In order to provide optimal production figures, Acme management officials set quotas for production and sales of widgets during the transition period. The quota was based on a 120% increase over widget sales during the last year. They also determined that the Acme design staff should design new categories of widgets. The number of new designs had been left up to the decision of the design staff based on their assessment of the difficulty and time required.
Seven of the profiled employees are assigned to the production and sales staff of Acme. Their motivational scores are attached as Attachment A. 71% of the employees indicated that they tried very hard to improve their past performance and all of them indicated that they enjoy competition and winning. 71% of the workers indicated they enjoyed a difficult challenge. While 42% indicated that they did not care about knowing about their progress, 57% indicated that they did and that they enjoyed setting and achieving realistic goals. 71% stated that they at least agreed to enjoyed completing a difficult task and 57% stated that they enjoyed working with others rather than working alone. Based on these surveyed characteristics, the production and sales group took on the challenge of producing and selling an increase of 120% of widgets over the next six-months.
During the first two months, production levels climbed slightly; however, a few problems arose. The employees who had indicated a lack of interest in improving past performance increased usage of the sick leave and vacation time which slowed production accordingly. Other employees had to fill in for them causing resentment. Those that did not enjoy belonging to a group led the discontent. The 28% of the employees who indicated that they enjoyed building close relationships with fellow employees pulled together for the common good but their actions were outweighed by the surveyed 57% who disagreed with forming close social relationships. At the end of the first two months, production had climbed to the 103% of the average past year’s monthly production level.
During the next two months, the 71% of the employees who had indicated that they tried hard to improve on past performance encouraged their coworkers to work harder. However, a “what’s in it for me” attitude emerged from those employees who had indicated that they did not enjoy joining groups and who enjoyed working alone. At the end of the second two months, production and sales stood at the 110% level.
During the last two months, the majority of employees who exhibited leadership tendencies did their utmost to encourage their production and sales co-workers. A riff developed between the workers who enjoyed camaraderie and those that enjoyed working in solitude but those enjoying camaraderie outnumbered the others and at the end of the six months, production had risen to the 120% level.
The design staff had been given full autonomy in deciding the number of designs required to meet the 120% increase in sales over the previous year, which resulted in an increased level of anxiety in the department. Their anxiety had been somewhat justified not only because of the usual merger related issues, but due to the fact that this department had never been put on such stringent timeframe before. Furthermore, the additional strain of potential displacement helped to compound the department’s stress level.
In the design department, seven additional employees had been surveyed. Their survey results are attached as Attachment B and are as follows: 71% of those surveyed enjoyed a difficult challenge and preferred and enjoyed being in charge. 57% did not care about being updated on their progress while 42 % preferred knowing about their progress and also enjoyed influencing others to get their way. 71% said they try very hard to improve on past performances at work and 71% also enjoyed setting and achieving realistic goals.
The design team found themselves with the challenge of coordinating the above characteristics to fulfill the number of designs required to increase sales by 120% in six months. Production levels based on the new designs increased by 108% in the first three months. Even though the team finished nine of the sixteen designs that had been agreed on by the department within these first three months, they were faced with a few challenges. The 71% of employees who enjoyed being in charge found it increasingly difficult to work together. They enjoyed the challenge of the restrictive timeframe; nevertheless, their progress was hampered by their individual desire to lead. The 42% of those who enjoyed influencing others pulled together to form a cohesive unit and set forth goals and guidelines required to complete the tasks that faced them. Their actions resulted in individual performance improvement and the streamlining of ideas.
Over the last three months, the 71% who liked to work on improving past performances made a concerted effort to challenge the team to improve on the accomplishments of the previous three months. This created some difficulties for the 42% who don’t care about being updated. This resulted in a slump in the workflow and the subsequent lull in the progress of the new designs. The 71% who enjoy setting and achieving realistic goals worked with the team using performance matrices and timelines to convince their teammates to stay within the scope of their requirements for the remaining three months. As a result of their efforts the team successfully completed the remaining seven new designs in the last two months and production and sales departments were able to meet the quota of 120% within the required six-month period. What we have seen demonstrated in the above scenario are the benefits and difficulties of using specific and challenging goals as a motivating force.
Reinforcement Theory Motivation
The same motivational surveys were used to compare the impact of the reinforcement theory on the production, sales and design groups. This theory sees behavior as being influenced by reinforcers: any consequence that, when immediately following a response, increases the probability that the behavior will be repeated (Robbins, p.115).
During the first two months, production levels were at their optimum, morale was high as the departments set their sight on securing their jobs in light of the imminent merger. Nevertheless, there were some indications of impending challenges ahead. The 71% who preferred to try very hard to improve their past performances needed additional motivation in order to realize their objectives. This posed a problem for the department as the 57% goal setters had already established a criterion for attaining the 120% production and sales increase. Getting both groups motivated to work as a cohesive unit was a challenge to the fate of the department. However, the 71% who enjoyed competition and winning decided to put together a rewards roster based on performance. This roster was design as a matrix with each employee’s name along with a corresponding slot for weekly rewards. The response to this approach was immediate and overwhelming as employees soon realized that the progress of the team depended on their individual contribution. Furthermore, the impact of being rewarded immediately for their efforts was enough to increase employee contribution levels by up to 40%, resulting in the 120% quota increase over the previous year’s sale figures.
The reinforcement theory was visible in the above scenario in the following way: the improvement of employee contribution was immediate following the response to the rewards roster. This positive reinforcement, therefore, adds credence to the belief that the motivational actions on the part of the employees significantly led to the accomplishment of the required goals.
Attachment A – Work Motivation Survey of the Acme Production and Sales Department
Attachment B – Work Motivation Survey of the Acme Widget Design Department
References
Robbins, S. (2001). Organizational Behavior [University of Phoenix Custom Edition].
Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
