Motivation Theories Dominant in the 1960s - Essay Example

of Your Essay Sub Paper Due Contents Introduction 3 Motivation Theories Dominant in the 1960s 3 The Drive Theory (Hull, 1952) 3 Reinforcement Theory (Skinner, 1953) 4 Subconscious Motives (McClelland, 1961) 4 The Goal Setting Theory 4 Locke and Latham’s Timber Studies 5 New Developments in the Goal Setting Theory 6 Goal choice 7 Affect 7 Learning goals 7 Framing 7 Locke and Latham’s Timber Studies in the Light of Modern Goal Setting Theory 8 Conclusion 9 Bibliography 10 Comment upon the adequacy of Locke and Latham’s (1979) timber studies in the light of new developments in Goal Setting Theory. Introduction Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, two American researchers, astonished the American Pulpwood Association when they showed them a way to increase productivity without spending an extra dollar. Their method, largely unheard of at the time (although the first studies on goal setting were conducted in 1935 by Cecil Alec Mace), became subject for much debate and further research. Since the 1960s, when the two researchers began their studies, the goal-setting theory has been developed further in their publications in the 1980s, 1990s and the early 2000s (over a period of around thirty years). Apart from them, other researchers have also taken up the research on motivation and goal setting. Several new findings have been made, and despite the fact that their initial study set grounds for the modern goal setting theory, we can argue that the timber studies were in requirement of much more research and development. The debate over the goal setting theory continues, as some researchers are solely focused on developing on Locke and Latham’s timber studies, while others reject outright the adequacy of their research and the findings. Motivation Theories Dominant in the 1960s In the 1960s, three major theories on human motivation were dominant in psychology (Locke and Latham, 1994): The Drive Theory (Hull, 1952) The drive theory suggested that human beings are motivated by physiological needs, which drive them to take (random) actions that may at some point satisfy the need. For example, a thirsty person could wander around until, by chance, he spotted a well from where he may be able to drink water. However, it was soon evident that this theory was inadequate to explain many human actions. Firstly, it is obvious that not all drives are motivated by physiological needs. For example, a person engrossed in a novel evidently does not have a physiological need to read. Inversely, not all physiological needs result in motivational drives (although many do). Thirdly, partial fulfillment of the need does not always result in drive reduction, and finally, there are countless occasions where people work to increase rather than decrease tension (which can now be explained by the theory of arousal). Reinforcement Theory (Skinner, 1953) B.F. Skinner gave birth to a new theory of motivation. This theory was similar to the drive theory, but it suggested that human behavior could be completely controlled by reinforcements. Positive and negative reinforcements could be used to incite a particular behavior by rewarding it, or discourage a conditioned response by not rewarding it. The theory emerged after Skinner conducted its famous study in which dogs were conditioned to salivate in response to the sound of a bell. It demonstrated how positive behaviors were encouraged or incited using a reward. While this theory helped explain some human actions, it was unable to account for a majority of behaviors and responses. Subconscious Motives (McClelland, 1961) David McClelland emphasized the role of the subconscious mind in determining human actions over the long term. While some studies support this view, the studies have been conducted on a very restricted variety of occupations, and cannot be generalized to all occupations. Moreover, this theory does not take into account the role of the conscious mind in motivating human behavior, although evidently, it does have a major role in regulating our behavior. The Goal Setting Theory Starting in the mid-1960s, researchers became more focused on the conscious part of the human brain, and its role in driving motives. Somewhere around this time, the research gave rise to a new theory called the goal setting theory. A major advantage of the goal theory over the previous theories was that it could explain motivation at several levels. At the very basic level, it can be used to explain physiologically driven actions, and at a higher level, it can be used to explain complex human behavior, especially cognitively driven motives that the previous theories evidently failed to explain. The goal setting theory suggests the use of setting objectives and action plans to help motivate a person or group of persons towards a certain goal. Goals are the most motivating when they are clear, attainable, and quantifiable. Goals that are too easy to achieve reduce motivation to put in effort, while goals that are difficult to the point of becoming unattainable also cause feelings of dejection and hence lower motivation. Although this is primarily a theory based on human psychology, it has important implications in the business world. It is widely used by managers nowadays and has given rise to several management theories such as the SMART goals (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound), management by objectives (a theory that was very popular in the 1970s), and others. SMART goals are specific i.e. they clearly outline what is to be achieved. They are measurable in terms of numbers and quantification. They are attainable and realistic. They are relevant to the overarching vision and they are also time bound i.e. there is a time bar set during which the goal must be achieved. Locke and Latham’s Timber Studies Towards the late 1960s, Gary Latham (the University of Toronto) and Edwin Locke (University of Maryland) began researching on goal setting and motivation. They