Selasa, 12 April 2011

Motivation Theories

by Agus Subandi

Equity theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equity theory attempts to explain relational satisfaction in terms of perceptions of fair/unfair distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships. Equity theory is considered as one of the justice theories. It was first developed in 1963 by John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioral psychologist, who asserted that employees seek to maintain equity between the inputs that they bring to a job and theoutcomes that they receive from it against the perceived inputs and outcomes of others (Adams, 1965). The belief is that people value fair treatment which causes them to be motivated to keep the fairness maintained within the relationships of their co-workers and the organization. The structure of equity in the workplace is based on the ratio of inputs to outcomes. Inputs are the contributions made by the employee for the organization.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Background
o 1.1 Definition of equity
o 1.2 Inputs and outcomes
 1.2.1 Inputs
 1.2.2 Outcomes
o 1.3 Propositions
• 2 Equity theory in business
o 2.1 Assumptions of equity theory applied to business
o 2.2 Implications for managers
• 3 Criticisms and related theories
o 3.1 Equity Sensitivity Construct
o 3.2 Fairness Model
• 4 See also
• 5 References
• 6 Literature

Background
Equity theory proposes that individuals who perceive themselves as either under-rewarded or over-rewarded will experience distress, and that this distress leads to efforts to restore equity within the relationship. It focuses on determining whether the distribution of resources is fair to both relational partners. Equity is measured by comparing the ratios of contributions and benefits of each person within the relationship. Partners do not have to receive equal benefits (such as receiving the same amount of love, care, and financial security) or make equal contributions (such as investing the same amount of effort, time, and financial resources), as long as the ratio between these benefits and contributions is similar. Much like other prevalent theories of motivation, such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, equity theory acknowledges that subtle and variable individual factors affect each person’s assessment and perception of their relationship with their relational partners (Guerrero et al., 2007). According to Adams (1965), anger is induced by underpayment inequity and guilt is induced with overpayment equity (Spector 2008). Payment whether hourly wage or salary, is the main concern and therefore the cause of equity or inequity in most cases. In any position, an employee wants to feel that their contributions and work performance are being rewarded with their pay. If an employee feels underpaid then it will result in the employee feeling hostile towards the organization and perhaps their co-workers, which may result the employee not performing well at work anymore. It is the subtle variables that also play an important role for the feeling of equity. Just the idea of recognition for the job performance and the mere act of thanking the employee will cause a feeling of satisfaction and therefore help the employee feel worthwhile and have more outcomes.
Definition of equity
An individual will consider that he is treated fairly if he perceives the ratio of his inputs to his outcomes to be equivalent to those around him. Thus, all else being equal, it would be acceptable for a more senior colleague to receive higher compensation, since the value of his experience (and input) is higher. The way people base their experience with satisfaction for their job is to make comparisons with themselves to people they work with. If an employee notices that another person is getting more recognition and rewards for their contributions, even when both have done the same amount and quality of work, it would persuade the employee to be dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction would result in the employee feeling underappreciated and perhaps worthless. This is in direct contrast with the idea of equity theory, the idea is to have the rewards (outcomes) be directly related with the quality and quantity of the employees contributions (inputs). If both employees were perhaps rewarded the same, it would help the workforce realize that the organization is fair, observant, and appreciative.
This can be illustrated by the following equation:

Inputs and outcomes
Inputs
Inputs are defined as each participant’s contributions to the relational exchange and are viewed as entitling him/her to rewards or costs. The inputs that a participant contributes to a relationship can be either assets – entitling him/her to rewards – or liabilities - entitling him/her to costs. The entitlement to rewards or costs ascribed to each input vary depending on the relational setting. In industrial settings, assets such as capital and manual labor are seen as "relevant inputs" – inputs that legitimately entitle the contributor to rewards. In social settings, assets such as physical beauty and kindness are generally seen as assets entitling the possessor to social rewards. Individual traits such as boorishness and cruelty are seen as liabilities entitling the possessor to costs (Walster, Traupmann & Walster, 1978). Inputs typically include any of the following:
 Time
 Effort
 Loyalty
 Hard Work
 Commitment
 Ability
 Adaptability
 Flexibility
 Tolerance
 Determination
 Enthusiasm
 Personal sacrifice
 Trust in superiors
 Support from co-workers and colleagues
 Skill
Outcomes
Outputs are defined as the positive and negative consequences that an individual perceives a participant has incurred as a consequence of his/her relationship with another. When the ratio of inputs to outcomes is close, than the employee should have much satisfaction with their job. Outputs can be both tangible and intangible (Walster, Traupmann & Walster, 1978). Typical outcomes include any of the following:
 Job security
 Salary
 Employee benefit
 Expenses
 Recognition
 Reputation
 Responsibility
 Sense of achievement
 Praise
 Thanks
 Stimuli
Propositions
Equity theory consists of four propositions:
1. Individuals seek to maximize their outcomes (where outcomes are defined as rewards minus costs).[1]
2. Groups can maximize collective rewards by developing accepted systems for equitably apportioning rewards and costs among members. Systems of equity will evolve within groups, and members will attempt to induce other members to accept and adhere to these systems. The only way groups can induce members to equitably behave is by making it more profitable to behave equitably than inequitably. Thus, groups will generally reward members who treat others equitably and generally punish (increase the cost for) members who treat others inequitably.
3. When individuals find themselves participating in inequitable relationships, they become distressed. The more inequitable the relationship, the more distress individuals feel. According to equity theory, both the person who gets “too much” and the person who gets “too little” feel distressed. The person who gets too much may feel guilt or shame. The person who gets too little may feel angry or humiliated.
4. Individuals who perceive that they are in an inequitable relationship attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring equity. The greater the inequity, the more distress people feel and the more they try to restore equity. (Walster, Traupmann and Walster, 1978)
Equity theory in business
Equity theory has been widely applied to business settings by Industrial Psychologists to describe the relationship between an employee's motivation and his or her perception of equitable or inequitable treatment. In a business setting, the relevant dyadic relationship is that between employee and employer. As in marriage and other contractual dyadic relationships, equity theory assumes that employees seek to maintain an equitable ratio between the inputs they bring to the relationship and the outcomes they receive from it (Adams, 1965). Equity theory in business, however, introduces the concept of social comparison, whereby employees evaluate their own input/output ratios based on their comparison with the input/outcome ratios of other employees (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978). Inputs in this context include the employee’s time, expertise, qualifications, experience, intangible personal qualities such as drive and ambition, and interpersonal skills. Outcomes include monetary compensation, perquisites (“perks”), benefits, and flexible work arrangements. Employees who perceive inequity will seek to reduce it, either by distorting inputs and/or outcomes in their own minds ("cognitive distortion"), directly altering inputs and/or outcomes, or leaving the organization (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978). These perceptions of inequity are perceptions of organizational justice, or more specifically, injustice. Subsequently, the theory has wide-reaching implications for employee morale, efficiency, productivity, andturnover.
Assumptions of equity theory applied to business
The three primary assumptions applied to most business applications of equity theory can be summarized as follows:
1. Employees expect a fair return for what they contribute to their jobs, a concept referred to as the “equity norm”.
2. Employees determine what their equitable return should be after comparing their inputs and outcomes with those of their coworkers. This concept is referred to as “social comparison”.
3. Employees who perceive themselves as being in an inequitable situation will seek to reduce the inequity either by distorting inputs and/or outcomes in their own minds (“cognitive distortion”), by directly altering inputs and/or outputs, or by leaving the organization. (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978)
Implications for managers
Equity theory has several implications for business managers:
 People measure the totals of their inputs and outcomes. This means a working mother may accept lower monetary compensation in return for more flexible working hours.
 Different employees ascribe personal values to inputs and outcomes. Thus, two employees of equal experience and qualification performing the same work for the same pay may have quite different perceptions of the fairness of the deal.
 Employees are able to adjust for purchasing power and local market conditions. Thus a teacher from Alberta may accept lower compensation than his colleague in Toronto if his cost of living is different, while a teacher in a remote African village may accept a totally different pay structure.
 Although it may be acceptable for more senior staff to receive higher compensation, there are limits to the balance of the scales of equity and employees can find excessive executive pay demotivating.
 Staff perceptions of inputs and outcomes of themselves and others may be incorrect, and perceptions need to be managed effectively.
 An employee who believes he is over-compensated may increase his effort. However he may also adjust the values that he ascribes to his own personal inputs. It may be that he or she internalizes a sense of superiority and actually decrease his efforts.
Criticisms and related theories
Criticism has been directed toward both the assumptions and practical application of equity theory. Scholars have questioned the simplicity of the model, arguing that a number of demographic and psychological variables affect people's perceptions of fairness and interactions with others. Furthermore, much of the research supporting the basic propositions of equity theory has been conducted in laboratory settings, and thus has questionable applicability to real-world situations (Huseman, Hatfield & Miles, 1987). Critics have also argued that people might perceive equity/inequity not only in terms of the specific inputs and outcomes of a relationship, but also in terms of the overarching system that determines those inputs and outputs. Thus, in a business setting, one might feel that his or her compensation is equitable to other employees', but one might view the entire compensation system as unfair (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978).
Researchers have offered numerous magnifying and competing perspectives:
Equity Sensitivity Construct
The Equity Sensitivity Construct proposes that individuals have different preferences for equity and thus react differently to perceived equity and inequity. Preferences can be expressed on a continuum from preferences for extreme under-benefit to preferences for extreme over-benefit. Three archetypal classes are as follows:
 Benevolents, those who prefer their own input/outcome ratios to be less than those of their relational partner. In other words, the benevolent prefers to be under-benefitted.
 Equity Sensitives, those who prefer their own input/outcome ratios to be equal to those of their relational partner.
 Entitleds, those who prefer their own input/outcome ratios to exceed those of their relational partner. In other words, the entitled prefers to be over-benefitted. (Huseman, Hatfield & Miles, 1987)
Fairness Model
The Fairness Model proposes an alternative measure of equity/inequity to the relational partner or "comparison person" of standard equity theory. According to the Fairness Model, an individual judges the overall "fairness" of a relationship by comparing their inputs and outcomes with an internally derived standard. The Fairness Model thus allows for the perceived equity/inequity of the overarching system to be incorporated into individuals' evaluations of their relationships (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978).
See also
 Expectancy theory
 Social Psychology
 Social exchange theory
 Predicted outcome value theory
References
1. ^ E.g. ultimatum games show, that the maximation of outcomes is only one of several objectives for an individual. In order to foster rules desired by an individual, the individual may be willing to sacrifice maximum outcomes.(Bala)
Literature
 Adams, J.S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 62:335-343.
 Carrell, M.R., and Dittrich, J.E. (1978). Equity Theory: The Recent Literature, Methodological Considerations, and New Directions. The Academy of Management Review. 3;2: 202-210.
 Guerrero, Andersen, and Afifi. (2007). Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships, 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Inc.
 Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. & Miles, E.W. (1987). A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct. The Academy of Management Review. 12;2: 222-234.
 Messick, D. & Cook, K. (1983). Equity theory: psychological and sociological perspectives. Praeger.
 Sankey, C.D., (1999). Assessing the employment exchanges of Business Educators in Arizona. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
 Spector, P.E. (2008). Industrial and Organizational Behavior (5th ed.). Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.
 Traupmann, J. (1978). A longitudinal study of equity in intimate relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
 Walster, E., Walster G.W. & Bershcheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and Research. Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
 Walster, E., Traupmann, J. & Walster, G.W. (1978). Equity and Extramarital Sexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 7;2: 127-142.

