Motivation Theories

Analyze Frederick Herzberg’s perspective on motivating employees through his Two-Factor

Theory (also known as Motivation-Hygiene Theory)

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Key Points

 According to Herzberg, intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators have an

inverse relationship: intrinsic motivators tend to create motivation when they
are present, whereas extrinsic motivators tend to reduce motivation when they
are absent.
 Intrinsic motivators tend to represent less tangible, more emotional needs, such
as challenging work, recognition, relationships, and growth potential.
 Extrinsic motivators tend to represent more tangible, basic needs, such as
status, job security, salary, and fringe benefits.
 Extrinsic motivators are expected and so cause dissatisfaction if they are
absent. Intrinsic motivators, on the other hand, can provide extra motivation.
Because of this, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are independent; one does not
necessarily increase exactly as the other decreases.
 Management is tasked with differentiating when more job satisfaction is needed
(providing intrinsic motivators) and when less job dissatisfaction is needed
(providing extrinsic motivators).

Key Terms

 hygiene factors: Elements of life or work that do not increase satisfaction but
that can lead to dissatisfaction if they are missing.
 Two-Factor Theory: A framework, developed by Frederick Herzberg, that
suggests there are certain factors in the workplace that can cause job
satisfaction and a separate set of factors can cause dissatisfaction.

The Two Factors: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivators

Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, also known as Motivation-Hygiene Theory

or intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, concludes that there are certain factors in the
workplace that can cause job satisfaction and a separate set of factors that can cause
dissatisfaction. It is critical to emphasize that this is not a linear relationship: the factors
that cause satisfaction do not necessarily negate those that cause dissatisfaction; one
does not necessarily increase exactly as the other decreases.

Extrinsic Motivators (Hygiene Factors)

Extrinsic motivators tend to represent more tangible, basic needs—i.e., the kinds of
needs identified in McClelland’s “existence” category of needs in his ERG Theory or in
the lower levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Extrinsic motivators include status,
job security, salary, and fringe benefits. Managers must realize that not providing the
appropriate and expected extrinsic motivators will sow dissatisfaction and unmotivated
behavior among employees.

Intrinsic Motivators (Motivation Factors)

Intrinsic motivators tend to represent less tangible, more emotional needs—i.e., the
kinds of needs identified in McClelland’s “relatedness” and “growth” categories of needs
in his ERG Theory and in the higher levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Intrinsic
motivators include challenging work, recognition, relationships, and growth potential.
Managers must recognize that while these needs may be outside the more traditional
scope of what the workplace should provide, they are absolutely critical in empowering
strong individual and team performance.

Herzberg’s Theory in Context

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, McClelland’s Need Theory, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs all talk about higher-level psychological needs such as achievement,
recognition, responsibility, and advancement. The key factor that differentiates Two-
Factor Theory is the idea of expectation.

According to Herzberg, intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators have an inverse

relationship. This is to say that intrinsic motivators tend to inspire motivation when they
are present, while extrinsic motivators tend to reduce motivation when they are absent.
This is because of expectation. Extrinsic motivators (e.g., salary, benefits) are expected
and so will not increase motivation when they are in place, but they will cause
dissatisfaction when they are missing. Intrinsic motivators (e.g., challenging work), on
the other hand, can be a source of additional motivation.

If management wants to increase employees’ job satisfaction, they should be concerned

with the nature of the work itself—the opportunities it presents employees for gaining
status, assuming responsibility, and achieving self-realization. If, on the other hand,
management wishes to reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus on the job
environment—policies, procedures, supervision, and working conditions. To ensure a
satisfied and productive workforce, managers must pay attention to both sets of job
factors.

McClelland’s Need Theory

David McClelland describes three central motivational paradigms: achievement,

affiliation and power.
 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Examine what McClelland’s Need Theory proposes regarding motivating employees and
fulfilling their needs

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Key Points

 McClelland’s Need Theory, created by psychologist David McClelland, is a motivational

model that attempts to explain how the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation
affect people’s actions in a management context.
 People who are achievement-motivated are driven by the desire to master tasks and
situations.
 People who are affiliation-motivated are driven by the desire to create and maintain social
relationships. They enjoy belonging to a group and want to feel loved and accepted.
 People who are power-motivated are driven by the desire to influence, teach, or
encourage others.
 Each individual is motivated by varying degrees of each of these three categories of
needs.
 zero-sum: Of any system in which all gains are offset by exactly equal losses.
 achievement: The act of performing, obtaining, or accomplishing.
 affiliation: The relationship that results from combining one thing with another.

