Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ILLINOIS LIBRARY
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
BOOKSTACKS
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
http://www.archive.org/details/motivationalstra224oldh
Faculty Working Papers
Greg R. Oldham
#224
December 9, 1974
Greg R. Oldham
#224
:
.
THE MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERVISORS
1
RELATIONSHIPS TO EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS
2
Greg R. Oldham
discussed.
One of the most, thoroughly researched areas in the behavioral
Korman, 1966; Sales, 1966). One of the probable reasons for the pre-
were focused on. Thus, this article will introduce a new set of leader
activities.
the view that, holding ability constant, fot most Jobs highly motivated
employees (cf. Lawler, 1971; Porter and Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964).
ates' motivation.
What are the general typea of actlvitiea tr.e supervisor mignu
son and some empirical evidence to suggest that conditions in the organ-
tion levels (cf. McGregor, 1960; Vroom, 1964). Therefore, the task
subordinates perform such that they become more potent motivating fac-
tors.
such a way that individuals working within them can more fully satisfy
the harder the individual works, the greater probability that his needs
It would seem that the supervisor who will be most effective in motivat-
ing his subordinates is the one who creates a working environment for
effect.
the term strategy more accurately reflects the idea of the supervisor as
to be Introduced.
back system will be used, all subordinates will work, in triads, etc.)
of the conditions subordinates work within. This does not negate the
visor can increase motivation and performance by: (a) influencing con-
different conditions the supervisor might affect require that he have different
implementation.
sonal rewards a supervisor might use are a pat on the back or a simple
lined above upon individual performance and learning have been studied
ICennedy and Willcutt, 1964). Also, there is some evidence to show that
greatest if the time lag between the desired subordinate behavior and
1966; Lawrence and Smith, 1955; Carroll and Tosi, 1969; Meyer, Kay, and
French, 1965). Most of these studies have examined the effects of dif-
your best" (see Locke, 1968 for a review of this research). In the
snail samples but a three month follow-up seemed to indicate that the most
substantial influence on performance was not the mutual nature of the goal
setting, but whether specific performance goals had been set at all.
All in all, the results of these and other studies suggest that
and Vaughn, 1968; Bilodeau and Bilodeau, 1961; Vroom, 196A). This
back might increase the value of high level performance for the employee.
In total, It seems clear that the supervisor can have a major impact on
under his control while also assessing the needs and skills of his imme-
them. For example, a supervisor using this strategy might try to place
vidual subordinates are able to more fully satisfy their own needs for
tions under which his subordinates can satisfy their needs and goals.
supervisor correctly assess his subordinates' needs and skills and then
place them in Jobs in which they can fulfill those needs and use their
found that individuals will have higher levels of motivation and per-
form higher quality work when they are placed on complex jobs (i.«
All in all, these results suggest that when many individuals are
and performance levels are likely to Increase. For the most positive
results using this strategy, however, jit does seem essential for the
each employee with a complex, challenging job. The most likely reason
ees. This may be due either to the i :tual content of the jobs or to
Job System strategy emphasizes the development of the job the indivi-
themselves.
once again relevant there (i.e., Turner and Lawrence, 1965; Hackman
Jobs of water pump assemblers were enriched such that they performed
many facets of the assembly and were responsible for product quality.
Jobs. Again, it does seem apparent that individuals with high needs for
That is, if the supervisor were to use these strategies, he would give
subordinate home for a day without pay are examples of material punish-
ments.
behavior (Adam, 1972). All in all, these results indicate that super-
research suggests that the reward systems that provide the most meaning-
ful or valuable incentive to the worker will be those that are most
abilities the supervisor might conclude that certain workers would per-
form better with a piece rate sys^m or that his unit's performance as
process) and then alter the reward conditions in such a way that
will be rated in motivating his subordinates; and (b) the greater will
The research also will compare and contrast the above motivational
proposed between the strategies and the latter dimensions, and the com-
METHOD
with the median being about 360 people. The group receiving primary
attention in the study were managers at the middle level in each of the
level managt ^cal group; holding nine different Jobs were examined
15
tions, etc.
Data also were collected from the store manager (N • 10), assistant
•tore manager (N • 7) if there was one, and a sample of each focal man-
were male, while the subordinate group was about half male and half
female.
Procedure
stores by the author and his research assistant. It took between one
and three days to complete the data collection in each store. The amount
assistant manager me -
< one of the researchers. After
ordinates. The total interview with the store and assistant manager
ance of his job. The manager was then questioned concerning the fre-
in the study ranged from 1-19 per middle manager. This wide range was
due to t:,o Job function of the middle manager (some managers supervised
just two individuals), the jobs of subordinates (for certain jobs indi-
difficulties.
and the subordinates were asked to delete any information that might
17
identify them personally on the form they were to complete. They were
asked to write their supervisor's name on the final page of the question-
Motivational Strategies
3
managers, middle managers, and subordinates. After beginning the data
collection phase of the research, it was found that the use of the
the study.
used to tap each of the six strategies. These items are listed below:
activities.
poor work by yelling at me, ignoring me, or, in general, acting unpleas-
or quotas for me to achieve (i.e., sell that case of hammers in one week)
frequently, adding data to the report, etc.) so that I receive more com-
present Job (e.g., giving more or different duties, giving more respon-
or demanding to me.
After each statement the researchers asked the store manager "how often"
interview schedule.
