THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF

MOTIVATIONAL TECHNIQUES – GOAL SETTING AND

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOURGottfried Catania MSc

PRESENTATION STRUCTURE

1. Personal and group introductions 2. Definition and theories of motivation 3. Goal setting theory – basic concepts 4. Goal setting theory – current research

directions and boundary conditions 5. Goal setting and unethical behaviour –

the hypotheses and practical importance

INTRODUCTION

Name

Educational experience

Brief occupational history and current occupation

Any other relevant points

WHAT IS MOTIVATION?

3 Components:

Direction – what a person is trying to do (choice)

Effort – how hard a person is trying (intensity) Persistence – how long a person continues

trying (duration)

COMMON SENSE APPROACHES

Theory X – people cannot be trusted as they are inherently unreliable and lazy. They are best controlled by using threats and financial incentives.

Theory Y – people seek independence and self-development at work. They are fundamentally moral and responsible and will naturally strive towards the good of the organization.

Social – a person’s behaviour is influenced mostly by social interactions – people seek meaningful social interactions at work.

EMPIRICAL/THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Alderfer’s ERG theory McClelland’s Need for Achievement Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (VIE) Adam’s Equity Theory Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory and

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation Hackman and Oldham’s Job

Characteristics Model Locke and Latham’s Goal Setting Theory

INTEGRATION OF THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

While the variety of theories may be confusing, it is important to note that 1. each one has an important contribution to

offer 2. in many cases they are compatible, but

differ in their emphasis

Locke and Latham (2004), amongst others, have tried to integrate the different theories into one model, and many practitioners use ideas from the different models as relevant in different situations

GOAL SETTING THEORY – LOCKE AND LATHAM

Pioneered in the 1960s by Locke and associates, and gained increasing empirical support up to date

By 1990s well over half of all empirical studies in motivation reported in academic journals tested, extended or refined this theory

Resulted in popular management concepts such as Management by Objectives (MBO) and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time Bound) goals

GOAL SETTING THEORY - PRINCIPLES

Basic premise –

Work performance is increased by specific and challenging (but not impossible) goals.

GOAL SETTING THEORY – PRINCIPLES - 2

Further research has uncovered a number of moderators, i.e. factors which affect the direct relationship between goals and performance. These include: Goal commitment Goal importance Self-efficacy Feedback Task complexity

Rewards are also important motivators as they increase satisfaction and goal commitment

GOAL SETTING THEORY – OTHER POINTS

This theory is not as straightforward in its application, because of two main reasons:

People and circumstances vary, sometimes in ways which affect the goal setting process

Application in complex settings may present specific problems

GOAL SETTING THEORY RESEARCH

Theory has been extensively validated in both field and laboratory conditions, and over 90% of research has shown support for its basic concepts, making it one of the most valid theories in psychology

Being an open theory, research is still being conducted in refining the theory and its application

GOAL SETTING THEORY – OTHER ISSUES

In complex tasks, learning goals may be more effective than performance goals

Goal commitment can be fostered by clear communication about the goal, and enhanced by participation in the goal setting process

Many times there are multiple goals to be achieved

If a goal is too large or far in the future, breaking it up into more manageable smaller goals helps

GOAL SETTING THEORY – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

AND RESEARCH

Learning vs Performance goal orientation

Subconscious influences on goal setting

Boundary conditions of the theory – when is goal setting likely to have unintended negative effects?

UNINTENDED NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GOAL SETTING –

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

Sears, Roebuck and Co – 1990s

Auto repair company set sales goals for its repair staff of $147/hour, prompting staff to overcharge for work and complete unnecessary repairs

UNINTENDED NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GOAL SETTING – ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE 2 Enron - 1990s

Specific challenging goals fuelled rapid financial success, but focusing on revenue rather than profit drove the company bankrupt

UNINTENDED NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GOAL SETTING – ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE - 3

General Motors – 2002

Market share in 2002 was 28.2%. Goal of reaching 29% was emphasized - strategies devised to reach the goal disregarded potential negative consequences (e.g. Interest free loans), money was lost and the company went bankrupt

POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF SPECIFIC GOALS

Making one focus so narrowly that one overlooks other important features of the task

The presence of multiple goals inducing people to focus on one goal at a time – which goal will the person choose?

Goals and time horizons – focusing on short term specific goals may harm the organization in the long term

POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF CHALLENGING GOALS

Strategies adopted to reach the challenging goal may be riskier to the organization than one would normally accept

Challenging goals may lead to unethical behaviour, by 1. using unethical methods to reach the goal 2. misrepresentation of performance

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Central idea –

people are not intrinsically evil, but breakdowns in moral reasoning, sometimes arising from organizational interventions and policies(such as goal setting) may lead to immoral practices

COGNITIVE PROCESSES UNDERLYING UNETHICAL

DECISION MAKING 1. Ethical recognition – employees

attention becomes so focused on the goal itself rather than the means to attain it that they fail to consider other aspects (e.g. Ethical implications)

2. Moral disengagement – using rationalizations to justify their actions, (a) linking deceit to worthy purposes (b) displacing responsibility onto others

POSSIBLE MODERATORS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOAL SETTING

AND UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

Participative vs assigned goal setting Personality and individual differences Self efficacy and linking of goals to one’s

self concept Goal specificity Goal difficulty Structuring of rewards and their link to

performance

KEY REFERENCES

Ambrose, M. L. and Kulik, C. T. (1999) Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-292.

Barsky, A. (2008) Understanding the ethical cost of organizational goal-setting: A review and theory development. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 63-81.

Latham, G. P. (2007) Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Latham, G. P. and Pinder, C. C. (2005) Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.

KEY REFERENCES - 2

Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation – A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Ordonez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D. and Bazermann, M. H. (2009) Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, Feb 2009, 6-16 and related correspondence.

Schweitzer, M. E., Ordonez, L. and Douma, B. Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 422-432.

CONTACT DETAILS

gottfried.catania@um.edu.mt gottfried71@gmail.com

Tel: 2340 2595 Mob: 9947 4629

Room214, Old Humanities Building,University of MaltaMsida