Psychologist David McClelland developed Need Theory, a motivational model that

attempts to explain how the needs for achievement, power (authority), and affiliation
affect people’s actions in a management context. Need Theory is commonly often
taught in management and organizational-behavior classes.

David McClelland: Psychologist David McClelland created Need Theory.

Achievement

People who are strongly achievement-motivated are driven by the desire for mastery.
They prefer working on tasks of moderate difficulty in which outcomes are the result of
their effort rather than of luck. They value receiving feedback on their work.

Affiliation

People who are strongly affiliation-motivated are driven by the desire to create and
maintain social relationships. They enjoy belonging to a group and want to feel loved
and accepted. They may not make effective managers because they may worry too
much about how others will feel about them.

Power

People who are strongly power-motivated are driven by the desire to influence, teach, or
encourage others. They enjoy work and place a high value on discipline. However, they
may take a zero-sum approach to group work—for one person to win, or succeed,
another must lose, or fail. If channeled appropriately, though, this can positively support
group goals and help others in the group feel competent about their work.

Application of Need Theory

Need Theory does not claim that people can be categorized into one of three types.
Rather, it asserts that all people are motivated by all of these needs in varying degrees
and proportions. An individual’s balance of these needs forms a kind of profile that can
be useful in determining a motivational paradigm for them. It is important to note that
needs do not necessarily correlate with competencies; it is possible for an employee to
be strongly affiliation-motivated, for example, but to still be successful in a situation in
which his affiliation needs are not met.

McClelland proposes that those in top management positions should have a high need
for power and a low need for affiliation. He also believes that although individuals with a
need for achievement can make good managers, they are not generally suited to being
in top management positions.

Alderfer’s ERG Theory

Alderfer’s ERG theory, based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, outlines three core
needs: existence, relatedness, and growth.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Discuss Clayton Alderfer’s ERG Theory relative to employee needs and motivation within an
organization

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Key Points
  ERG Theory posits that there are three groups of core needs: existence (E), relatedness
(R), and growth (G)—hence the acronym “ERG”. These groups align with the levels of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
 The “existence” needs describe our basic material requirements for living.
 The “relatedness” needs concern the maintaining of important interpersonal
relationships.
 The “growth” needs relate to self-actualization and self-esteem.
 Alderfer also proposed that if an individual’s needs in a certain category are not met, then
they will redouble their efforts toward fulfilling needs in a lower category.

Key Terms

 existence: The state of being or occurring.

 relatedness: The state of being connected, especially by kinship.

Clayton Paul Alderfer (b. 1940) is an American psychologist who further developed
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs into his own ERG Theory. ERG Theory posits that there
are three groups of core needs: existence (E), relatedness (R), and growth (G)—hence
the acronym “ERG.” These groups align with the Maslow’s levels of physiological
needs, social needs, and self-actualization needs, respectively.

The “existence” needs describe our basic material requirements for living. These
include what Maslow categorized as physiological needs (such as air, food, water, and
shelter) and safety-related needs (such as health and secure employment and
property).

The “relatedness” needs concern the maintaining of important interpersonal

relationships. These needs are based in social interactions with others and align with
Maslow’s levels of love/belonging-related needs (such as friendship, family, and
sexual intiamcy) and esteem-related needs (such as respect of and by others).

Finally, the “growth” needs describe our intrinsic desire for personal development.
These needs align with Maslow’s levels of esteem-related needs (such as self-
esteem, confidence, and achievement) and self-actualization needs (such as
morality, creativity, problem-solving, and acceptance of facts).

Alderfer proposed that if an individual’s needs in a certain category are not met, then
they will redouble their efforts toward fulfilling needs in a lower category. For example, if
an individual’s self-esteem is suffering, they will invest more effort in the relatedness
category of needs.