suggested that by increasing the level of difficulty of goals, it is possible to enhance the productivity of workers. They conducted a study on timber workers in North America in which they applied this theory and yielded positive results. This came as a surprise, because it contradicted the dominant economic theories of pay for performance. The previously held concept was that a worker works primarily for salary/wages, and the higher the pay, the more effort will be put in by the worker. Locke and Latham’s studies demonstrated that it is possible to enhance performance without increasing wages. The basic idea behind this was that people are motivated not just by monetary rewards, but also by a sense of accomplishment. A higher goal, that is difficult but attainable, encourages the person to put in greater effort to achieve it, in order to feel a greater sense of accomplishment. Locke and Latham emphasized that the primary reason some people perform better than others at the same tasks can be explained by the difference in their goals. Despite the positive results of the study, the approach was soon criticized to be more of a technique than a theory. However, since then, it has provided groundwork for much further research, and has also become the basis for several other motivation theories, such as the management by objectives (MBO) theory. New Developments in the Goal Setting Theory Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Locke and Latham continued developing the goal setting theory. During the 1980s, they conducted several related experiments. In 1994, they wrote: “There are three direct mechanisms in which goals regulate performance. First, goals direct activity towards actions that are goal relevant to it at the expense of actions that are not relevant. Second, goals regulate effort expenditure in that people adjust their effort to the difficulty level of the task or goal. Third, goals affect the persistence of action in situations where there are no time limits.” (Locke and Latham, 1994) Then in 2002, they mentioned three moderators that indicate goal setting success (Locke and Latham, 2002): The importance of the expected outcomes of goal attainment; Self-efficacy or the belief that you can achieve a goal; and Commitment to others with regard to the outcome of your efforts In their writings in 2006, they discussed the importance of the goals being specific. For example, telling employees to “give their best shot” is a very vague term and conveys no measurable goal to the employees. As a result, they put in less effort that can easily pass for “their best.” Several other developments have taken place in the goal theory over the years (Wikipedia): Goal choice Several social factors affect goal setting. In particular, inability to achieve previous goals affects goal choice. Affect While achieving goals leads to feelings of success and satisfaction, failure to do so results in negative feelings. Learning goals Learning goals are generalized goals to achieve knowledge in a specific field, but can eventually lead to better performance in specific goals related to the learning. Framing The way in which goals are viewed affects the outcome. Goals that seem unattainable may reduce motivation to work towards them. The goal theory has also been refined further developing it in the light of other motivation theories. For example, Porter and Lawler argue that motivation only occurs in situations where the individuals derive psychological value (valence). In other words, people work towards goals when they expect to be rewarded, even though the reward may not necessarily be of monetary value. Similarly, Maslow’s hierarchy proposes that individuals have certain physiological needs, and these needs must be met before they can progress to satisfying their psychological needs. This means that an individual whose basic needs (such as food and shelter) have not been met, cannot derive psychological satisfaction from increased work intensity. Locke and Latham’s Timber Studies in the Light of Modern Goal Setting Theory The very first studies conducted by Locke and Latham (on timber workers) aimed to prove that if managers set high-end goals for their employees, even the most boring and monotonous tasks can be accomplished with greater efficiency. At this time, no regard was given to the nature of the goals (except that they should be more demanding), the attitudes of the employees, or the possible differences between the aims of the organization and the motives of the employees. While it still holds that to a certain extent, people are more likely to obtain greater satisfaction when they achieve higher targets, and this motivates them to work harder, it is evident that the failure of the initial studies to consider these factors questions the validity of the results. For example, more recent studies suggest that for employees to be motivated towards a goal set by the management, they need to feel positively about the goal; that is, an employee who feels that the manager is shedding his own responsibilities on her may feel negatively about her work and have a lower level of motivation. Locke and Latham’s timber studies implied that when employees are motivated by the setting of higher goals, they do not require pay-for-performance motivation. However, as suggested by Maslow’s hierarchy, if employees were not paid sufficiently to make ends meet, they would not be motivated by higher goals (Reilly, 2003). Another inadequacy of Locke and Latham’s research is that it suggests that the management of the organization sets targets for the employees, who will then submissively put in their maximum efforts towards achieving those targets. Today’s goal setting theory, as well as other management theories recommend giving employees more control over selecting their goals, with a focus on attaining the organization’s ultimate objectives. The greater control and sense of involvement allow employees to feel more positively towards their goals, and work more