Psychology 962: Work Motivation Syllabus
Spring 2016
Rick DeShon
306 Psychology Building
353-4624
deshon@msu.edu
Office hours: M: 1-3 or by appointment
Course Overview:
The nomological network of the work motivation construct is broad and fragmented. There
is no widely accepted overarching model. Instead, many mid-level theories of motivation
have been developed to explain specific aspects of human behavior at work.
This is problematic because an organization is a dynamic system. Everything is related to
everything and individuals are exposed to a huge array of organizational policies, practices,
and social stimuli. All of these experiences combine in a currently unknown manner to
impact the individual’s work motivation and, through composition processes, the
organization’s motivational profile.
Course Goals:
This course is structured to support three underlying goals. The first goal is to expose you
to the major theories of work motivation with a focus on their strengths and limitations.
The second goal is to explore the holistic functioning of the various perspectives on work
motivation as they unfold in complex organizational settings. The third goal is to explore
work motivation in a practical manner. Given what we know about work motivation, how
can we design an organization to maximize its effectiveness?
Course Responsibilities
Participating in this course is a case study of work motivation. Based on a wide variety of
factors you chose to invest resources (time, effort, emotional labor, etc…) into this
experience rather than pursue a host of alternative experiences. Over the next 15 weeks of
this course you will repeatedly evaluate how much of your limited resources you should
invest into participating in this course at the expense of other activities you also wish or
“need” to pursue. Obviously, the choices you make about your participation will influence
your personal outcomes (e.g., enjoyment, learning, understanding, philosophy, etc…).
Equally important, we are a system and your choices will influence the outcomes obtained
1
by others in the course. Fun, illuminating perspectives and ideas will be either be
developed and shared or not.
I have to choose the formal structure of our temporary organization. Do I legislate the
vocalization of words by placing a reward/punishment structure in place for participation?
Contingent reward theories demand that I reward the desired behaviors when they occur
and punish behaviors I do not desire (e.g., withdraw, avoidance). Intrinsic motivation
theories, on the other hand, suggest that contingent rewards may actually undermine the
very behavior I hope to obtain. Maybe we should have a “leader board” where we
implement a weekly preferential voting technique to induce social motives for
participation? Maybe we should set difficult, specific goals for the desired course outcomes,
assess the state of each outcome every week, and provide concrete feedback on progress
toward the goals? As you can see the motivational structure for our very simple, temporary
organization is complex.
Grades: Performance in the course will reflect two equally (50/50) weighted products. The
first product will be the set of questions you contribute to class discussion every week. The
second product will be a 25-30 page final paper (due at the end of the 14th week of class)
describing how you design an organization and its policies and procedures to yield a highly
engaged and effective workforce.
Questions: Each Monday by noon, you will email me 3 questions related to the topic and
readings for that week. My hope is that you will work hard to develop probing, insightful
questions that stimulate class discussion. I will combine the de-identified questions and
distribute them by the end of the day on Monday.
Adopting the approach of participate decision making, we will decide as a group how grades
will be assigned to the questions.
Paper: The primary goal of this course is to develop a holistic understanding of how formal
and informal policies, practices, and social interactions influence how people think, feel,
and behave at work. Therefore, your paper will incorporate theory and current best
practices to design the perfect small to medium sized organization (less than 200
employees). How will you evaluate and compensate employees? What management
structure will you use? How will you handle conflict resolution? How will you select
employees in and out of the organization? How would you structure career paths? How will
you promote team work and creativity where needed? How will you approach work-life
integration and employee wellbeing? The scope of the paper is, obviously, quite large.
You’ll need to make decisions on what to include in your perfect organization and what can
be left out. To help narrow the scope of the paper, I want us to focus on motivation
processes and not training or other forms of skill development. Assume your workforce has
the needed knowledge and skills to perform their work.
2
Course Outline
Week 01 - Overview
•
•
What is “motivation”? (skim…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation)
–
Work motivation is the psychological processes that direct, energize, and
maintain action toward a job, task, role, or project (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976;
Kanfer, 1990).
Why do we care about motivation? What do we want to motivate?
•
Play with BoxCar 2D (http://boxcar2d.com/) - Read the FAQ sections 1-3 and skim the
algorithm
•
Think about how to design an autonomous Mars Rover (AKA Curiosity II)
•
The 5 whys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys)
Week 02 - Basics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thorndike’s Law of Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_effect)
Operant Conditioning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning)
Murray’s Needs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%27s_system_of_needs)
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory)
Utility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility)
Buridan’s Ass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass)
Theory of planned behavior
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_planned_behavior)
Good Regulator Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_regulator)
Law of requisite variety
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)#The_Law_of_Requisite_Variety)
Principle of least effort (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_effort)
Cognitive Miser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_miser)
Prospect Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory)
McGregor’s Theory Z and Theory Y
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y)
Demming’s 14 management principles
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#Key_principles)
ISO 9000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000)
•
Landy, F. J. & Becker, W. S. (1987). Motivation Theory Reconsidered. In Cummings, L. L.
& Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 1-38. Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
•
Grant, A. M., & Shin, J. 2011. Work motivation: Directing, energizing, and maintaining
effort (and research). In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of motivation. Oxford
University Press.
3
•
•
[skim] Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation
research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management, 25, 231-292.
–
Compare content of this older motivation review with the newer Grant and
Shin review. What’s the same, what’s changed, and what’s gone away?
Kerr. S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B. Academy of
Management Review, 18, 769-783.
•
[skim] Polderman et al. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based
on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47, 702–709.
•
[skim] Laloux (2014) - Reinventing Organizations (pp.1 - 60)
•
[Homework] Case Study: Zappos (google the terms “zappos and holocracy” and
“Zappos and teal” and “Tony Hsieh internal memo”)
Week 03 - Theory, Theory, Theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need & Drive theory (Nach, Nbelong)
Reinforcement theory
Expectancy & Efficacy theory
Goal setting theory
Equity & Justice
Self-determination theory
Self-regulation & Cybernetics
Beliefs (Goal orientation, Regulatory Focus)
Job design (for later)
Week 04 - Engagement, Morale, Job satisfaction
•
[skim] Kolstad (1938). Employee attitudes in a department store. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 22, 470-479.
•
[skim] Giese, W. J. & Rutter, H. W. (1949) - An objective analysis of morale. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 33, 421-427.
•
Schaufeli et al (2006) - The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short
Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716.
•
Rich, Lepine & Crawford (2010). Job engagement-Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
•
Towers Watson (2014) - The global workforce study at a glance.
•
Gallup (2012) - Q12 Meta-Analysis Summary of engagement Findings.
•
Judge et al (2001). The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative
and Quantitative Review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.
4
•
Fredrickson (2013) - A functional genomic perspective on human well-being. PNAS,
110, 13684–13689.
Week 05 - Pay for Performance
•
100k bonus (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/12/11/whatoil-bust-texas-billionaire-gives-each-worker-a-100000-bonus/)
•
Judge et al (2010) - The relationship between pay and job satisfaction- A meta-analysis
of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 157–167.
•
Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B. & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance
evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571-600.
•
Han et al (2015). Tightening up the performance–pay linkage: Roles of contingent
reward leadership and profit-sharing in the cross-level influence of individual pay-forperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 417-430.
•
Chen, H.-M., & Hsieh, Y.-H. (2006). Key trends for the total reward system in the 21st
century. Compensation and Management Review.
•
Pfeffer, J. (1998). Six dangerous myths about pay. Harvard Business Review, 108-119.
•
Mattson & Hellgren (2014) - Effects of staff bonus systems on safety behaviors. Human
Resource Management Review, 24, 17-30.
•
Garbers & Konradt (2013) - The effect of financial incentives on performance: A
quantitative review of individual and team-based financial incentives. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 102–137.
•
Gerhart & Fang (2014). Pay for (individual) performance: Issues, claims, evidence and
the role of sorting effects. Human Resource Management Review, 24, 41-52.
•
Daniel Pink (2009) - Drive
(http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en)
•
Scanlon Plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanlon_plan)
Week 06 - Performance Evaluation
•
Harris (1994) - Rater Motivation in the Performance Appraisal Context.
•
Smith & Fortunato (2008) - Factors Influencing Employee Intentions to Provide
Honest Upward Feedback Ratings
•
Roch (2005) - An investigation of motivational factors influencing performance
ratings- Rating audience and incentive.
•
Levy & Williams (2004). The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and
Framework for the Future. Journal of Management, 30, 881–905.
5
•
DeNisi & Smith (2014). Performance Appraisal, Performance Management, and FirmLevel Performance: A Review, a Proposed Model, and New Directions for Future
Research. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 127-179.
•
Pulakos et al. (2012). Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at
Performance Management. SHRM Foundation’s Effective Practice Guidelines Series.
Week 07 - Job design, Flexwork
•
Grant, Fried, & Juillerat () - WorkMatters - job design
•
Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson (2007) - Integrating motivational, social, and
contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension
of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356.
•
Grant (2007) - Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417.
•
Grant & Parker (2009) - Redesigning Work Design Theories: The Rise of Relational and
Proactive Perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317–375.
•
Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski (2008) - What is Job Crafting and Why Does It Matter?
From the Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship. University of Michigan
•
Wrzesniewski Berg, & Dutton (2010). Turn the Job You Have into the Job You Want.
Harvard Business Review, 88, 114-117.
•
Baltes et al (1999). Flexible and Compressed Workweek Schedules: A Meta-Analysis of
Their Effects on Work-Related Criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496-513.
Week 08 - Creativity & Innovation
•
Deci, Koestner, & Ryan (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the
Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627668.
•
Eisenberger & Cameron (1996) - Detrimental Effects of Reward.
•
Eisenberger & Shanock (2003) - Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity- A Case
Study of Conceptual and Methodological Isolation
•
Eisenberger & Aislage (2009) - Incremental Effects of Reward on Experienced
Performance Pressure- Positive Outcomes for Intrinsic Interest and Creativity.