I-Change Model
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The I-Change Model[1][2] or the Integrated Model for explaining motivational and behavioral change is derived from the Attitude – Social Influence – Self-Efficacy Model, that can be considered as an integration of ideas of Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior,[3] Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, Prochaska's Transtheoretical Model,[4] the Health Belief Model,[5] and Goal setting[6] theories. Previous versions of this model (referred to as the ASE-model) have been used to explain a variety of types of health behavior.
Phases of behavioral change
The I-Change Model is a phase model and assumes that at least three phases in the behavioral change process can be distinguished: 1.Awareness; 2. Motivation; 3. Action. For each phase particular determinants are more relevant.
Awareness
Awareness of a particular problem in a person is the result of accurate knowledge and risk perceptions of the person about his own behavior (not all persons are aware of the level of their own behavior, for instance, many persons overestimate the amount of their physical activity. Cues in their environment (e.g. a person with cancer) may also prompt a person to become more aware of a particular risk and the need to adopt a particular health behavior.
Motivation
Motivation to change a behavior is regarded to be dependent on a person's attitude (the results of perceived advantages and disadvantages of the behavior), social influence beliefs (norms of others, behavior of others, and support of others) and self-efficacy expectations (the perceived ability to perform a particular health behavior). The ultimate result in level of motivation to adopt a health behavior can be measured by intentions, a concept derived from Fishbein & Ajzen's Theory of Reasoned Action[7] or related concepts such as the stage of change concept of the Transtheoretical Model of Prochaska.
Action
Intentions do not necessarily lead to behavior. Factors determining action, besides a positive intention, are again self-efficacy, action planning and goal setting. With regard to action planning we distinguish preparation planning (planning actions required to change), initiation planning (planning the actions needed to perform the new behavior for the first time) and coping or maintenance planning (planning the actions to cope with barriers and relapse in order to maintain the realized changes). Additionally, the development of skills required for the new health behavior is needed as well.
Predisposing factors
The I-Change Model assumes that these motivational processes are determined by various predisposing factors such as behavioral factors (e.g. life styles), psychological factors (e.g. personality), biological factors (e.g. gender, genetic predisposition), social and cultural factors (e.g. the price of cigarettes, policies), and information factors (the quality of messages, channels and sources used).
References
1. ^ De Vries, H., Dijkstra, M. & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: the third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioral intentions. Health Education Research, 3, 273–282
2. ^ De Vries, H. & Mudde, A. (1998). Predicting stage transitions for smoking cessation applying the Attitude – Social influence – Efficacy Model. Psychology & Health, 13, 369–385
3. ^ Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Action control: From cognition to behavior. J. Kuhl & S.J. Beckmann (Eds.) 1987, Springer: Berlin. p 11–37
4. ^ Prochaska J.O., Velicer W.F. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot 1997 Sep–Oct; 12(1): 38–48.
5. ^ Janz N.K., Becker M.H. The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984; 11: 1–47.
6. ^ Gollwitzer, P.M. Implementation intentions. Strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol, 1999. 54 (7): p. 493–503
7. ^ Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Additional reading
 De Vries, H., Dijkstra, M. & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: the third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioral intentions. Health Education Research, 3, 273–282.
 De Vries, H. & Mudde, A. (1998). Predicting stage transitions for smoking cessation applying the Attitude - Social influence - Efficacy Model. Psychology & Health, 13, 369–385.
 De Vries, H., Mesters, I., Van der Steeg, H., & Honing, C. (2005). The general public’s information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the Integrated Change Model. Patient Education and Counselling, 56 (2), 154–165.
 De Vries, H., Mesters, I., Van 't Riet, J., Willems, K., & Reubsaet, A. (2006). Motives of Belgian adolescents' for using sunscreen: the role of action plans. Cancer, Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Biomarkers, 15 (7) 1360–1366.
 De Vries, H., Kremers, S., Smeets, T., Brug, J., & Eijmael, K. (2008). The effectiveness of tailored feedback and action plans in an intervention addressing multiple health behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 22 (6): 417–425.
 Segaar, D., Bolman, C. Willemsen M.C., & de Vries, H. (2006). Determinants of Adoption of Cognitive Behavioral Interventions in a Hospital Setting: Example of a Minimal-Contact Smoking Cessation Intervention for Cardiology Wards. Patient Education and Counselling, 61, 262–271. Impact factor 2006: 1.356

Operant conditioning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that Mutual operant conditioning be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

