Motivating with Systems - DB Feedback

Hi all,

Our October 10 and 13 discussion boards transition us from thinking about motivation at the individual-level to thinking about how we can design organizational systems to promote the intrinsic motivation discussed in chapter five. Hackman and Oldham's (1980) job characteristics model (JCM) is only one of many theories that explores motivational characteristics of job design, but it is a particularly useful one. The JCM's five basic job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job) remain central to discussions of job design and worker motivation today.

A key aspect of the JCM is the meaningfulness of work. Three of the five job characteristics identified by Hackman & Oldham (1980) contribute to experienced meaningfulness of one's work. Many of you effectively identified the lack of skill variety, task identity and task significance in Phil Stallings' job, noting that the exact opposite was true for the NUMMI workers. See Katie, Andrew B. and Greg's posts for very effective comparisons of the two cases using the JCM.

The best part of the JCM is it's practicality. It identifies aspects of job design that managers can take action to address without major investments in equipment or facilitates. Recall that the NUMMI plant continued to use much of the equipment used to assemble Chevrolets prior to the NUMMI joint venture. The difference was in job design and management style.

I've provided a link to JCM overview done for BUSA 340 last semester. While there are some references specific to that course, the video provides a more in-depth look at the model than that provided in our text. Take a few minutes watch it and learn a bit more about the model.

On Wednesday we shift from our discussion of the individual in the organization to a discussion of teams and groups. Enjoy your reading in Lencioni (2002); it's a fun, story-like read. See you in class for our first discussion of teams and trust.

Expectancy Theory & "Open Space"

Hi all,

Thanks for your contributions to our online discussion of the Kenny Moore & Keyspan case from Neubert (2014) chapter 5. A number of you had very strong posts fully responding to the case questions for discussion (see Ayanna, Katie, Andrew B., Ethan, Greg & Joe's posts for good examples).

I did want to highlight a very interesting and important conversation related to question 3: Would you be motivated by an Open Space meeting? Why or Why not. Many of you agree that you would. Tom provided an example of an open space-type meeting at his employer that he finds valuable. A number of the group, however, indicated that they would not find the structure of an open space meeting useful or valuable. Consistently this response came from the introverts among us (remember that I include myself in that group).

Future managers and leaders, this is an important point. Not everybody will be motivated to contribute in a large group setting such as Moore's open space model. This goes back to the difference in type that we saw in our class when we took the Jung Typology Test. It also relates back to Liswood's (2010) encouragement to us as managers that "the silent have something to say". As managers and leaders we need to find forums that gives voice to everybody in the organization. Also recall that Liswood identified responsibilities for both managers and individual contributors in the quest for the silent to be heard. Her chapter 7 provides tips for both. Expectancy theory may provide us with an additional tool.

Recall that expectancy theory is characterized by the consideration of the following questions:

Neubert (2014) Figure 5.2 (p. 101)

Neubert helps us reframe these questions in the sustainable approach, shifting them from the personal focus defined in the original model, to a group or other-focused approach. What if we as managers, leaders and individual contributors asked these questions instead (from Neubert, 2014, chapter 5):

• Can we achieve the goal together as a group? (expectancy)
• What is in it for the group? (instrumentality)
• What value is the achievement to the group? (valence)

Perhaps reframing our thinking of expectancy theory in this way can challenge us as managers and leaders to risk finding new ways to open up discussions to involve everybody, both the ready-to-speak and the quiet. And for individual contributors perhaps these "us" centered questions can begin to reframe our thinking about the challenges associated with large group discussion and contributions. It is not so much about me the individual and my personal style, but rather about what we can accomplish together as a group, and my role/responsibility to contribute to that group achievement.

What do you think? Can approaching the question of participation/contribution from the sustainable perspective begin to change what individual and group discussion looks like in an organization?

Intro to Diversity & Inclusion

Hi all.

Thanks for your observations and thoughts on the first three chapters of The Loudest Duck (Liswood, 2010). This is one of my favorite texts discussing diversity in the workplace. Liswood does a great job making accessible a sensitive subject with sometimes disturbing implications, using terms that enable us to have important conversations without feeling threatened.

This accessible language is also one of the challenges reading Liswood; we have to be clear about her terms. You demonstrated a solid understanding of her basic terms and concepts in today's discussion board posts. When speaking of "Noah's Ark", we have to be clear that Liswood is not referring to our friend in Genesis, but is using the ark as a metaphor for a particular approach to diversity/inclusion. the same is true for her use of elephants, mice, and grandmas.