• Satisfaction-progression: move up the hierarchy as needs are satisfied

• Frustration-regression: move down the hierarchy when a need is frustrated
• Deficiency cycle: more strongly desire existence needs when they are
unsatisfied
 • Enrichment cycle: more strongly desire growth needs when they are satisfied

ADAM EQUITY THEORY

According to the theory, finding this fair balance serves to ensure a strong and
productive relationship is achieved with the employee, with the overall result
being contented, motivated employees.

Understanding the Theory

Adams' Equity Theory is named for John Stacey Adams, a workplace and
behavioral psychologist, who developed his job motivation theory in 1963.
Much like many of the more prevalent theories of motivation (such
as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory),
Adams' Equity Theory acknowledges that subtle and variable factors affect an
employee's assessment and perception of their relationship with their work
and their employer.
The theory is built-on the belief that employees become de-motivated, both in
relation to their job and their employer, if they feel as though their inputs are
greater than the outputs. Employees can be expected to respond to this is
different ways, including de-motivation (generally to the extent the employee
perceives the disparity between the inputs and the outputs exist), reduced
effort, becoming disgruntled, or, in more extreme cases, perhaps even
disruptive.

How to Apply the Adams' Equity Theory

It is important to also consider the Adams' Equity Theory factors when striving
to improve an employee's job satisfaction, motivation level, etc., and what can
be done to promote higher levels of each.

To do this, consider the balance or imbalance that currently exists between

your employee's inputs and outputs, as follows:

Inputs typically include:

 Effort.
 Loyalty.
 Hard work.
 Commitment.
 Skill.
 Ability.
 Adaptability.
 Flexibility.
 Acceptance of others.
 Determination.
 Enthusiasm.
 Trust in superiors.
 Support of colleagues.
 Personal sacrifice.
Outputs typically include:

 Financial rewards (such as salary, benefits, perks).

 Intangibles that typically include:
 Recognition.
 Reputation.
 Responsibility.
 Sense of achievement.
 Praise.
 Stimulus.
 Sense of advancement/growth.
 Job security.
  While obviously many of these points can't be quantified and perfectly
compared, the theory argues that managers should seek to find a fair
balance between the inputs that an employee gives, and the outputs
received.
 And according to the theory, employees should be content where they
perceive these to be in balance.

What is Vroom’s Expectancy Theory?

In 1964, Canadian professor of psychology Victor Vroom developed the
Expectancy Theory. In it, he studied people’s motivation and concluded it
depends on three
factors: Expectancy, instrumentality and valence. Abraham
Maslow and Frederick Herzberg also researched the relation
between people’s needs and the efforts they make. Vroom distinguishes
between the effort people put in, their performance and the final
result. His theory primarily relates to motivation within a work
environment. When employees can make choices in their work, Victor
Vroom argues that they will mostly choose that what motivates them the
most.

Motivational force formula

Victor Vroom uses a formula to calculate the motivational force:
Motivational force = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence
In the next paragraphs the different components are further explained.

Expectancy

This is about what employees expect from their own efforts and the
relation to good performance. Part of this expectation is the level of
difficulty he experiences. An organisation can respond to that by finding out
which factors can motivate the employee to deliver his best possible
performance. Those factors can be facilities, training or support from a
supervisor who builds his employees’ confidence. Victor Vroom indicates
that, in general, more effort leads to better performance. Employees can be
stimulated to make an effort by offering them a juicy carrot if they complete
their task properly and quickly. Of course, it’s also important that they have
the right resources at their disposal, that the employees have the necessary
skills and that management provides the right level of support.

Instrumentality
Each employee is a cog in the machine and an instrument that contributes to
the business results. From that perspective, instrumentality isn’t difficult to
grasp. It’s about the employee’s performance being good enough to
achieve the desired result. An organisation can stimulate this by actually
making good on promises of additional rewards such as bonuses
or promotion. The employee has to believe that if he performs well,
appreciation will be shown for the results. Transparency throughout the
reward process is an important condition for instrumentality.