Operant conditioning is the use of a behavior's antecedent and/or its consequence to influence the occurrence and form of behavior. Operant conditioning is distinguished from classical conditioning (also called respondent conditioning) in that operant conditioning deals with the modification of "voluntary behavior" or operant behavior. Operant behavior "operates" on the environment and is maintained by its consequences, while classical conditioning deals with the conditioning of reflexive (reflex) behaviors which are elicited by antecedentconditions. Behaviors conditioned via a classical conditioning procedure are not maintained by consequences.[1]
Reinforcement, punishment, and extinction
Reinforcement and punishment, the core tools of operant conditioning, are either positive (delivered following a response), or negative (withdrawn following a response). This creates a total of four basic consequences, with the addition of a fifth procedure known as extinction(i.e. no change in consequences following a response).
It is important to note that actors are not spoken of as being reinforced, punished, or extinguished; it is the actions that are reinforced, punished, or extinguished. Additionally, reinforcement, punishment, and extinction are not terms whose use is restricted to the laboratory. Naturally occurring consequences can also be said to reinforce, punish, or extinguish behavior and are not always delivered by people.
 Reinforcement is a consequence that causes a behavior to occur with greater frequency.
 Punishment is a consequence that causes a behavior to occur with less frequency.
 Extinction is the lack of any consequence following a behavior. When a behavior is inconsequential (i.e., producing neither favorable nor unfavorable consequences) it will occur with less frequency. When a previously reinforced behavior is no longer reinforced with either positive or negative reinforcement, it leads to a decline in the response.
Four contexts of operant conditioning
Here the terms positive and negative are not used in their popular sense, but rather: positive refers to addition, and negative refers to subtraction.
What is added or subtracted may be either reinforcement or punishment. Hence positive punishment is sometimes a confusing term, as it denotes the "addition" of a stimulus or increase in the intensity of a stimulus that is aversive (such as spanking or an electric shock). The four procedures are:
1. Positive reinforcement (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In the Skinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.
2. Negative reinforcement (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.
3. Positive punishment (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
4. Negative punishment (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
Also:
 Avoidance learning is a type of learning in which a certain behavior results in the cessation of an aversive stimulus. For example, performing the behavior of shielding one's eyes when in the sunlight (or going indoors) will help avoid the aversive stimulation of having light in one's eyes.
 Extinction occurs when a behavior (response) that had previously been reinforced is no longer effective. In the Skinner box experiment, this is the rat pushing the lever and being rewarded with a food pellet several times, and then pushing the lever again and never receiving a food pellet again. Eventually the rat would cease pushing the lever.
 Noncontingent reinforcement refers to delivery of reinforcing stimuli regardless of the organism's (aberrant) behavior. The idea is that the target behavior decreases because it is no longer necessary to receive the reinforcement. This typically entails time-based delivery of stimuli identified as maintaining aberrant behavior, which serves to decrease the rate of the target behavior.[2] As no measured behavior is identified as being strengthened, there is controversy surrounding the use of the term noncontingent "reinforcement".[3]
 Shaping is a form of operant conditioning in which the increasingly accurate approximations of a desired response are reinforced.[4]
 Chaining is an instructional procedure which involves reinforcing individual responses occurring in a sequence to form a complex behavior.[4]
Thorndike's law of effect
Main article: Law of effect
Operant conditioning, sometimes called instrumental conditioning or instrumental learning, was first extensively studied by Edward L. Thorndike (1874–1949), who observed the behavior of cats trying to escape from home-made puzzle boxes.[5] When first constrained in the boxes, the cats took a long time to escape. With experience, ineffective responses occurred less frequently and successful responses occurred more frequently, enabling the cats to escape in less time over successive trials. In his law of effect, Thorndike theorized that successful responses, those producing satisfying consequences, were "stamped in" by the experience and thus occurred more frequently. Unsuccessful responses, those producing annoying consequences, were stamped out and subsequently occurred less frequently. In short, some consequences strengthened behavior and some consequences weakened behavior. Thorndike produced the first known learning curves through this procedure. B.F. Skinner (1904–1990) formulated a more detailed analysis of operant conditioning based on reinforcement, punishment, and extinction. Following the ideas of Ernst Mach, Skinner rejected Thorndike's mediating structures required by "satisfaction" and constructed a new conceptualization of behavior without any such references. So, while experimenting with some homemade feeding mechanisms, Skinner invented the operant conditioning chamber which allowed him to measure rate of response as a key dependent variable using a cumulative record of lever presses or key pecks.[6]
Biological correlates of operant conditioning
The first scientific studies identifying neurons that responded in ways that suggested they encode for conditioned stimuli came from work byMahlon deLong[7][8] and by R.T. "Rusty" Richardson.[8] They showed that nucleus basalis neurons, which release acetylcholine broadly throughout the cerebral cortex, are activated shortly after a conditioned stimulus, or after a primary reward if no conditioned stimulus exists. These neurons are equally active for positive and negative reinforcers, and have been demonstrated to cause plasticity in many corticalregions.[9] Evidence also exists that dopamine is activated at similar times. There is considerable evidence that dopamine participates in both reinforcement and aversive learning.[10] Dopamine pathways project much more densely onto frontal cortex regions. Cholinergic projections, in contrast, are dense even in the posterior cortical regions like the primary visual cortex. A study of patients with Parkinson's disease, a condition attributed to the insufficient action of dopamine, further illustrates the role of dopamine in positive reinforcement.[11] It showed that while off their medication, patients learned more readily with aversive consequences than with positive reinforcement. Patients who were on their medication showed the opposite to be the case, positive reinforcement proving to be the more effective form of learning when the action of dopamine is high.
Factors that alter the effectiveness of consequences
When using consequences to modify a response, the effectiveness of a consequence can be increased or decreased by various factors. These factors can apply to either reinforcing or punishing consequences.
1. Satiation/Deprivation: The effectiveness of a consequence will be reduced if the individual's "appetite" for that source of stimulation has been satisfied. Inversely, the effectiveness of a consequence will increase as the individual becomes deprived of that stimulus. If someone is not hungry, food will not be an effective reinforcer for behavior. Satiation is generally only a potential problem with primary reinforcers, those that do not need to be learned such as food and water.
2. Immediacy: After a response, how immediately a consequence is then felt determines the effectiveness of the consequence. More immediate feedback will be more effective than less immediate feedback. If someone's license plate is caught by a traffic camera for speeding and they receive a speeding ticket in the mail a week later, this consequence will not be very effective against speeding. But if someone is speeding and is caught in the act by an officer who pulls them over, then their speeding behavior is more likely to be affected.
3. Contingency: If a consequence does not contingently (reliably, or consistently) follow the target response, its effectiveness upon the response is reduced. But if a consequence follows the response consistently after successive instances, its ability to modify the response is increased. The schedule of reinforcement, when consistent, leads to faster learning. When the schedule is variable the learning is slower. Extinction is more difficult when learning occurs during intermittent reinforcement and more easily extinguished when learning occurs during a highly consistent schedule.
4. Size: This is a "cost-benefit" determinant of whether a consequence will be effective. If the size, or amount, of the consequence is large enough to be worth the effort, the consequence will be more effective upon the behavior. An unusually large lottery jackpot, for example, might be enough to get someone to buy a one-dollar lottery ticket (or even buying multiple tickets). But if a lottery jackpot is small, the same person might not feel it to be worth the effort of driving out and finding a place to buy a ticket. In this example, it's also useful to note that "effort" is a punishing consequence. How these opposing expected consequences (reinforcing and punishing) balance out will determine whether the behavior is performed or not.
Most of these factors exist for biological reasons. The biological purpose of the Principle of Satiation is to maintain the organism'shomeostasis. When an organism has been deprived of sugar, for example, the effectiveness of the taste of sugar as a reinforcer is high. However, as the organism reaches or exceeds their optimum blood-sugar levels, the taste of sugar becomes less effective, perhaps even aversive.
The Principles of Immediacy and Contingency exist for neurochemical reasons. When an organism experiences a reinforcing stimulus,dopamine pathways in the brain are activated. This network of pathways "releases a short pulse of dopamine onto many dendrites, thus broadcasting a rather global reinforcement signal to postsynaptic neurons."[12] This results in the plasticity of these synapses allowing recently activated synapses to increase their sensitivity to efferent signals, hence increasing the probability of occurrence for the recent responses preceding the reinforcement. These responses are, statistically, the most likely to have been the behavior responsible for successfully achieving reinforcement. But when the application of reinforcement is either less immediate or less contingent (less consistent), the ability of dopamine to act upon the appropriate synapses is reduced.
Operant variability
Operant variability is what allows a response to adapt to new situations. Operant behavior is distinguished from reflexes in that its response topography (the form of the response) is subject to slight variations from one performance to another. These slight variations can include small differences in the specific motions involved, differences in the amount of force applied, and small changes in the timing of the response. If a subject's history of reinforcement is consistent, such variations will remain stable because the same successful variations are more likely to be reinforced than less successful variations. However, behavioral variability can also be altered when subjected to certain controlling variables.[13]
Avoidance learning
Avoidance learning belongs to negative reinforcement schedules. The subject learns that a certain response will result in the termination or prevention of an aversive stimulus. There are two kinds of commonly used experimental settings: discriminated and free-operant avoidance learning.
Discriminated avoidance learning
In discriminated avoidance learning, a novel stimulus such as a light or a tone is followed by an aversive stimulus such as a shock (CS-US, similar to classical conditioning). During the first trials (called escape-trials) the animal usually experiences both the CS (Conditioned Stimulus) and the US (Unconditioned Stimulus), showing the operant response to terminate the aversive US. During later trials, the animal will learn to perform the response already during the presentation of the CS thus preventing the aversive US from occurring. Such trials are called "avoidance trials."
Free-operant avoidance learning
In this experimental session, no discrete stimulus is used to signal the occurrence of the aversive stimulus. Rather, the aversive stimulus (mostly shocks) are presented without explicit warning stimuli. There are two crucial time intervals determining the rate of avoidance learning. This first one is called the S-S-interval (shock-shock-interval). This is the amount of time which passes during successive presentations of the shock (unless the operant response is performed). The other one is called the R-S-interval (response-shock-interval) which specifies the length of the time interval following an operant response during which no shocks will be delivered. Note that each time the organism performs the operant response, the R-S-interval without shocks begins anew.
Two-process theory of avoidance
This theory was originally established to explain learning in discriminated avoidance learning. It assumes two processes to take place:
a) Classical conditioning of fear.
During the first trials of the training, the organism experiences both CS and aversive US (escape-trials). The theory assumed that during those trials classical conditioning takes place by pairing the CS with the US. Because of the aversive nature of the US the CS is supposed to elicit a conditioned emotional reaction (CER) – fear. In classical conditioning, presenting a CS conditioned with an aversive US disrupts the organism's ongoing behavior.
b) Reinforcement of the operant response by fear-reduction.
Because during the first process, the CS signaling the aversive US has itself become aversive by eliciting fear in the organism, reducing this unpleasant emotional reaction serves to motivate the operant response. The organism learns to make the response during the US, thus terminating the aversive internal reaction elicited by the CS. An important aspect of this theory is that the term "avoidance" does not really describe what the organism is doing. It does not "avoid" the aversive US in the sense of anticipating it. Rather the organism escapes an aversive internal state, caused by the CS.
Verbal Behavior
Main article: Verbal Behavior (book)
In 1957, Skinner published Verbal Behavior, a theoretical extension of the work he had pioneered since 1938. This work extended the theory of operant conditioning to human behavior previously assigned to the areas of language, linguistics and other areas. Verbal Behavior is the logical extension of Skinner's ideas, in which he introduced new functional relationship categories such as intraverbals, autoclitics, mands, tacts and the controlling relationship of the audience. All of these relationships were based on operant conditioning and relied on no new mechanisms despite the introduction of new functional categories.
Four term contingency
Applied behavior analysis, which is the name of the discipline directly descended from Skinner's work, holds that behavior is explained in four terms: conditional stimulus (SC), a discriminative stimulus (Sd), a response (R), and a reinforcing stimulus (Srein or Sr for reinforcers, sometimes Save for aversive stimuli).[14]
Operant hoarding
Operant hoarding is a referring to the choice made by a rat, on a compound schedule called a multiple schedule, that maximizes its rate ofreinforcement in an operant conditioning context. More specifically, rats were shown to have allowed food pellets to accumulate in a food tray by continuing to press a lever on a continuous reinforcement schedule instead of retrieving those pellets. Retrieval of the pellets always instituted a one-minute period of extinction during which no additional food pellets were available but those that had been accumulated earlier could be consumed. This finding appears to contradict the usual finding that rats behave impulsively in situations in which there is a choice between a smaller food object right away and a larger food object after some delay. See schedules of reinforcement.[15]
An alternative to the law of effect
However, an alternative perspective has been proposed by R. Allen and Beatrix Gardner.[16][17] Under this idea, which they called "feedforward," animals learn during operant conditioning by simple pairing of stimuli, rather than by the consequences of their actions. Skinner asserted that a rat or pigeon would only manipulate a lever if rewarded for the action, a process he called "shaping" (reward for approaching then manipulating a lever).[18] However, in order to prove the necessity of reward (reinforcement) in lever pressing, a control condition where food is delivered without regard to behavior must also be conducted. Skinner never published this control group. Only much later was it found that rats and pigeons do indeed learn to manipulate a lever when food comes irrespective of behavior. This phenomenon is known as autoshaping.[19] Autoshaping demonstrates that consequence of action is not necessary in an operant conditioning chamber, and it contradicts the law of effect. Further experimentation has shown that rats naturally handle small objects, such as a lever, when food is present.[20] Rats seem to insist on handling the lever when free food is available (contra-freeloading)[21][22] and even when pressing the lever leads to less food (omission training).[23][24] Whenever food is presented, rats handle the lever, regardless if lever pressing leads to more food. Therefore, handling a lever is a natural behavior that rats do as preparatory feeding activity, and in turn, lever pressing cannot logically be used as evidence for reward or reinforcement to occur. In the absence of evidence for reinforcement during operant conditioning, learning which occurs during operant experiments is actually only Pavlovian (classical) conditioning. The dichotomy between Pavlovian and operant conditioning is therefore an inappropriate separation.
 Animal testing
 Applied behavior analysis, the application of operant behaviorism
 Behaviorism, the family of philosophies behind operant conditioning
 Cognitivism (psychology), a competing theory that invokes internal mechanisms without reference to behavior
 Educational psychology
 Educational technology
 Experimental analysis of behavior
 Exposure therapy
 Habituation
 Matching law
 Negative (positive) contrast effect
 Premack principle
 Reinforcement learning
 Reward system
 Sensitization
 Social conditioning
 Spontaneous recovery

