kritikajain
New member
do ny one hv solved case study on ny motivational theory???
- Home
- Forums
- Research Reports
- Research Project Reports
- Principles of Management / Perspective Management
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
case study on motivation
- Thread starter kritikajain
- Start date
-
- Tags
- case case study motivation study
motivational case study exercise
example of self-motivation and motivation training exercise
Motivation is often best explained by reference to real examples. The 'Hellespont Swim' is a true story of unusual and remarkable personal achievement which demonstrates several aspects of motivational theory, plus various other principles of effective management and performance. Use this case study as a learning exercise. Ask people to read and comment on the story from a motivational and performance perspective.
What motivational forces and factors can you see in this case study? What motivational theories and concepts are illustrated in the account - for example, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, McGregor's X-Y Theory, McClelland's motivational theory; and the ideas of Adams, Bloom, Handy, Herzberg, Tuckman, etc. Also, what can you say about the story from the perspectives of teamwork, team-building, communications, planning and preparation, capability and potential, targets and goals, inspiration and role-models, skills/knowledge/attitude factors, humour and fun, project management, encouragement and coaching, project support, achievement and recognition, evaluation and measurement? What aspects of the experience could have been improved or done differently and why? What other aspects of personal motivation and achievement can you see in the story? How might lessons and examples within this story be transferred to yourself, to employees and organisations?
example of self-motivation and motivation training exercise
Motivation is often best explained by reference to real examples. The 'Hellespont Swim' is a true story of unusual and remarkable personal achievement which demonstrates several aspects of motivational theory, plus various other principles of effective management and performance. Use this case study as a learning exercise. Ask people to read and comment on the story from a motivational and performance perspective.
What motivational forces and factors can you see in this case study? What motivational theories and concepts are illustrated in the account - for example, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, McGregor's X-Y Theory, McClelland's motivational theory; and the ideas of Adams, Bloom, Handy, Herzberg, Tuckman, etc. Also, what can you say about the story from the perspectives of teamwork, team-building, communications, planning and preparation, capability and potential, targets and goals, inspiration and role-models, skills/knowledge/attitude factors, humour and fun, project management, encouragement and coaching, project support, achievement and recognition, evaluation and measurement? What aspects of the experience could have been improved or done differently and why? What other aspects of personal motivation and achievement can you see in the story? How might lessons and examples within this story be transferred to yourself, to employees and organisations?
Motivational theory
Over the years, many theorists have tried to discover what motivates people. The most well-known are Taylor (1856-1917), Mayo (1880-1949), Maslow (1908-1970), McGregor (1906-1964) and Herzberg (1923-2000). Of course, motivation is so important that new theories are constantly being developed (Egg, for instance, uses McClelland's Three Social Motives) but these are all built on the work of the early theorists.
The first of these is FW Taylor's Scientific Management Theory. Taylor was an American who worked with Henry Ford and may be said to be responsible for the first production lines. He believed money was the only motivator and that there should be a 'carrot and stick' approach. This means that for those who worked hard enough there would be rewards, but for those who didn't, penalties would be imposed. Other theorists realised that this was not always the way to get the best out of people.
Elton Mayo did not accept that money was the only motivator and he carried out the Hawthorne Experiments at a plant in Chicago to try to discover what really drove people. His Relay Assembly Test proved that workers were inspired by directing their own work, working in teams and having a good relationship with management. He concluded that the main reason his subjects' work rate increased was because they were being studied. Having someone show an interest in you is, in itself, a motivating factor. He also found that people were driven when working in teams. People are also influenced by their own aspirations and by friendship groups, and managers can use these to assist in motivation. What Mayo called the psychological contract refers to the unwritten understanding between the employer and the employee - each knows what is expected of them. This can be built on to ensure that the workers and the business are reaching their potential.
AH Maslow was an American psychologist who believed that people worked in order to obtain certain things. He established a 'hierarchy of needs', as shown in the figure, stating that people would endeavour to reach each need in order, starting from the bottom. Once they had reached a level, they would then strive to achieve the next one.
Douglas McGregor studied how employers and employees could each have a view of work. He called the traditional way of working Theory X. Here, the employer pays the money, supervises the worker and gives instructions; the worker does the job, asks no questions and accepts the pay. This he balanced with what he called Theory Y. This is where most people are satisfied with their employment and take responsibility. McGregor believed that most workers are the Theory Y type and that if people could be treated this way, firms would be more efficient.
Frederick Herzberg came to similar conclusions to Mayo. Asking workers what motivated them, he ascertained that the main things were a 'job well done', a feeling of being appreciated, trust, responsibility and specific rewards, such as being promoted. Certain conditions, which Herzberg called 'hygiene' factors, were de-motivators if they were missing or inadequate. Pay and working conditions are two of the main ones, meaning that satisfactory surroundings are not necessarily motivators, but inferior environments are certainly de-motivators.