Valence

The final result that employees achieve is valued differently by each

individual. This value is based on their own basic needs. As such, it’s a
good idea for an organisation to find out what an individual employee values
and what his personal needs are. One might value money, while another
values more days off.

Individual factors
According to Victor Vroom, behaviour is the result of a conscious choice from
alternatives. Employees have a preference for getting the most possible joy
from their work with little effort. Individual factors play a large role in the
goals that have to be achieved and the behaviour of employees. For
instance, think of an employee’s personality, his knowledge and skills, and
the expectations he has of his own abilities. Together, these form a
motivating force that makes the employee act in a certain way. The
individual effort, performance and motivation are always interconnected. To
properly motivate employees, Vroom argues that it’s essential that there is a
positive correlation between effort and performance.

Perception
Perception is an important factor in Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. An
organisation might perceive that it, as an employer, offers its employees
everything they need to sufficiently motivate them. For instance, a salary
that’s 10% above industry average, 10 extra days off, training programmes,
or career opportunities. But not all employees will be sufficiently motivated
by that; each individual has a different perception. There might be
employees who would appreciate more support from their supervisor. If an
organisation fails in that respect, chances are the employees will be less
motivated. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of motivation is not always about
employee’s personal interest in rewards. It’s also about the associations
employees have regarding their performance and the result it will yield.

Application
According to Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, you can expect employees will
increase their efforts at work when the reward has more personal value to
them. They’ll be more aware of the fact that there is a link between their
effort and the results. It means that both the organisation and the employee
have to be aware of the following three processes:

1. Increased efforts will improve work performance

2. Increased performance will lead to bigger rewards
3. The offered reward will be appreciated by the employee

If one of these conditions is not met, it’s hard to motivate the employee.
Particularly the last part can become an issue. An organisation therefore has
to find out – together with its employees – which rewards individual
employees value; which rewards motivate them. Organisations often
consider financial bonuses to be the best way to motivate employees, even
though the Expectancy Theory shows that this is by no means always the
most important factor to employees. That’s why there has to be a proper
balance between offering a financial bonus and setting a clear performance
standard, tailored to individual employeeS

In 1960’s, Edwin Locke put forward the Goal-setting theory of motivation. This theory states that goal
setting is essentially linked to task performance. It states that specific and challenging goals along with
appropriate feedback contribute to higher and better task performance.
In simple words, goals indicate and give direction to an employee about what needs to be done and how
much efforts are required to be put in.

The important features of goal-setting theory are as follows:

The willingness to work towards attainment of goal is main source of job motivation. Clear,
particular and difficult goals are greater motivating factors than easy, general and vague goals.

Specific and clear goals lead to greater output and better performance. Unambiguous,
measurable and clear goals accompanied by a deadline for completion avoids misunderstanding.

Goals should be realistic and challenging. This gives an individual a feeling of pride and triumph
when he attains them, and sets him up for attainment of next goal. The more challenging the goal,
the greater is the reward generally and the more is the passion for achieving it.

Better and appropriate feedback of results directs the employee behaviour and contributes to higher
performance than absence of feedback. Feedback is a means of gaining reputation, making
clarifications and regulating goal difficulties. It helps employees to work with more involvement and
leads to greater job satisfaction.

Employees’ participation in goal is not always desirable.

Participation of setting goal, however, makes goal more acceptable and leads to more involvement.

Goal setting theory has certain eventualities such as:

a. Self-efficiency- Self-efficiency is the individual’s self-confidence and faith that he has

potential of performing the task. Higher the level of self-efficiency, greater will be the efforts
put in by the individual when they face challenging tasks. While, lower the level of self-
efficiency, less will be the efforts put in by the individual or he might even quit while
meeting challenges.
b. Goal commitment- Goal setting theory assumes that the individual is committed to the
goal and will not leave the goal. The goal commitment is dependent on the following
factors:
i. Goals are made open, known and broadcasted.
ii. Goals should be set-self by individual rather than designated.
iii. Individual’s set goals should be consistent with the organizational goals and vision.