 Jerzy Konorski
References
1. ^ Domjan, Michael, Ed., The Principles of Learning and Behavior, Fifth Edition, Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003
2. ^ Tucker, M., Sigafoos, J., & Bushell, H. (1998). Use of noncontingent reinforcement in the treatment of challenging behavior. Behavior Modification, 22, 529–547.
3. ^ Poling, A., & Normand, M. (1999). Noncontingent reinforcement: an inappropriate description of time-based schedules that reduce behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 237–238.
4. ^ a bhttp://www.bbbautism.com/aba_shaping_and_chaining.htm
5. ^ Thorndike, E.L. (1901). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement, 2, 1–109.
6. ^ Mecca Chiesa (2004) Radical Behaviorism: the philosophy and the science
7. ^ "Activity of pallidal neurons during movement", M.R. DeLong, J. Neurophysiol., 34:414–27, 1971
8. ^ a b Richardson RT, DeLong MR (1991): Electrophysiological studies of the function of the nucleus basalis in primates. In Napier TC, Kalivas P, Hamin I (eds), The Basal Forebrain: Anatomy to Function (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 295. New York, Plenum, pp. 232–252
9. ^ PNAS 93:11219-24 1996, Science 279:1714–8 1998
10. ^ Neuron 63:244–253, 2009, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 3: Article 13, 2009
11. ^ Michael J. Frank, Lauren C. Seeberger, and Randall C. O'Reilly (2004) "By Carrot or by Stick: Cognitive Reinforcement Learning in Parkinsonism," Science 4, November 2004
12. ^ Schultz, Wolfram (1998). Predictive Reward Signal of Dopamine Neurons. The Journal of Neurophysiology, 80(1), 1–27.
13. ^ Neuringer, A. (2002). Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory. Psychonometric Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 672–705.
14. ^ Pierce & Cheney (2004) Behavior Analysis and Learning
15. ^ Cole, M.R. (1990). Operant hoarding: A new paradigm for the study of self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 247–262.
16. ^ Gardner, R.A., & Gardner, B.T. (1988). Feedforward vs feedbackward: An ethological alternative to the law of effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 11:429–447.
17. ^ Gardner, R.A. & Gardner, B.T. (1998). The structure of learning from sign stimuli to sign language. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. ^ Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Oxford, England: Macmillan.
19. ^ Brown, P., & Jenkins, H.M. (1968). Autoshaping of the pigeon's key-peck. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 11:1–8.
20. ^ Timberlake, W. (1983). Rats' responses to a moving object related to food or water: A behavior-systems analysis. Animal Learning & Behavior. 11(3):309–320.
21. ^ Jensen, G.D. (1963). Preference for bar pressing over 'freeloading' as a function of number of rewarded presses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 65:451–454.
22. ^ Neuringer, A.J. (1969). Animals respond for food in the presence of free food. Science. 166:399-401.
23. ^ Williams, D.R. and Williams, H. (1969). Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J. Exper. Analys. of Behav. 12:511–520.
24. ^ Peden, B.F., Brown, M.P., & Hearst, E. (1977). Persistent approaches to a signal for food despite food omission for approaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 3(4):377–399.
External links
 Behavioural Processes
 Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
 Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
 Negative reinforcement
 Scholarpedia Operant conditioning
 scienceofbehavior.com
 Society for Quantitative Analysis of Behavior[1]
 An Introduction to Verbal Behavior Online Tutorial
 An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory Online Tutorial