Over the years, many theorists have tried to discover what motivates people. The most well-known are Taylor (1856-1917), Mayo (1880-1949), Maslow (1908-1970), McGregor (1906-1964) and Herzberg (1923-2000). Of course, motivation is so important that new theories are constantly being developed (Egg, for instance, uses McClelland's Three Social Motives) but these are all built on the work of the early theorists.
The first of these is FW Taylor's Scientific Management Theory. Taylor was an American who worked with Henry Ford and may be said to be responsible for the first production lines. He believed money was the only motivator and that there should be a 'carrot and stick' approach. This means that for those who worked hard enough there would be rewards, but for those who didn't, penalties would be imposed. Other theorists realised that this was not always the way to get the best out of people.
Elton Mayo did not accept that money was the only motivator and he carried out the Hawthorne Experiments at a plant in Chicago to try to discover what really drove people. His Relay Assembly Test proved that workers were inspired by directing their own work, working in teams and having a good relationship with management. He concluded that the main reason his subjects' work rate increased was because they were being studied. Having someone show an interest in you is, in itself, a motivating factor. He also found that people were driven when working in teams. People are also influenced by their own aspirations and by friendship groups, and managers can use these to assist in motivation. What Mayo called the psychological contract refers to the unwritten understanding between the employer and the employee - each knows what is expected of them. This can be built on to ensure that the workers and the business are reaching their potential.
AH Maslow was an American psychologist who believed that people worked in order to obtain certain things. He established a 'hierarchy of needs', as shown in the figure, stating that people would endeavour to reach each need in order, starting from the bottom. Once they had reached a level, they would then strive to achieve the next one.
Douglas McGregor studied how employers and employees could each have a view of work. He called the traditional way of working Theory X. Here, the employer pays the money, supervises the worker and gives instructions; the worker does the job, asks no questions and accepts the pay. This he balanced with what he called Theory Y. This is where most people are satisfied with their employment and take responsibility. McGregor believed that most workers are the Theory Y type and that if people could be treated this way, firms would be more efficient.
Frederick Herzberg came to similar conclusions to Mayo. Asking workers what motivated them, he ascertained that the main things were a 'job well done', a feeling of being appreciated, trust, responsibility and specific rewards, such as being promoted. Certain conditions, which Herzberg called 'hygiene' factors, were de-motivators if they were missing or inadequate. Pay and working conditions are two of the main ones, meaning that satisfactory surroundings are not necessarily motivators, but inferior environments are certainly de-motivators.
Motivational : Case Studies
The Effectiveness of Non Monetary Recognition Programs :
Although the concept of positive reinforcement and the related principle that you get what you reward are well-founded in the psychology literature, the effective use of positive reinforcement by practicing managers is uneven and often totally lacking in day-to-day business operations. This article explores the conditions that enable or inhibit the use by managers of non-monetary recognition (NMR).
The Study
For each of 34 organizations, data from a set of managers who were identified as frequent users of non-monetary recognition were matched against a set of managers who were infrequent users of the behavior, using three forms of validation to confirm accurate category placement. High-use (HU) and low-use (LU) managers were initially identified by an organizational sponsor and then confirmed by a manager's self-report and reports by at least three employees who reported to each manager.
A broad-based national survey was conducted of all managers in the sample, based on variables drawn primarily from three domains of the motivation literature. Survey questions explored the motivation for the use of non-monetary recognition, ranging from past experience with the behavior (social learning theory), to present reinforcement of the behavior (reinforcement theory), to future expectations from the behavior (expectancy theory).
Reinforcement Theory
Reinforcement theory provided the strongest support for explaining differences in the use of NMR: High-use managers were reinforced for using NMR (most notably by their employees), while low-use managers were not reinforced for using the behavior, perhaps in part because they seldom displayed the behavior.
Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory provided uneven support: High-use managers were significantly more likely to have had parents who modeled NMR, although neither high-use nor low-use managers reported their managers modeled the behavior. High-use managers clearly internalized the importance of the activity and made intentional plans to practice its use on a daily basis, whereas low-use managers felt strongly that the behavior was not important, thus did not seek to make plans to use the behavior.
Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory provided strong support: High-use managers had the skills and confidence to use NMR and felt strongly that doing so would lead to desired outcomes, whereas low-use managers did not know how to effectively provide NMR and felt strongly that its use would lead to undesired outcomes.
In addition, the study found the manager's age to be the only highly significant demographic variable that distinguished the two groups. Older managers were less likely to practice NMR or feel its use was important today. Neither gender nor personality type was found to be significant in distinguishing high-use from low-use managers in this study.
Emergent Patterns
In looking at these findings, a pattern emerged of behavior cycles that differentiated managers who use recognition from those who do not. Managers who were high-users tended to have an initial positive experience with the behavior, which made them more likely to use NMR with those they managed. The managers were reinforced for the use of NMR by (in order of significance): their employees, themselves, other colleagues, suppliers, and their own managers.