creatively towards the achievement. Further, this strategy holds the employees responsible when the goals set by them cannot be met. The timber studies’ results concluded that the only explanation for disparities between various employees’ performance can be found in the difference between their goals. In reality, employees differ in their abilities, status in life, intrinsic motivators and such factors (Reilly, 2003). Moreover, the fact that some employees, who are unable to achieve their goals, may resort to unethical means to prove themselves equally capable as their peers, was not considered. Feedback, which is now a major factor in the goal setting theory, was given no consideration in the timber studies. Similarly, in the 1979 publication, the researchers write about raising the difficulty levels of the goals. What the current level of difficulty is, and how much it needs to be increased, has not been mentioned. In other words, there is no objectivity to their statement that the goals need to be set higher. The SMART goals are now considered quite critical to the goal-setting theory. They further streamlined the setting and organization of goals. In the initial study, though, none of the aspects of the SMART goals have been considered. Attainability and specificity of goals were later added in the 1990 publications, but were not mentioned in 1979. Conclusion It cannot be denied that financial rewards play a major role in motivating employees to put effort into their performance. At the same time, it has been proven that financial rewards alone cannot suffice to bring out the best in employees. The degree to which these rewards work, and the other factors that influence motivation have been the subject of much concern, debate and research. However, despite the criticisms on the goal setting theory, there is considerable evidence that people tend to perform better in the presence of clear goals and objectives. The modern view on goal setting varies greatly from the initial ideas provided by Locke and Latham. Yet it would be unjust to suggest that those studies are invalid or that they have not played a major role in developing the goal setting theory as we know it today. The developments in the theory have been made possible through the initial work of Locke and Latham, and despite the discrepancies and inadequacy of the study, it does have some important implications and concepts that have proved useful in understanding human behavior in the context of the work environment. Moreover, these studies were quite different from the previously prevalent concepts of human behavior as a thoughtless function of environmental stimuli. However, goal setting theory still has its critics despite the developments that have taken place over the years. But as Locke and Latham wrote in 2009, “Goal setting is not going away. Organizations cannot thrive without being focused on their desired end results any more than an individual can thrive without goals to provide a sense of purpose.” Clearly, the debate over its effectiveness is yet to continue. So overall, despite criticism from the academic community about the feasibility of the goal setting theory, there is evidence that people tend to perform better when they have a goal in sigh and know what they are working for. Setting goals can give a sense of purpose, direction, vision and help in focusing of energy for individuals and organizations. It’s a multipurpose tool that has multiple benefits. Most companies are performance driven and focus on results; setting goals can help in getting results and staying focused on their path towards success. Bibliography 1. Daniel, A., n.d. A Theory of Goal Setting by Locke and Latham. [Online] Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/theory-goal-setting-locke-latham-1879.html [Accessed 15 March 2015]. 2. Fusion, J., n.d. Motivation and Goal Setting Theory. [Online] Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/motivation-goal-setting-theory-1187.html [Accessed 15 March 2015]. 3. Latham GP, Locke. E. A., 2006. Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), pp. 332-340. 4. Latham G. P., Locke. E. A., 1984. Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or Have Its Attackers. American Psychologist, 57(9), pp. 705-717. 5. Guide, M. S., 2014. Goal Setting Theory of Motivation. [Online] Available at: http://www.managementstudyguide.com/goal-setting-theory-motivation.htm [Accessed 15 March 2015]. 6. Latham, G., 2004. The Motivational Benefits of Goal-Setting. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), pp. 126-129. 7. Latham, G. P., Locke E. A., 1994. Motivation: Theory and Research. 1st ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 8. Locke E. A, Locke. G. P., 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. New Jersey, US: Englewood Cliffs. 9. Locke E. A, Latham. G. P., 2009. Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or Have Its Attackers Abandoned Good Scholarship?. Academy of Management Perspectives, pp. 17-23. 10. Redmond, B. F., 2014. Goal Setting Theory. [Online] Available at: https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/6.+Goal+Setting+Theory [Accessed 14 March 2015]. 11. Reilly, P., 2003. The Link Between Pay and Performance. [Online] Available at: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/mp18.pdf [Accessed 15 March 2015]. 12. Richards, L., n.d. Practical Implications of Goal Setting Theory. [Online] Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/practical-implications-goal-setting-theory-1880.html [Accessed 15 March 2015]. 13. Sloof, R., 2010. The effect of noise in a performance measure on work motivation: A real effort laboratory experiment. Labor Economics, Volume 17, pp. 751-765. 14. Tools, M., n.d. Lockes Goal-Setting Theory. [Online] Available at: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_87.htm [Accessed 15 March 2015]. 15. Wikipedia, 2015. Goal Setting. [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_setting [Accessed 14 March 2015]. Read More