Self-determination theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-determination theory ("SDT") is a macro theory of human motivation and personality, concerning people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs. It is concerned with the motivation behind the choices that people make without any external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-motivated and self-determined.[1]
In the 1970s, research on SDT evolved from studies comparing the intrinsic and extrinsic motives, and the dominant role extrinsic motivation played in an individual’s behavior[2] but it was not until mid-1980s that SDT was formally introduced and accepted as a sound empirical theory. Research applying SDT to different areas in social psychology has increased considerably since the 2000s.
Key studies that led to emergence of SDT included research on intrinsic motivation.[3] Intrinsic motivation refers to initiating an activity for its own sake because it is interesting and satisfying in itself, as opposed to doing an activity to obtain an external goal (extrinsic motivation). Different types of motivations have been described based on the degree they have been internalised. Internalisation refers to the active attempt to transform an extrinsic motive into personally endorsed values and thus assimilate behavioural regulations that were originally external.[4]
Deci and Ryan later expanded on the early work differentiating between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and proposed three main intrinsic needs involved in self-determination.[5][6] According to Deci and Ryan, the three psychological needs motivate the self to initiate behavior and specify nutriments that are essential for psychological health and well-being of an individual. These needs are said to be universal, innate and psychological and include the need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Basic theory
1.1 Needs
1.2 Motivations
1.2.1 Intrinsic motivation
1.2.2 Extrinsic motivation
2 Basic needs and intrinsic motivation
2.1 Autonomy
2.2 Competence
2.3 Relatedness
3 Individual differences
3.1 Causality orientations
3.2 Life goals
4 Key studies
4.1 Deci (1971): External rewards on intrinsic motivation
4.1.1 Experiment I
4.1.2 Experiment II
4.1.3 Experiment III
4.2 Pritchard, Campbell and Campbell (1977): Evaluation of Deci's Hypothesis
4.2.1 Session I
4.2.2 Session II
4.3 Chua and Koestner (2008)
4.3.1 SDT and solitude
5 New developments
5.1 SDT and exercise
5.2 SDT and awareness
5.3 Vitality and self-regulation
6 SDT and education
7 Self-determination theory and alcohol use
8 Self-determination theory and Motivational Interviewing
9 References
10 External links

Basic theory

SDT is centred on the belief that human nature shows persistent positive features, that it repeatedly shows effort, agency and commitment in their lives that the theory calls "inherent growth tendencies." People also have innate psychological needs that are the basis for self-motivation and personality integration.

SDT identifies three innate needs that, if satisfied, allow optimal function and growth:
Competence[7][8]
Relatedness[9]
Autonomy[10][11]
These needs are seen as universal necessities that are innate, not learned, and seen in humanity across time, gender and culture.[12]
Deci and Vansteenkiste[13] claim that there are three essential elements of the theory:
Humans are inherently proactive with their potential and mastering their inner forces (such as drives and emotions)
Humans have inherent tendency toward growth development and integrated functioning
Optimal development and actions are inherent in humans but they don’t happen automatically
To actualise their inherent potential they need nurturing from the social environment.
If this happens there are positive consequence (e.g. well being and growth) but if not, there are negative consequences. So SDT emphasises humans’ natural growth toward positive motivation, however this is thwarted if their basic needs are not fulfilled.

Needs
SDT supports three basic psychological needs that must be satisfied to foster well-being and health, these needs can be universally applied. However some may be more salient than others at certain times and will be expressed differently based on time, culture or experience.
Competence
Refers to being effective in dealing with the environment a person finds themselves in[14]
Relatedness
Is the universal want to interact, be connected to and experience caring for others[9]
Autonomy
Is the universal urge to be causal agents of our own life and act in harmony with our integrated self. However Deci and Vansteenkiste[13] note this doesn’t mean to be independent of others.

Motivations
SDT claims to give a different approach to motivation, considering what motivates a person at any given time as opposed to seeing motivation as a unitary concept. SDT makes distinctions between different types of motivation and the consequences of them.
Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation is the natural, inherent drive to seek out challenges and new possibilities that SDT associated with cognitive and social development.
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)[15] is a sub-theory of SDT that specifies factors explaining intrinsic motivation and variability with it and looks at how social and environmental factors help or hinder intrinsic motivations. CET focuses on the needs of competence and autonomy.
Claiming social context events like feedback on work or rewards lead to feelings of competence and so enhance intrinsic motivations. Deci[11] found positive feedback enhanced intrinsic motivations and negative feedback diminished it. Vallerand and Reid[16] went further and found that these effects were being mediated by perceived control.
Autonomy however must accompany competence in order for people to see their behaviours as self determined by intrinsic motivation. For this to happen there must be immediate contextual support for both needs or inner resources based on prior development support for both needs.[17]
CET and intrinsic motivation is also linked to relatedness through the hypothesis that intrinsic motivation will flourish if linked with a sense of security and relatedness. Grolnick and Ryan[18] found lower intrinsic motivation in children who believed their teachers to be uncaring or cold and so not fulfilling their relatedness needs.

Extrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation comes from external sources. Deci and Ryan[15] developed Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), as a sub-theory of SDT, to explain the different ways in which extrinsically motivated behaviour is regulated.
OIT details the different forms of extrinsic motivation and the contexts in which they come about. It is the context of such motivation that concerns the SDT theory as these contexts affect whether the motivations are internalised and so integrated into the sense of self.
OIT describes four different types of extrinsic motivations that often vary in terms of their relative autonomy:
Externally regulated behaviour: Is the least autonomous, it is performed because of external demand or possible reward. Such actions can be seen to have an externally perceived locus of control.[10]
Introjected regulation of behaviour: describes taking on regulations to behaviour but not fully accepting said regulations as your own. Deci and Ryan[19] claim such behaviour normally represents regulation by contingent self-esteem, citing ego involvement as a classic form of introjections.[20] This is the kind of behaviour where people feel motivated to demonstrate ability to maintain self worth. While this is internally driven Deci and Ryan say introjected behaviour is on an externally perceived locus of control because they aren’t perceived as part of self.
Regulation through identification: Is a more autonomy driven form of extrinsic motivation. It involves consciously valuing a goal or regulation so that said action is accepted as personally important.
Integrated Regulation: Is the most autonomous kind of extrinsic motivation. Occurring when regulations are fully assimilated with self so they are included in a person's self evaluations and beliefs on personal needs. Because of this, integrated motivations share qualities with intrinsic motivation but are still classified as extrinsic because the goals that are trying to be achieved are for reasons extrinsic to the self, rather than the inherent enjoyment or interest in the task.
Extrinsically motivated behaviours can be integrated into self. OIT proposes internalization is more likely to occur when there is a sense of relatedness.
Ryan, Stiller and Lynch[21] found children will internalize school’s extrinsic regulations when they felt secure and cared for by parents and teachers.
Internalisation of extrinsic motivation is also linked to competence. OIT suggests that feelings of competence in activities should facilitate internalisation of said actions.[22]
Autonomy is particularly important when its regulations are trying to be integrated into a person’s sense of self. If an external context allows a person to integrate regulations they must feel competent, related and autonomous. They must also understand in terms of their other goals the regulation in order for a sense of autonomy to be facilitated.[23] This was supported by Deci, Eghrari, Patrick and Leone[24] who found in laboratory settings if a person was given a meaningful reason for uninteresting behaviour along with support for their sense of autonomy and relatedness they internalized and integrated their behaviour.

Basic needs and intrinsic motivation

White[14] and deCharms[10] proposed that the need for competence and autonomy is the basis of intrinsic motivation and behaviour. This is a link between people's basic needs and their motivations.

Autonomy
Deci[25] found that offering people extrinsic rewards for behaviour that is intrinsically motivated undermined the intrinsic motivation as they grow less interested in it. Initially intrinsically motivated behaviour becomes controlled by external rewards, which undermines their autonomy.
Further research by Amabile, DeJong and Lepper[26] found other external factors like deadlines, which restrict and control, also decrease intrinsic motivation.
Situations that give autonomy as opposed to taking it away also have a similar link to motivation. Studies looking at choice have found that increasing a participant’s options and choices increases their intrinsic motivation to said activities.[27]

Competence
Deci[25] found that giving people unexpected positive feedback on a task increases people’s intrinsic motivation to do it, meaning that this was because the positive feedback was fulfilling people's need for competence. In fact, giving positive feedback on a task served only to increase people's extrinsic motivation and decreased intrinsic motivation for the task.
Vallerand and Reid[16] found negative feedback has the opposite effect (i.e., decreasing intrinsic motivation by taking away from people's need for competence).

Relatedness
Frodi, Bridges and Grolnick[28] said that need for relatedness supports intrinsic motivation in a less key way.

Individual differences

SDT argues that needs are innate but can be developed in a social context. Some people will develop stronger needs than others, creating individual differences. However individual differences within the theory focus on concepts resulting from the degree which needs have been satisfied or not satisfied.
Within SDT there are two general individual difference concepts, Causality Orientations and Life Goals.