19
statements and asked the focal manager, "About how often do you tend to
scales.
were then formed by averaging the subordinate, store manager and focal
formed for each focal manager by averaging his self- rating, his subor-
dinates' sverage rating, and his store manager's rating of that strategy.
Justify the composite indices (see Table 1). Reliabilities were obtained
by: (a) calculating the median intercorrelation among raters for each
Spearman-Brown procedures.
Effectiveness Measures
rated the effectiveness of each middle manager within their store on two
separate dimensions: (1) How effective each focal manager was in getting
his subordinates to work hard and well; (2) The productivity of the focal
type scales.
Each focal manager was asked to complete the revised form of the
21
were then averaged to obtain reliable summary scores on each of the two
dimensions.
Result
indices and store and assistant manager ratings of the two effectiveness
in getting his subordinates to work hard and well). Results show that
tional Effectiveness."
Results also show that the Personally Rewarding and Designing Job
the other hand, results indicate that the more frequently focal managers
criticize their subordinates for poor Work, the lower their rating on
4
both effectiveness measures.
measured on the LOQ) are not related substantially to any of the motiva-
teas.
23
"consideration" and "stricture" (as measured on the LBDQ) and the com-
Personnel strategies.
examines the actual questions comprising the LBDQ. Some of the items
reports of "consideration."
effectiveness. This .
•
noticeable te above relationships
DT I ON
The only strategy which did not predict a middle manager* a effectiveness
effectiveness measure
.cant levels (see Table 5). These overall comparative results may
basics 1
I leade. sk clarification actions and are
The implication of these findings is that the manager who uses the
ates toward higher work performance. This manager, then, Is not merely
however, one must be careful in making causal inferences about the rela-
prevent researchers f
>oking for moderating variables which may
>ors at d; it lev.
lally independf
other questions cannot be easily answered with the measures used in the
ness. Specifically, the three strategies that were excluded from the
research.
29
FOOTNOTES
Graen, Jeanne Herman, Ken Rowland, and Barry Staw provided helpful
61801.
3
Data were also collected from assistant managers. Due to the
analyses.
56 , 430-W6.
335-3^C.
Bets, E., Weiss, D. J., Davis, R. W., England, 0. W., and Lofquist,
1957(a).
.
1957(b).
259-286.
Lawrence, L- C. ao v
h, P.e and employee participation.
Paul, V. f
RobertsoD, rg, P. Job jnent paya off.
1965.
ao c
CJ 00
.3 s «
iH
.-i. a.
— •:
-:
as .o *-.
-
i 1
cs
2 cn
CM
«
OJ
§ 5
Bl
E i 8 W BO oo
CM <n
ft- 05
«
2
H OS
On s t
VO
•
On o to
I
CM
H
O
J*
t<
V
I9 2* M
00
c to f1
CO
8-9 §
-i-t
tJ
CO U
ft. Or. 0-, a i^ CO "-,
Id V DC *
Ox
CO oj O
c
«
* *
o eg
CM
o
CM
« *
* « « « « «
On U"l OS f*» 00 r*.
e CM en CM tn *n fN 5
a
a 0
H J
la
*J J-
«o oj <*-«.
K c«u
M O 0J
OJ CO 4>
oo 35
« •K
I { e w
w"l 00 m coa
oj
f-i
C5 U"l
.
en
•
*<r
•
•<r
»
X
i (0 <H
1
Assist (one-ta
Store
for for 01
.05
45 39
I <
o —
i (4 t-4 150 *> «-4 OC'
00 2 00 c t4
25 2 * *
c C 03 a c >>
> « O 00 to 00 .O
•H t)
H 00 C/J
4J rH co •H OJ
4-1 CO 0} OJ IB eg .Q 4J
2£ OJ
w3
i-H «J 0»
">
£
Table k
Personally
Rewarding .15 .20 .;><> -.07
Personally
Punishing -.10 .21 -A9* .31
Setting
Goals .18 .36 -.18 .U»
Designing
Feedback
Systems .12 .46* 37 09
Placing
Personnel .19 .23 -.09 •3*
Design
Job Systems .22 .26 .20 .19
Bote: N - U5
M
M
oO
41 ,£> Z)
o O U-»
00
u
*j
3 X
H
c/j V OC o
M c «N
00 O 1-i
c U u
2,2
c2
Cfl 73
•H CD
w 1 CD
H «"> CD
c c
as 0)
4J >
U
•o o *-> (j
c a. o C M CC
i/> «g cu to a) oc
• r
DC 4-» 00 c o
CM
CN
«H
en
CN
CD
OO
-H C a W H ( • •
J3 O ij 0)
O -I a u Ratio
H fli
c
>»H OO s s
< c
M 73
0) W HO >CJ
73 O 4J f-l
5 (Q w
as 3 Manager
c C/5 4J u test)
«-> U-i CU
5 73 «C
£IS
00 00
CO
« CC t d
c 00 «H 0\ C* c V
0) CU CO
o•
•H a «-<
M <. CU
C o Assist
(one-tal
£ 5 u
to CO
a
a • w
o or
73 <M <4M «">
1 e o
o •n <J> •
o x *4 m
U • V
CO <u CO 0J 1 I
U o.
is 73
e;
2 2 *
x. (V o. •H
CO 3
*T5 (3£ u c
o
tn
/]
o V>
z zO
\