They also obtained the results they desired in using NMR, which included increased performance (see sidebar on this page) and morale on the part of their employees. Based on this success, they were more likely to use the behavior again to the point in which they internalized the importance of the behavior, and increased their skills and confidence, so that it became a daily part of their behavioral repertoire as a manager.
Negative Cycle
For managers who did not use NMR, a negative cycle seemed evident: Managers did not have an initial positive experience with the use of NMR and thus were inclined not to use NMR. Since they didn't use NMR, they had little or no chance of being reinforced for the behavior. No benefits were thus derived from the use of NMR, and any concerns or fears about the behavior essentially became excuses for not doing the behavior, thus neither skills nor confidence were enhanced, and the behavior was not internalized. To take just one sample excuse, low-users said they didn't have time to use NMR, whereas high-users cited "time" as one of the top reasons they used NMR, in that they could have a significant impact on employees and performance with very little time through the effective use of NMR.
These findings further suggest that to trigger a positive cycle of NMR use on the part of managers, it may be more important for them to have a positive personal experience in the use of NMR, more so than available programs, tools, or other resources for providing recognition to their employees.
The Effectiveness of Non Monetary Recognition Programs :
Although the concept of positive reinforcement and the related principle that you get what you reward are well-founded in the psychology literature, the effective use of positive reinforcement by practicing managers is uneven and often totally lacking in day-to-day business operations. This article explores the conditions that enable or inhibit the use by managers of non-monetary recognition (NMR).
The Study
For each of 34 organizations, data from a set of managers who were identified as frequent users of non-monetary recognition were matched against a set of managers who were infrequent users of the behavior, using three forms of validation to confirm accurate category placement. High-use (HU) and low-use (LU) managers were initially identified by an organizational sponsor and then confirmed by a manager's self-report and reports by at least three employees who reported to each manager.
A broad-based national survey was conducted of all managers in the sample, based on variables drawn primarily from three domains of the motivation literature. Survey questions explored the motivation for the use of non-monetary recognition, ranging from past experience with the behavior (social learning theory), to present reinforcement of the behavior (reinforcement theory), to future expectations from the behavior (expectancy theory).
Reinforcement Theory
Reinforcement theory provided the strongest support for explaining differences in the use of NMR: High-use managers were reinforced for using NMR (most notably by their employees), while low-use managers were not reinforced for using the behavior, perhaps in part because they seldom displayed the behavior.
Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory provided uneven support: High-use managers were significantly more likely to have had parents who modeled NMR, although neither high-use nor low-use managers reported their managers modeled the behavior. High-use managers clearly internalized the importance of the activity and made intentional plans to practice its use on a daily basis, whereas low-use managers felt strongly that the behavior was not important, thus did not seek to make plans to use the behavior.
Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory provided strong support: High-use managers had the skills and confidence to use NMR and felt strongly that doing so would lead to desired outcomes, whereas low-use managers did not know how to effectively provide NMR and felt strongly that its use would lead to undesired outcomes.
In addition, the study found the manager's age to be the only highly significant demographic variable that distinguished the two groups. Older managers were less likely to practice NMR or feel its use was important today. Neither gender nor personality type was found to be significant in distinguishing high-use from low-use managers in this study.
Emergent Patterns
In looking at these findings, a pattern emerged of behavior cycles that differentiated managers who use recognition from those who do not. Managers who were high-users tended to have an initial positive experience with the behavior, which made them more likely to use NMR with those they managed. The managers were reinforced for the use of NMR by (in order of significance): their employees, themselves, other colleagues, suppliers, and their own managers.
They also obtained the results they desired in using NMR, which included increased performance (see sidebar on this page) and morale on the part of their employees. Based on this success, they were more likely to use the behavior again to the point in which they internalized the importance of the behavior, and increased their skills and confidence, so that it became a daily part of their behavioral repertoire as a manager.
Negative Cycle
For managers who did not use NMR, a negative cycle seemed evident: Managers did not have an initial positive experience with the use of NMR and thus were inclined not to use NMR. Since they didn't use NMR, they had little or no chance of being reinforced for the behavior. No benefits were thus derived from the use of NMR, and any concerns or fears about the behavior essentially became excuses for not doing the behavior, thus neither skills nor confidence were enhanced, and the behavior was not internalized. To take just one sample excuse, low-users said they didn't have time to use NMR, whereas high-users cited "time" as one of the top reasons they used NMR, in that they could have a significant impact on employees and performance with very little time through the effective use of NMR.
These findings further suggest that to trigger a positive cycle of NMR use on the part of managers, it may be more important for them to have a positive personal experience in the use of NMR, more so than available programs, tools, or other resources for providing recognition to their employees.
jitenmazee
Banned
do ny one hv solved case study on ny motivational theory???
Hey kritika, i am uploading a document for you as i saw that you need case study on motivational theory. So please check my presentation on case study of employee motivation.