Causality orientations
Causality orientations are motivational orientations that refer to either the way people orient to an environment and regulate their behaviour because of this or the extent to which they are self determined in general across many settings. SDT created three orientations: autonomous, controlled and impersonal.
Autonomous Orientations: result from satisfaction of the basic needs
Strong controlled orientations: Result from satisfaction of competence and relatedness needs but not of autonomy and is linked to regulation through internal and external contingences, which lead to rigid functioning and diminished well being.
Impersonal Orientations: Results from failing to fulfil all three needs. This is also related to poor functioning and ill being.
According to the theory people have some amount of each of the orientations, which can be used to make predictions on a persons psychological health and behavioural outcomes

Life goals
Life goals are long term goals people use to guide their activities and they fall into two categories:[29]
Intrinsic Aspirations: Contain life goals like affiliation generativity and personal development.
Extrinsic Aspirations: Have life goals like wealth, fame and attractiveness.
There have been several studies on this subject that chart intrinsic goals being associated with greater health, well being and performance.[30]

Key studies

Deci (1971): External rewards on intrinsic motivation
Deci[25] investigated the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation in two laboratory and one field experiment. Based on the results from earlier animal and human studies regarding intrinsic motivation the author explored two possibilities. In the first two experiments he looked at the effect of extrinsic rewards in terms of a decrease in intrinsic motivation to perform a task. Earlier studies showed contradictory or inconclusive findings regarding decrease in performance on a task following an external reward. The third experiment was based on findings of developmental learning theorists and looked at whether a different type of reward enhances intrinsic motivation to participate in an activity.

Experiment I
This experiment tested the hypothesis that if an individual is intrinsically motivated to perform an activity, introduction of an extrinsic reward decreases the degree of intrinsic motivation to perform the task.
Twenty-four undergraduate psychology students participated in the first laboratory experiment and were assigned to experimental (n =12) and control group (n = 12). Each group participated in three sessions conducted on three different days. During the sessions the participants were engaged in working on a Soma cube puzzle which was assumed to be an activity that college students would be intrinsically motivated to do. The puzzle could be put together to form numerous different configurations. In each session, the participants were shown four different configurations drawn on a piece of paper and were asked to use the puzzle to reproduce the configurations while they were being timed.
The first and third session of the experimental condition were identical to control, but in the second session the participants in the experimental condition were given a dollar for completing each puzzle within time. During the middle of each session, the experimenter left the room for eight minutes and the participants were told that they were free to do whatever they wanted during that time, while the experimenter observed during that period. The amount of time spent working on the puzzle during the free choice period was used to measure motivation.
As Deci expected, when external reward was introduced during session two, the participants spent more time working on the puzzles during the free choice period in comparison to session 1 and when the external reward was removed in the third session, the time spent working on the puzzle dropped lower than the first session. All subjects reported finding the task interesting and enjoyable at the end of each session, providing evidence for the experimenter’s assumption that the task was intrinsically motivating for the college students. The study showed some support of the experimenter’s hypothesis and a trend towards decrease in intrinsic motivation was seen after money was provided to the participants as external reward.

Experiment II
The second experiment was a field experiment, similar to laboratory Experiment I, but was conducted in a natural setting.
Eight student workers were observed at a college biweekly newspaper. Four of the students served as a control group and worked on Friday. The experimental group worked on Tuesdays.
The control and experimental group students were not aware that they were being observed. The 10-week observation was divided into three time periods. The task in this study required the students to write headlines for the newspaper.
During "Time 2", the students in the experimental group were given 50 cents for each headline they wrote. At the end of Time 2, they were told that in the future the newspaper cannot pay them 50 cent for each headline anymore as the newspaper ran out of the money allocated for that and they were not paid for the headlines during Time 3.
The speed of task completion (headlines) was used as a measure of motivation in this experiment. Absences were used as a measure of attitudes.
In order to assess the stability of the observed effect, the experimenter observed the students again (Time 4) for two weeks. There was a gap of five weeks between Time 3 and Time 4. Due to absences and change in assignment etc., motivation data was not available for all students. The results of this experiment were similar to Experiment I and monetary reward was found to decrease the intrinsic motivation of the students, supporting Deci's hypothesis.

Experiment III
Experiment III was also conducted in the laboratory and was identical to Experiment I in all respects except for the kind of external reward provided to the students in experimental condition during Session 2.
In this experiment, verbal praise was used as an extrinsic reward.
The experimenter hypothesized that a different type of reward, i.e. social approval in form of verbal reinforcement and positive feedback for performing the task that a person is intrinsically motivated to perform, will enhance the degree of internal motivation even after the extrinsic reward is removed.
The results of the experiment III confirmed the hypothesis and the students’ performance increased significantly during the third session in comparison to session one, showing that verbal praise and positive feedback enhances performance in tasks that a person is initially intrinsically motivated to perform. This provides evidence that verbal praise as external reward increases intrinsic motivation.
The author explained differences between the two types of external rewards as having different effects on intrinsic motivation. When a person is intrinsically motivated to perform a task and money is introduced to work on the task, the individual cognitively re-evaluates the importance of the task and the intrinsic motivation to perform the task (because the individual finds it interesting) shifts to extrinsic motivation and the primary focus changes from enjoying the task to gaining financial reward. However, when verbal praise is provided in a similar situation increases intrinsic motivation as it is not evaluated to be controlled by external factors and the person sees the task as an enjoyable task that is performed autonomously. The increase in intrinsic motivation is explained by positive reinforcement and an increase in perceived locus of control to perform the task.

Pritchard, Campbell and Campbell (1977): Evaluation of Deci's Hypothesis
Pritchard, Campbell and Campbell[31] conducted a similar study to evaluate Deci’s hypothesis regarding the role of extrinsic rewards on decreasing intrinsic motivation.
Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. A chess-problem task was used in this study. Data was collected in two sessions.

Session I
Participants were asked to complete a background questionnaire that included questions on the amount of time the participant played chess during the week, the number of years that the participant has been playing chess for, amount of enjoyment the participant gets from playing the game, etc.
The participants in both groups were then told that the experimenter needed to enter the information in the computer and for the next 10 minutes the participant were free to do whatever they liked.
The experimenter left the room for 10 minutes. The room had similar chess-problem tasks on the table, some magazines as well as coffee was made available for the participants if they chose to have it.
The time spent on the chess-problem task was observed through a one way mirror by the experimenter during the 10 minutes break and was used as a measure of intrinsic motivation. After the experimenter returned, the experimental group was told that there was a monetary reward for the participant who could work on the most chess problems in the given time and that the reward is for this session only and would not be offered during the next session. The control group was not offered a monetary reward.

Session II
The second session was the same for the two groups:
After a filler task, the experimenter left the room for 10 minutes and the time participants spent on the chess-problem task was observed. The experimental group was reminded that there was no reward for the task this time.
After both sessions the participants were required to respond to questionnaires evaluating the task, i.e. to what degree did they find the task interesting. Both groups reported that they found the task interesting.
The results of the study showed that the experimental group showed a significant decrease in time spent on chess-problem task during 10 minute free time from session 1 to session 2 in comparison to the group that was not paid, thus confirming the hypothesis presented by Deci that contingent monetary reward for an activity decreases the intrinsic motivation to perform that activity. Other studies were conducted around this time focusing at other types or rewards as well as other external factors that play a role in decreasing intrinsic motivation.[32][33]

Chua and Koestner (2008)
SDT and solitude
Chua and Koestner[34] explored the consequences of activities done in solitude.
They argued that relation of solitary activities to feelings of loneliness and life satisfaction depends on whether individuals feel autonomous rather than controlled about spending time alone.
Participants (N = 108) reported the percentage of waking time they spent in solitude per day and completed measures of attachment styles, motivation for solitary activities, loneliness, and well-being. The results suggest that relative autonomy is important regardless of one's decision to act or not to act. The results also emphasize the importance of autonomous social behavior.

New developments

Principles of SDT have been applied in many domains of life, e.g., job demands;[35] parenting;[36] teaching;[37] and health.[38] Besides the domains mentioned above, self-determination theory research has been widely applied to the field of sports.[39]

SDT and exercise
Murcia, Roman, Galindo, Alonso and Gonzalez-Cutre[40] looked at the influence of peers on enjoyment in exercise. Specifically, the researchers looked at the effect of motivational climate generated by peers on exercisers by analyzing data collected through questionnaires and rating scales. The assessment included evaluation of motivational climate, basic psychological needs satisfaction, levels of self determination and self-regulation (amotivation, external, introjected, identified and intrinsic regulation) and also the assessment of the level of satisfaction and enjoyment in exercising.
Data analysis revealed that a climate in which the peers are supportive and there is an emphasis on cooperation, effort and personal improvement, influences variables like basic psychological needs, motivation and enjoyment. The task climate positively predicted the three basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy and relatedness) and so positively predicted self-determined motivation. Task climate and the resulting self-determination were also found to positively influence level of enjoyment the exercisers experienced during the activity.

SDT and awareness
Awareness has always been associated with autonomous functioning; however it was only recently that the SDT researchers incorporated the idea of mindfulness and its relationship with autonomous functioning and emotional wellbeing in their research.
Brown and Ryan[41] conducted a series of five experiments to study mindfulness: They defined mindfulness as open, undivided attention to what is happening within as well as around oneself.
From their experiments, the authors concluded that when individuals act mindfully, their actions are consistent with their values and interest. Also, there is a possibility that being autonomous and performing an action because it is enjoyable to oneself increases mindful attention to one’s actions.

