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?