Liswood provides a nice summary of these concepts in the video below. Watch an 8.5 minute section from time marker 35:30 to 44:00 for a useful overview and some additional context from the author herself. (Here's the URL if the link fails: http://youtu.be/u_S6C8WjxZU?t=35m30s)

Click here to go to Liswood video clip

We'll pick this conversation up on Monday using Carol's story (posted on Blackboard) to explore the meaning and importance of diversity and inclusion in today's workplace. Please come to class having read Carol's story and prepared to discuss the questions posted on Blackboard.

See you then!

Sept 5 Online Class Feedback

Greetings OB friends!

Thanks for today's interesting discussion, making connections between the topics of vocation and conventional/sustainable OB (Neubert & Dyck, 2014).

First let me commend you on the almost unanimously insightful comments regarding vocation as service and business as service. This is significant. As you launch your own businesses after graduation or work with others in an existing business, operating from this perspective will have significant impact on the business and people management decisions you make. Service is a much different purpose for a business than making a profit. As Van Duzer notes in Why Business Matters to God, a business must make a profit. But for those who see business as a form of vocation and therefore as service to others, profit is not the driving force behind every decision.

Several of you then take this discussion to the next level, making connections between business as vocation/service and Neubert and Dyck's (2014) conventional/sustainable OB concepts. Do a search for posts by Ayanna, Julianne, Ethan and Greg for some particularly thoughtful consideration of the connections between these concepts.

Check out Andrew B's posts this week as well. Andrew begins to shine a light down the practical application road. Sustainable OB and management are all well and good in the classroom, but what happens in real life? Can a company be started and run purely from the sustainable OB/management perspective? What happens in an economic downturn? Whose interests should prevail? All important questions with no easy answers. We'll continue to explore these issues as future business managers and leaders throughout the semester.

See you on Monday for our discussion of Neubert & Dyck (2014) chapter 2 (see the class prep instructions on Blackboard). Until then, enjoy the weekend!

Aug 29 Online Class Feedback

"The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world's deep hunger meet." 

Frederick Buechner

Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC, p. 95

Hello friends.

I begin with the above quote from Frederick Buechner, offering it as a thought-provoking contemporary summary of what vocation means. To Buechner, vocation is certainly service to others (Luther). It also requires seeking the place where our unique gifts will be put to their most effective use (Calvin). The critical things that separates vocation from just any other job, however, is that the exercise of these gifts both bring us deep joy and meet a critical need in the world. 

Buechner says this even more directly using this plain language from the same passage cited above: "The kind of work God usually calls you to is the kind of work (a) that you need most to do and (b) that the world most needs to have done." What we need to do most speaks directly to who God has created us to be. Fulfilling this calling will bring great joy. Doing this work is true vocation when it meets the world's need.

Hardy's practical theology of work breaks it down this way... 

"Through work we respond to God's mandate to humanity to continue the work of creation by [stewarding] the earth; through work we realize ourselves as image-bearers of God; through work we participate in God's ongoing creative activity; through work we follow Christ in his example of redemptive suffering for the sake of others; through work we serve God himself as we serve those with whom he identifies."

Lee Hardy

The Fabric of this World, p. 76

Your posts did a nice job capturing the detail behind Hardy's practical theology. As you noted, Luther and Calvin set the foundation for our contemporary understanding of vocation. Andrew B., Anthony, Ethan, Katie, Kyle & Julianne all did an excellent job outlining the essentials from both Luther and Calvin. Check our their posts for details. Greg also points out that this Protestant stream of thinking about vocation is also consistent with Catholic social teaching, making the perspective Hardy offers ecumenical in reach. 

Several of you also brought up important points, intentionally or implied, that begin to challenge our thinking about vocation, management, leadership and organizational behavior. For example, how do we define management and leadership? What are they really all about. We have the classic definitions from BUSA 206, but how do we reconcile these definitions with this calling to vocation found in our August 29 reading? Many of you made explicit and helpful links between our reading and treatment of employees and business as service to society. These are all good places to start.

Do we have additional responsibilities beyond these ethical considerations? If our vocation is management and leadership (as it will be for many of you), what is our responsibility as managers and leaders in creating workplaces where others can seek (see Greg's post) their vocation? Should for-profit companies be places where workers can seek vocation, or is that something people need to sort out at school or church before applying to work with our companies? Hmmm, not a question we'll answer here today, but we'll begin to explore this issue in class and online later this week, and continue the exploration throughout the semester. 

Keep this vocation discussion in mind as we engage with Neubert and Dyck (2014) chapter 1 in class on Wednesday, and then work to connect Neubert and Dyck to Hardy online again on Friday.

See you on Wednesday!