Vitality and self-regulation
Another area of interest for SDT researchers is the relationship between vitality and self-regulation. Ryan and Deci[42] define vitality as energy available to the self, either directly or indirectly, from basic psychological needs. This energy allows individuals to act autonomously.
Many theorists have posited that self-regulation depletes energy but SDT researchers have proposed and demonstrated that only controlled regulation depletes energy, autonomous regulation can actually be vitalizing.[43]

SDT and education

A recent study by Hyungshim Jang[44] in which the capacity of two different theoretical models of motivation were used to explain why an externally provided rationale for doing a particular assignment often helps in a student's motivation, engagement, and learning during relatively uninteresting learning activities.
Undergraduate students (N = 136; 108 women, 28 men) worked on a relatively uninteresting short lesson after either receiving or not receiving a rationale. Students who received the rationale showed greater interest, work ethic, and determination.
Structural equation modeling was used to test three alternative explanatory models to understand why the rationale produced such benefits:
An identified regulation model based on self-determination theory
An interest regulation model based on interest-enhancing strategies research
An additive model that integrated both models.
The data fit all three models; but only the model based on self-determination theory helped students to engage and learn. Findings show the role that externally provided rationales can play in helping students generate the motivation they need to engage in and learn from uninteresting, but personally important, material.[44]
The importance of these findings to those in the field of education is that when teachers try to find ways to promote student's motivation during relatively uninteresting learning activities, they can successfully do so by promoting the value of the task. One way teachers can help students value what they may deem "uninteresting" is by providing a rationale that identifies the lesson's otherwise hidden value, helps students understand why the lesson is genuinely worth their effort, and communicates why the lesson can be expected to be useful to them.[44]
An example of SDT and education are Sudbury Model schools where people decide for themselves how to spend their days. In these schools, students of all ages determine what they will do, as well as when, how, and where they will do it. This freedom is at the heart of the school; it belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated. The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner; that all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents; that age-mixing among students promotes growth in all members of the group; and that freedom is essential to the development of personal responsibility. In practice this means that students initiate all their own activities and create their own environments. The physical plant, the staff, and the equipment are there for the students to use as the need arises. The school provides a setting in which students are independent, are trusted, and are treated as responsible people; and a community in which students are exposed to the complexities of life in the framework of a participatory democracy. Sudbury schools do not perform and do not offer evaluations, assessments, or recommendations, asserting that they do not rate people, and that school is not a judge; comparing students to each other, or to some standard that has been set is for them a violation of the student's right to privacy and to self-determination. Students decide for themselves how to measure their progress as self-starting learners as a process of self-evaluation: real life-long learning and the proper educational evaluation for the 21st century, they adduce.

Self-determination theory and alcohol use

According to self-determination theory,[45] individuals who attribute their actions to external circumstances rather than internal mechanisms are far more likely to succumb to peer pressure. In contrast, individuals who consider themselves autonomous tend to be initiators of actions rather than followers. Research examining the relationship between self-determination theory and alcohol use among college students has indicated that individuals with the former criteria for decision making are associated with greater alcohol consumption and drinking as a function of social pressure. For instance, in a study conducted by Knee and Neighbors,[46] external factors in the individuals who claim to not be motivated by internal factors were found to be associated with drinking for extrinsic reasons, and with stronger perceptions of peer pressure, which in turn was related to heavier alcohol use. Given the evidence suggesting a positive association between an outward motivation and drinking, and the potential role of perceived social influence in this association, understanding the precise nature of this relationship seems important. Further, it may be hypothesized that the relationship between self-determination and drinking may be mediated to some extent by the perceived approval of others.[47]

Self-determination theory and Motivational Interviewing

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a popular approach to positive behavioral change. Used initially in the area of addiction (Miller & Rollnick, 2002) [48] it is now used for a wider range of issues. It is a client-centered method that doesn't persuade or coerce patients to change and instead attempts to explore and resolve their ambivalent feelings, which allows them to choose themselves whether to change or not.
Markland, Ryan, Tobin, and Rollnick[49] believe that SDT provides a framework behind how and the reasons why MI works. They believe that MI provides an autonomy-supportive atmosphere, which allows clients to find their own source of motivation and achieve their own success (in terms of overcoming addiction). Patients randomly assigned to an MI treatment group found the setting to be more autonomy supportive than those in a regular support group.[50]
References
1. ^ a b Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.), (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
2. ^ e.g. Lepper, M. K., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.
3. ^ e.g. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
4. ^ Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.
5. ^ Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personalit'. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
6. ^ Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem(pp. 3149). New York: Plenum.
7. ^ Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 1, 661–669.
8. ^ White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. New York: International Universities Press.
9. ^ a b Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
10. ^ a b c deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
11. ^ a b Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
12. ^ Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination perspective on internalisation of cultural orientations, gender and well being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97–110.
13. ^ a b Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psichologia, 27, 17–34.
14. ^ a b White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.
15. ^ a b Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determinaton in human behaviour. New York: Plenum.
16. ^ a b Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 94–102.
17. ^ Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
18. ^ Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with childrens self regulation and competence in schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154.
19. ^ Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem(pp. 31–49). New York: Plenum.
20. ^ Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
21. ^ Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.
22. ^ Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. ^ Kuhl, J., & Fuhrmann, A. (1998). Decomposing self-regulation and selfcontrol. In J. Heckhausen & C. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life-span (pp. 15–49), New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. ^ Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142.
25. ^ a b c Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
26. ^ Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92–98.
27. ^ Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 443–446.
28. ^ Frodi, A., Bridges, L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1985). Correlates of mastery-related behaviour: A short term longitudinal study of infant in their second year. Child Development, 56, 1291–1298.
29. ^ Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280–287.
30. ^ Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). Motivation persistence, deep level learning and achievement: The synergistic role of intrinsic goal content and autonomy-supportive context. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Leuven.
31. ^ Pritchard, R., Campbell, K., & Campbell, D. (1977). Effects of extrinsic financial rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,62, 9–15.
32. ^ e.g. Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92–98.
33. ^ e.g. Lepper, M., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewards on children’s intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 479–486.
34. ^ Chua, S. N., Koestner, R. (2008). A Self-Determination Theory perspective on the role of autonomy in solitary behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(5), 645–7.
35. ^ Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senecal, C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-determination and job control in predicting burnout.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 39–56.
36. ^ e.g. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Beyers, W., Goossens, L., & Ryan, R. (2007). Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promoting independence versus promoting volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 43, 633–646.
37. ^ Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., and Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761–774.
38. ^ e.g. Kennedy, S., Gogin, K., & Nollen, N. (2004). Adherence to HIV medications: Utility of the theory of self-determination. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28, 611–628.
39. ^ e.g. Fortier, M. S., Sweet, S. N., O’Sullivan, T. L., & Williams, G. C. (2007). A self-determination process model of physical activity adoption in the context of a randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 741–757.
40. ^ Murcia, J., Roman, M., Galindo, C., Alonso, N., & Gonzalez-Cutre, D. (2008). Peers' influence on exercise enjoyment: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 7, 23–31.
41. ^ Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.
42. ^ Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2008). From ego-depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 702–717.
43. ^ Moller, A., Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1024–1036.
44. ^ a b c Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students' motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 798.
45. ^ Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.
46. ^ Knee, C. R. & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination, perception of peer pressure, and drinking among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 522–543.
47. ^ Chawla, N., Neighbors, C., Logan, D., Lewis, M.A., Fossos, N. (2009). Perceived approval of friends and parents as mediators of the relationship between self-determination and drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(1), 92–100.
48. ^ Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
49. ^ Markland, D., Ryan, R. M., Tobin, V., & Rollnick, S. (2005). Motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 811–831.
50. ^ Foote, J., DeLuca, A., Magura, S., Grand, A., Rosenblum, A., & Stahl, S. (1999). A group motivational treatment for chemical dependence.Journal of Substance Abuse, 17, 181–192.

