot study will be undertaken first and the logistics of undertaking interviews will need to be determined in terms of where the interviews will best be held in order to maintain participant anonymity. In terms of ethics, this research will be guided by the four ethical considerations purported by Diener & Crandell (1978) as discussed by Bryman & Bell (2007, p.132). Other ethical considerations as proposed by Bryman & Bell (2007) will also be taken into account and completion of their checklist (p.148) will help in this process. Anticipated timeline for research Phase 1: Late May – Late July Extensive literature review on motivational theories and their implementation within business Selection of company or companies for data collection Phase 2: August Interview questions and guide prepared Pilot study Reflection on pilot study and changes made for later interviews Phase 3: September Letters of introduction and consent forms distributed to selected company Participants selected Phase 4: October, November, December Interviews undertaken and transcribed Phase 5: January – March Tapescripts analysed Research paper prepared References Benabou R. & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, The Review of EconomicStudies, 70 (3): 489-520. Retrieved from http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.89.1235%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=Intrinsic%20and%20Extrinsic%20Motivation%20benabou%20tirole&ei=XBS6TbZrhryA5aV3NIL&usg=AFQjCNHRGCYCxMLSUzmEsvnax6BycWY5ww&cad=rjt Boje, D . & Rosile, G. (2004). Death, Terror and Addiction in Motivational Theory. In: Brewis, J., Linstead, S., Boje, D. & O’Shea, A. (Eds.), Passion, of organizing. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business. Retrieved from http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/Death_Terror_Motivation_Book_Chapter.htm Brown, M. & Heywood, J. (eds.) (2002). Paying for Performance: an International Comparison. New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc. Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007), Business research methods, New York: Oxford University Press. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press. Deci, E. & Ryan. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In: M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity. New York: Guilford Press. Deci, E., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R. (1999) A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation, Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6): 627–668. Retrieved from Questia. Festre, A. & Garrouste, P. (n.d.).Incentives and motivations: to what extend can economics benefit from psychology? Communication to the Workshop Motivations and Incentives: creating and organizing knowledge in organisational contexts, Lisboa, March 30-31. Retrieved from http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/lisboa%20AF%20%20PG%20(2).pdf Franken, R.(2002). Human Motivation (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Holmstrom, M. & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multi-Task Principal–Agent Analyzes: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 7, 24–52 (special issue). Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~milgrom/publishedarticles/Multitask%20Principal%20Agent.pdf Hoy, W. & Miskel, C. (1991). Educational Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill. Jenkins, Jr, G., Mitra, A., Gupta, N. & Shaw, J. (1998). Are financial incentives related to performance? a meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 777-787. Kreps, D. (1997). Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives, American Economic Review, 87 (2), 359–364. Retrieved from http://dipeco.economia.unimib.it/persone/Natale/economia_del_personale/Letture/K97.pdf. Locke, E. & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57 (9): 705-717. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dabbish/locke.pdf Oudeyer, P. & Kaplan, F. (2007). What is intrinsic motivation? a typology of computational approaches. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 1:6. Retrieved from http://www.pyoudeyer.com/oudeyer-kaplan-neurorobotics.pdf Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54–67. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students, 4th edn, Edinburgh: Prentice Hall. van Eerde, W. & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 575-586. Retrieved from http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp/bin/refereedjournalpublication2031fulltext.pdf Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Read More