•
Eisenberger & Byron (2011) - Rewards and creativity
•
Byron & Khazanchi (2012) - Rewards and creative performance: A meta-analytic test
of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 809-830.
6
•
Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad (2008). A Meta-Analysis of 25 Years of Mood–Creativity
Research: Hedonic Tone, Activation, or Regulatory Focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134,
779–806.
Week 09 - Integrating Time
•
Trope & Liberman. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110, 401–421.
•
Steel & König (2006) - Integrating Theories of Motivation. The Academy of
Management Review, 31, 889-913
•
Soman et al (2005). The Psychology of Intertemporal Discounting: Why are Distant
Events Valued Differently from Proximal Ones? Marketing Letters, 16, 347–360.
•
Tobin & Graziano (2010). Delay of Gratification: A Review of Fifty Years of Regulation
Research. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of Personality and Self-Regulation (pp. 4763). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Week 10 - Leadership, Management, Supervision
•
French & Raven (1959). The bases of social power.
•
ZHANG, X., & BARTOL, K. M.. (2010). LINKING EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND
EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT,
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, AND CREATIVE PROCESS ENGAGEMENT. The Academy of
Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.
•
Grant (2011). How customers can rally your troops. Harvard Business Review, 89, 96103.
•
Kiersch & Byrne (2015)- Is Being Authentic Being Fair? Multilevel Examination of
Authentic Leadership, Justice, and Employee Outcomes. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 22, 292–303.
•
Herman et al (2011) - Motivated by the Organization’s Mission or Their Career?
Creative Leadership and Booz Allen Hamilton.
•
Brown et al (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct
development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97,
117–134.
•
Winkler (2010) - Social learning theory of leadership
•
Henrich, Chudek, & Boyd (2015). The Big Man Mechanism: how prestige fosters
cooperation and creates prosocial leaders. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 370,
Week 11 - Social Stuff - Helping (Fairness, OCBs, tribe & kin)
•
Henrich (2015) - Culture and social behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences,
15, 84–89.
7
•
Delal (2005) - A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1241–1255.
•
Balliet et al (2011) - Reward, Punishment, and Cooperation: A MetaAnalysis
•
Balliet, D., & Van Lange, Paul A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1090-1112.
•
Van Lier, J., Revlin, R., & De Neys, W. (2013). Detecting Cheaters without Thinking:
Testing the Automaticity of the Cheater Detection Module. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e53827.
•
Colquitt, Jason A.; Conlon, Donald E.; Wesson, Michael J.; Porter, Christopher O. L. H.;
Ng, K. Yee. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of
organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
•
Karau & Williams (1993) - Social Loafing- A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical
Integration
Week 12 - Participative Decision Making
•
Spector (1986) - Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies
Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work. Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016.
•
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M., & Jennings, K. R. (1988).
Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of
Management.the Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8.
•
Wetzel (2015). Strange Encounter: An Inquiry into the Popularity of Participation in
Organizations (pp. 223-245). In Change Management and the Human Factor Advances,
Challenges and Contradictions in Organizational Development. Springer International
Publishing.
•
Brousseau (2006). The seasoned executive’s decision-making style. Harvard business
review, 84, 111-.
•
Byron & Hamburger (2011). More than lip service: linking the intensity of
empowerment initiatives to individual well-being and performance. International
journal of human resource management, 22 , 258-.
•
Pereira, G. M., & Osburn, H. G. (2007). Effects of participation in decision making on
performance and employee attitudes: A quality circles meta-analysis. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 22(2), 145-153.
Week 13 - Fun
•
Xerox (2014) - Workplace fun to motivate employees
•
Michael J. Tews John Michel Shi Xu Alex J. Drost , (2015),“Workplace fun matters … but
what else?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 37 Iss 2 pp. 248 - 267.
8
•
Tews, Michel, & Stafford (2013). Does Fun Pay? The Impact of Workplace Fun on
Employee Turnover and Performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly November, 54,
370-382.
•
Mesmer-Magnus, Glew, & Viswesvaran (2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in
the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27,155 - 190.
Week 14 - Collective motivation (contagion, culture, teams)
•
Barsade & Knight (2015). Group Affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 2, 21-46.
•
Chen et al (2009). The motivating potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen and
Kanfer’s (2006) cross-level model of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 110, 45–55.
•
Schwartz (2012). Emotional Contagion Can Take Down Your Whole Team. Harvard
Business Review.
•
Thatcher & Patel (2011). Demographic Faultlines: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 6, 1119 –1139.
•
Shepperd (1995). Shepperd (1995) - Remedying motivation and process loss in
collective efforts. Current directions in psychological science, 4, 131-134.
Week 15 - Physical Environment
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nudge
Colors
Floor plans
Lighting
Noise
Collaboration
Week 16 - Group Project: Design the engaged organization
Note: We have too many weeks scheduled to fit into the course. We’ll have to drop one to
fit it within the 15 meeting constraint.
9