Theory Z
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Theory Z of Ouchi)
Theory Z is a name applied to three distinctly different psychological theories. One was developed by Abraham H. Maslow in his paperTheory Z and the other is Dr. William Ouchi's so-called "Japanese Management" style popularized during the Asian economic boom of the 1980s. The third was developed by W. J. Reddin in Managerial Effectiveness (19 Situation guides) man:
 Reason motivates him.
 Interdependence is man's primary mode of discourse.
 Interaction is man's social unit of importance.
"Objective" best and succinctly describes man's concept of man.
McGregor's Theory Y in contrast to Theory X, which stated that workers inherently dislike and avoid work and must be driven to it, andTheory Y, which stated that work is natural and can be a source of satisfaction when aimed at higher order human psychological needs.
For Ouchi, Theory Z focused on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the employee, both on and off the job. According to Ouchi, Theory Z management tends to promote stable employment, high productivity, and high employee morale and satisfaction.
Ironically, "Japanese Management" and Theory Z itself were based on Dr. W. Edwards Deming's famous "14 points". Deming, an American scholar whose management and motivation theories were rejected in the United States, went on to help lay the foundation of Japanese organizational development during their expansion in the world economy in the 1980s. Deming's theories are summarized in his two books,Out of the Crisis and The New Economics, in which he spells out his "System of Profound Knowledge". He was a frequent advisor to Japanese business and government leaders, and eventually became a revered counselor. Deming was awarded the Second Order of the Sacred Treasures by the former Emperor Hirohito, and American businesses ultimately tried unsuccessfully to use his "Japanese" approach to improve their competitive position.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Pre Theory Z
• 2 History of Theory Z
• 3 Implications of these types of theories for leaders in modern organizations
• 4 Conclusion
• 5 References
• 6 Further reading

Pre Theory Z
Abraham Maslow, a psychologist and the first theorist to develop a theory of motivation based upon human needs produced a theory that had three assumptions. First, human needs are never completely satisfied. Second, human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by need for satisfaction. Third, these needs can be classified according to a hierarchical structure of importance from the lowest to highest (Maslow, 1970).
1. Physiological needs 2. Safety needs 3. Belongingness and love needs 4. The esteem needs – self-confidence 5. The need for self-actualization – the need to reach your full potential
Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory helps the manager to understand what motivates an employee. By understanding what needs must be met in order for an employee to achieve the highest-level of motivation, managers are then able to get the most out of production. Theory X, Y and Z all play a role in how a company should manage successfully. Theory X and Theory Y were both written by Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist who is believed to be a key element in the area of management theory. Douglas McGregor was and is still considered one of the top business thinkers of all time. In McGregor’s book The Human Side of Enterprise (1960), McGregor describes Theory X and Theory Y based upon Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, where McGregor grouped the hierarchy into a lower order (Theory X) needs and a higher order (Theory Y) needs. McGregor suggested that management could use either set of needs to motivate employees, but better results could be gained by the use of Theory Y, rather than Theory X (Heil, Bennis, & Stephens, 2000).
History of Theory Z
Professor Ouchi spent years researching Japanese companies and examining American companies using the Theory Z management styles. By the 1980’s, Japan was known for the highest productivity anywhere in the world, while America had fallen drastically. The word "Wa" in Japanese can be applied to Theory Z because they both deal with promoting partnerships and group work. The word "Wa" means a perfect circle or harmony, which influences Japanese society to always be in teams and to come to a solution together. Promoting Theory Z and the Japanese word "Wa" is how the Japanese economy became so powerful. And also because the Japanese show a high level enthusiasm to work,some of the researchers claim that 'Z' in the theory Z stands for 'Zeal'.
Ouchi wrote a book called Theory Z How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge (1981), in this book; Ouchi shows how American corporations can meet the Japanese challenges with a highly effective management style that promises to transform business in the 1980’s. The secret to Japanese success, according to Ouchi, is not technology, but a special way of managing people. “This is a managing style that focuses on a strong company philosophy, a distinct corporate culture, long-range staff development, and consensus decision-making”(Ouchi, 1981). Ouchi shows that the results show lower turn-over, increased job commitment, and dramatically higher productivity.
William Ouchi doesn’t say that the Japanese culture for business is necessarily the best strategy for the American companies but he takes Japanese business techniques and adapts them to the American corporate environment. Much like McGregor's theories, Ouchi's Theory Z makes certain assumptions about workers. Some of the assumptions about workers under this theory include the idea that workers tend to want to build happy and intimate working relationships with those that they work for and with, as well as the people that work for them. Also, Theory Z workers have a high need to be supported by the company, and highly value a working environment in which such things as family, cultures and traditions, and social institutions are regarded as equally important as the work itself. These types of workers have a very well developed sense of order, discipline, a moral obligation to work hard, and a sense of cohesion with their fellow workers. Finally, Theory Z workers, it is assumed, can be trusted to do their jobs to their utmost ability, so long as management can be trusted to support them and look out for their well being (Massie & Douglas, 1992).
One of the most important pieces of this theory is that management must have a high degree of confidence in its workers in order for this type of participative management to work. This theory assumes that workers will be participating in the decisions of the company to a great degree. Ouchi explains that the employees must be very knowledgeable about the various issues of the company, as well as possessing the competence to make those decisions. He also points out; however, that management sometimes has a tendency to underestimate the ability of the workers to effectively contribute to the decision making process (Bittel, 1989). But for this reason, Theory Z stresses the need for the workers to become generalists, rather than specialists, and to increase their knowledge of the company and its processes through job rotations and constant training. Actually, promotions tend to be slower in this type of setting, as workers are given a much longer opportunity to receive training and more time to learn the ins and outs of the company's operations. The desire, under this theory, is to develop a work force, which has more of a loyalty towards staying with the company for an entire career, and be more permanent than in other types of settings. It is expected that once an employee does rise to a position of high level management, they will know a great deal more about the company and how it operates, and will be able to use Theory Z management theories effectively on the newer employees (Luthans, 1989, p. 36).
Implications of these types of theories for leaders in modern organizations
As theorists through the past many years worked towards the Human Relations Movement, many other fields of expertise joined in to create a stronger force of knowledge and growth. From Psychology that helps to explain changes in human behavior, to Sociology, where we actually study people in their relationships with other human beings. Social Psychology was created when the two concepts were blended so that we can focus on actual influences of people on one another to Anthropology and Political Science. All of these pieces are a part of the growth and success of human development in not only the success of work force development but in human relationships in general.
With Theories X, Y, and Z implications for the modern organization include new challenges and opportunities. As we learn from these theories and work to implement the ideas in them we must be aware of the modern issues of working with people from different cultures and overseeing movements of jobs to countries with low-cost labor. Also, we must embrace diversity as the U.S. demographics change and understand that our new managers must recognize and respond to the different culture changes that will surely ensue with their growing diverse working population.
These theories have proven with many fortune 500 companies and others that when applied, do improve quality and productivity and also help to strengthen company labor issues. In addition to the changing work demographic, new problems and issues have risen since the X, Y and Z theories were formed. Some issues include fewer skilled laborers, early retirements, and older workers. Other opportunities that have been implied while companies use Theory Y and Z include, an improvement of people skills, empowering their employees, stimulating change, helping employees balance work with life conflicts, and improving ethical behavior.
Modern implications for companies using these theories have shown improvements in turnover rates, productivity, effectiveness, efficiency, organizational behavior, and job satisfaction.
Conclusion
Many assumptions are made in the work place, based on observations of the workers, and their relationship with management. “The types of tasks being performed, as well as the types of employees which make up a particular organization can set the stage for the types of leadership roles which will be assumed by managers” (McGregor, 1960). Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y, and William Ouchi’s Theory Z have all proven to be useful in the management field. Many companies have successfully integrated similar economic and human principles in a management style from Theory’s Y and Z. Theory’s Y and Z have both shown to be quite successful framework for American companies. Theory X is not obsolete. Actually, Theory X is still very prominent in the business world. Most managers however do not see themselves as using this type of management style until given the opportunity to see how their employees actually feel about the management style that is being used. Then will an effort be made to look further into a different, possibly more successful style of managing.
References
Further reading
 McGregor, Douglas. (1960). The Human Side of the Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
 Likert R. (1967). Human Organization: Its Management and Value (p. 139). New York, McGraw-Hill.
 Bacarr, Jina. How to Succeed in a Japanese Company. New York. Carol Publishing Group, 1994.
 Maslow, Abraham H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (p. 28). New York: Harper & Row
 Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory Z. New York: Avon Books.
 Bittel, Lester R. (1989). The McGraw-Hill 36-Hour Management Course (p. 11). New York: McGraw- Hill.
 Luthans, Fred. (1989). Organizational Behavior (p. 36). New York: McGraw-Hill.
 DuBrin, Andrew J. (1990). Essentials of Management (p. 34). Cincinnati: South-Western.
 Massie, Joseph L. and John Douglas. (1992). Managing: A Contemporary Introduction (p. 48). Englewood Cliffs: Simon & Schuster Company.
 Heil G., Bennis W., and Stephens D. (2000). Douglas McGregor, Revisited: Managing the Human Side of the Enterprise (p. 236). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 Wortheim E.G. (2002) Historical background of organizational behavior (p. 17). Boston, MA: College of Business Administration.
 Reddin, W. J. Managerial Effectiveness. (1970). (pp. 189-190). (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company).
 Whisenand, Paul M. and R. Fred Ferguson. (1978). (p. 37). The Managing of Police Organizations, Second Edition.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar