Month: February 2017

Goal-setting theory is one of the best-supported theories in all the motivation literature. The idea seems simple: if you set a goal on where you want to be, you will work to get there. This is why Locke and his colleagues had researched goal as a source of motivation. Yet, with recent findings, it seems that goal setting is not unequivocally beneficial.

According to Locke, goal setting motivate people in four ways. First, goals indicate where someone should direct their attention and effort, among many things to do. Goals also suggest how much effort an individual should put into a task. Persistence, which represents the effort spent on a task over time, is also increased when a clear goal is set. Goals further encourage the development of strategies and action plans, do guide the individual to success.

The positive outcomes of goal setting are straight forward, but the possible downsides must not be overlooked. Sometimes, with or without realizing it, people set goals that are too difficult and even unrealistic for them, and still strive to achieve it. In this process, one can overwork themselves and cause too much stress. Stress is a major factor in the lives of many Canadians, with almost 25% of the working population reported as “stressed quite a lot.” Task demands are one of the main causes of stress, which unrealistic goal setting exacerbates. Consequences of stress include strains on individuals, both physically and mentally, which decreases productivity. The effects of stress on the Canadian economy is also huge, costing the Canadian economy an estimated $33 billion. 

Static goals can actually prevent optimal outcomes. In the process of working towards the goal, it is likely that the outside environment can change. When one is too focused on achieving this single goal, it can lead to inflexibility and inability to adapt. This prevents one from accommodating for the changes in the world, putting them behind other people. Moreover, employees may be too focused on one goal and therefore not consider alternative and better solutions to such tasks. It can be possible that the task that was set is not the best solution for the business. But because of goal setting, other better alternatives will be overlooked, which could cost the organization in the long run.

We should take to heart the warning of Professor Schweitzer: “Goal-setting is like a powerful medication.” It can heal many people; but it also comes with a list of possible side effects.

Personality tests are widely-used tools, both by individuals and organizations. Many organizations, such as Apple and AT&T use them to aid in the hiring process. Vittorio Chiu, in his blog post, shows both sides of the debate, of whether such tests are effective tools for organizations to use.

Personality tests can be used to show whether the candidate fits the image of an ideal employee that the organization is looking for. The MBTI was actually created for this in the 1980s, driven largely by a desire to select employees who fit the organisational culture. As Vittorio presents, especially with the recent advancements in personality tests, an employee can be assessed properly from the initial selection to seeking specific job traits. Dr. Lochner believes that a person’s personality has a limited degree of variability over time, making personality assessments an integral aspect of recruitment.

Yet, much of the evidence nowadays points out many problems with such tests. First, an individual’s personality is very flexible and results vary, as Vittorio points out in his blog. Adam Grant, a professor at Wharton, points out this problem, as the results of his tests varied from month to month. It would mean that, by the time the individual began working at the organization, his or her personality could be completely different, which renders the test results useless.

Moreover, the MBTI treats all the factors as binary. It forces people to be either introverted or extroverted, with no in-between options. Many people nowadays, including myself, feel that we encompass a little bit of both. There can be times when I gain energy by going out and socializing with others, but I also need to have some time to myself. It also means that people have to be either thinking or feeling, but many people use both almost equally. By forcing an individual to be one or the other, it can lead to an inaccurate representation of one’s personality.

One must also take into considerations that there are more factors that influence personality, other than the four listed classifications. Therefore, two people that are both considered INTJ can still be very different, depending on other aspects of their personality. Such personality tests have a limit in their scope, and may be ignoring other crucial parts of one’s personality that make one unique from another.

At the end, my judgement is in line with Vittorio, in that personality tests are as good as you see it to be. They can still be a good starting point for recruiters, but they must also keep in mind the shortcomings that may influence the results.

Money is the most commonly used form of reward in organizations. It is common for managers to award bonuses in addition to the employees’ regular wages or salaries, usually to honour their recent performances. Yet, the effectiveness of such compensations in motivating the employees is still debated.

Different theories attempt to analyze how money effects motivation. For example, Theory X assumes that employees dislike work and need extrinsic motivation. Bonuses could serve as the extrinsic motivation, and increase the productivity of workers. On the other hand, some theories infer that bonuses may not be effective. The Motivation-Hygiene theory shows that the hygiene factors must be met in order to avoid dissatisfaction. If there was an employee whose hygiene factors were not yet being met with their set wage of salary, bonuses could alleviate some of the hardship and prevent dissatisfaction. Yet, as the theory states, it is unlikely for the bonus to serve as motivation factors, as factors of growth and achievement cannot be accomplished simply by an extra paycheck.

Some studies show that bonuses can even decrease the level of motivation. Dr. Maurayama, a psychology associate professor, argues that bonuses can decrease motivation by making employees feel that their autonomy is being threatened. His research shows that job satisfaction was the most important factor in motivation, which bonuses actually threatened.

My personal experiences further showed the limitations of bonuses. Currently, I work a part time job as a debate coach, and I have received a year-end bonus at the end of last year. The extra pay was nice, as it helped me in some of my Christmas shopping, but the surge of extra motivation was soon gone. Rather, I was more motivated by other factors, such as job flexibility. In my second semester of teaching, I got to choose which classes and time slots I would work, which made me more satisfied with my job and the treatment I was given. I could work on days that I was less tired, which, I feel, also improved the quality of my teaching and benefited the organization overall.

Yet, there are ways in which managers can make their bonuses more effective. Dr. Seidel, an associate professor at Sauder School of Business, recommends that managers must be very clear about why the employee was receiving that bonus in the first place. Employees must understand what they must exactly do to receive the reward, which would also prevent competition and resentment among the employees. Still, Dr. Seidel recommends other forms of rewards, such as stock options for employees. While bonuses only affect employees in the short term, owing stocks mean that the employee’s financial well-being is more closely tied to the well-being of the organization, which would lead them more encouraged to work in the long term.

References:

Spencer, Julie. “Cash Bonuses Don’t Increase Workplace Motivation, Claim Experts.”Getreading. Trinity Mirror Southern, 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

Tchir, Jason. “Why Bonuses Aren’t Always the Best Way to Motivate Your Employees.” The Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail, 21 Dec. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

Langton, Nancy, Stephen P. Robbins, and Timothy A. Judge. Organizational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies, Applications. 7th ed. N.p.: Pearson Education Canada, 2016. Print.