Advantages of Goal Setting Theory

 Goal setting theory is a technique used to raise incentives for employees to complete work
quickly and effectively.
 Goal setting leads to better performance by increasing motivation and efforts, but also through
increasing and improving the feedback quality.
Limitations of Goal Setting Theory
 At times, the organizational goals are in conflict with the managerial goals. Goal conflict has a
detrimental effect on the performance if it motivates incompatible action drift.
 Very difficult and complex goals stimulate riskier behaviour.
 If the employee lacks skills and competencies to perform actions essential for goal, then the goal-
setting can fail and lead to undermining of performance.
 There is no evidence to prove that goal-setting improves job satisfaction.

The operant conditioning or reinforcement theory of B. F. Skinner is one of the major

psychological theories concerned with motivation at work. Unique in the social sciences,
it identifies two of its major concepts according to the time at which they occur: (1)
antecedents, such as communicating company policy, providing training, and setting
goals, which typically precede the targeted behavior; and (2) consequences that take
place after performance, such as compliments for a job well done, acknowledgment of
the receipt of work, feedback on the quality of the task done, and graphs showing
performance plotted over time, as well as the avoidance of such distasteful events as
unwarranted criticism, punching in on a time clock, or the processing of complaints or
grievances.

The action that occurs (or does not occur) after the behavior of interest is considered
the driving force in motivation.

History of Reinforcement Theory

Although Skinner had formulated the basic principles of operant conditioning by the
1940s, they were not widely applied outside university laboratories until the 1960s.
Initially, reinforcement theory, also referred to as applied behavior analysis, was used in
the wards of institutions for the mentally retarded. Behavior analysts designed programs
for use with patients and, soon thereafter, with staff.

The same principles were used regardless of whether the setting was a school or a
package delivery company. After truck drivers and dockworkers at Emery Air Freight, for
example, were positively reinforced, they worked together more efficiently and
harmoniously. During boot camp at Fort Ord, California, a token-economy program was
introduced in which soldiers could exchange points for such coveted backup rein-forcers
as early dismissal and time off with pay. As a result, the soldiers not only maintained
their morale but also met the rigorous standards of their superiors.

Industrial and organizational psychologists such as Walter R. Nord and Lyman W.

Porter identified the behavioral approach as an innovative advance in the understanding
of motivation during the early 1970s. Since then, hundreds of studies have been
conducted in work settings and published in the Journal of Applied Psychology,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Academy of Management
Journal, and Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, as well as the Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management. Conducted by authors at the universities of
Kansas, Florida State, and Western Michigan, as well as members of organizations in
the public and private sectors, these experiments encompass multiple aspects of
performance—productivity, attendance, safety, and service—with individuals, groups,
and entire organizations.

Using Reinforcement Theory to Promote Substantial and Sustained

Improvements at Work

Consequences Are Primary

The basic tenet of reinforcement theory is that behavior is shaped and maintained by its
consequences. In planning a program aimed at increasing safety, for example, behavior
analysts identify what consequences follow the behavior of interest. They ask a number
of questions: What happens when workers behave safely? Do coworkers applaud safe
acts, behaviors, or performance? (The terms are used interchangeably here.) Does
management recognize workers for performing as desired? Similar queries are made
about the undesired consequences: What happens when workers perform unsafely? Do
employees incur injuries? Are there penalties for acting unsafely? In other words, what
are the consequences of safe and unsafe acts? When consequences are found to be
sparse, rarely favorable, and at times unrelated to the desired behavior—not an atypical
situation in many organizations—behavior analysts arrange for positive, contingent, and
frequent consequences to follow the desired performance.

Evidence of the Effectiveness of Positive Reinforcement

Reviews of the literature (e.g., Johnson, Redmon, & Mawhinney, 2001; Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1997) attest to the efficacy of positive reinforcement, the most prevalent
organizational change strategy. Judith L. Komaki and her colleagues examined the
literature from 1969 to 1998 and found successful improvements in a variety of work
settings. Of a total of 72 meticulously controlled experiments, 58 studies supported
positive reinforcement, 10 showed mixed support, and only 4 did not show any
support—a success rate of 93%. The changes, on average, were not ephemeral; almost
half of the studies lasted 26 weeks or longer, and in over 40%, the longest intervention
was at least 12 weeks or longer.

Types of Positive Consequences Used in Work Settings

In setting up a positive reinforcement program, behavior analysts typically use one or

more of the following consequences:

 Organizational: Events that are indigenous to work settings, such as promotions,

bonuses, and special training opportunities, are offered. For example, benefits such as
free gasoline and free monthly passes on the bus system were made available as
incentives for reducing accidents among workers in a regional transportation authority.
Letters of recommendation were among the consequences successfully used by
advisers to reinforce master’s degree students’ progress toward completing their theses.
  Activity: Another class of consequences is derived from the Premack principle (named
after researcher David Premack), which states that any higher-frequency activity can be
used as a positive consequence for a lower-frequency activity. For example, when calls
to renewal customers were found to have a higher frequency than calls to new
customers, the former were made contingent on the latter. Making the opportunity to sell
five renewal contracts dependent on the higher-frequency activity resulted in more new
sales calls.
 Generalized: Generalized consequences derive their potency from the fact that they can
be exchanged for backup reinforcers. Examples include cash, frequent flyer coupons,
and trading stamps. The latter, exchangeable for household and recreational items, were
given to miners who had not suffered a lost-time injury during the month. In another
instance, coupons were traded in at a job-training center for the opportunity to select a
clerical assignment.
 Social: Typically expressed by individuals, social consequences include
commendations, compliments, criticism, reviews, and recognition for a job well done. For
example, a hospital supervisor commented to a staff member, “I’m pleased to see you
interact-ing with clients, but I’m sure Mary is even more pleased.”
 Informational: As the name suggests, information is provided about performance. This
information can be conveyed in notes to employees written by supervisors, in the form of
a graph of baseline and intervention levels, or by listing, as one Louisiana official did,
what had been done after a hurricane: “We’re feeding more people….We’re recovering
more people….We’re clearing more roads….We’re building more power lines….Every
day, more victories.”

Antecedents Play a Secondary Role

Confronted with problems involving the workforce, the most common recommendation
is “to inform or exhort,” both of which are antecedents. Although antecedents serve
valuable educational or cuing functions (e.g., clarifying expectations for performance,
specifying the relationship between behavior and its consequences, and signaling
occasions on which consequences are likely to be provided), when they are used alone,
the evidence for their efficacy is meager. Field experiments addressing how
consequences add to the effectiveness of antecedents consistently show that
antecedents alone do not result in substantial and sustained improvements in ongoing
behaviors, and only when consequences accompany antecedents do they occur.
Because of the essential role of consequences in motivation, the delivery of one or
more consequences is the mainstay of virtually all reinforcement programs.

Explanatory Power of Reinforcement Theory

Illuminating Why We Do What We Do

Reinforcement theory also clarifies why people sometimes do the perplexing, often
paradoxical things they do—for example, why managers who purportedly believe in
merit promote based on seniority, or why professors who profess about the importance
of education neglect their teaching.
Normally, positive reinforcement is exercised in a constructive, planned way. But it can
also be used, often inadvertently, to produce unwanted results. For example, the head
of a public relations firm could not understand why her staff kept postponing work. Yet
the year before, when the staff had been under pressure to produce an anniversary
report, she had given permission to set all other work aside and hire temporary staff at
company expense. When the report was finally completed, she gave everyone a bonus.
Despite the agency head’s well-meaning intentions, she may have inadvertently
reinforced her staff for procrastinating. Positive reinforcement may explain why some
professors spend less time on teaching than research: because their promotion
depends heavily on what appears in journals rather than in the classroom.

The principle of negative reinforcement, which involves escaping from or avoiding

negative or aver-sive consequences, such as nagging, censure, or litigation, may
explain why a manager would promote someone with only an adequate record rather
than an exemplary employee with less seniority—to avoid complaints of favoritism or
bias. The same principle sheds light on why people often remain quiet in the face of
corruption—to avoid censure—and why some lieutenants choose to remain at their
rank—to avoid the increased scrutiny, responsibility, and restrictions that come with
being promoted to captain.

The consequences for performing as desired sometimes can be punishing. For

example, the head of a major research laboratory bemoaned the lack of creativity of the
engineers in his group. When asked about the consequences, however, he could
readily point to a host of inherently negative consequences— their time-consuming,
seemingly fruitless literature searches; difficulty communicating concepts that were, as
yet, incomprehensible to their peers; and inordinate amounts of time expended before
having anything to show for their efforts. All of these aversive events helped to explain
why some engineers shunned such endeavors, preferring the tried and true.

The principle of punishment by removal, technically called response cost, wherein a

positive rein forcer is withdrawn as a consequence of a behavior, sheds light on how
some preferred behaviors can be unintentionally discouraged. For example, even when
their lives are in danger, fighter pilots are often reluctant to call for help. Such an
admission, as Tom Wolfe graphically points out in his book The Right Stuff, triggers a
very public chain of events, some punishing— fire trucks trundling out to the runway,
incoming flights being held up, the bureaucracy gearing up to investigate—and at least
one punishment by removal—the pilot’s peers questioning the pilot’s mettle and hence
dampening the idea that the pilot had “the right stuff.”

Although punishment or negative reinforcement are not recommended as the primary

way of changing behavior, decision makers need to be sensitive to their use of these
consequences, eliminating the punishing ones whenever possible and redesigning the
flow of the work to enable naturally or specially arranged favorable consequences.

Shedding Light on What Effective Leaders Do

The theory of operant conditioning has inspired the challenging but rarely researched
question of what effective leaders really do to motivate others. Komaki predicted in her
operant model of effective supervision that first-rate managers are more likely to provide
consequences. Because consequences must be related to what employees actually do,
she conjectured that effective supervisors frequently monitor or inquire about
performance, particularly by directly sampling the work. The original rationale was a
logical one: Managers who monitor are more likely to have dependable and up-to-date
information with which to provide contingent consequences. Later, she found that
supervisors who monitor are more likely than those who provide antecedents to have
subordinates who discuss their performance, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of
back-and-forth exchanges between the two.

In every one of seven field studies, Komaki and her colleagues found that effective
managers monitor, provide consequences, or do both. The consequences may be as
brief as a simple “thanks,” or even an “okay” while sampling the work. Neutral
consequences (e.g., “Yep. That’s all right,” or as an officer handed a sergeant a report,
“You need a statement from the driver to complete that report.”) separated effective
police sergeants from lackluster ones in a study by Neil Brewer and colleagues.
Investment bankers, identified as exemplary in motivating others, actually thanked the
bearer of bad news, acknowledging employees for bringing thorny issues to their
attention. Furthermore, top-notch sailboat skippers were found to use a particular
sequence during races in which monitors routinely precede consequences in what is
referred to as an AMC sequence, where A stands for an antecedent (an order or
instruction), M for monitor, and C for consequence. Exemplary leaders can perform
these AMC sequences quickly.

Besides inspiring a leadership model and providing a way of explaining why people do
what they do, rein-forcement theory shows how a judiciously arranged set of
consequences can result in enhanced performance from day to day and season to
season.
Type A Personality
Saul McLeod, updated 2017

This type of personality concerns how people respond to stress. However,

although its name implies a personality typology, it is more appropriately
conceptualized as a trait continuum, with extremes Type-A and Type-B
individuals on each end.
Research Background
Friedman and Rosenman (both cardiologists) actually discovered the Type A
behavior by accident after they realized that their waiting-room chairs needed to
be reupholstered much sooner than anticipated.
When the upholsterer arrived to do the work, he carefully inspected the chairs
and noted that the upholstery had worn in an unusual way: "there's something
different about your patients, I've never seen anyone wear out chairs like this."
Unlike most patients, who wait patiently, the cardiac patients seemed unable to
sit in their seats for long and wore out the arms of the chairs. They tended to sit
on the edge of the seat and leaped up frequently. However, the doctors initially
dismissed this remark, and it was only five years later that they began their
formal research.
Friedman and Rosenman (1976) labeled this behavior Type A personality. They
subsequently conduced research to show that people with type A personality run
a higher risk of heart disease and high blood pressure than type Bs.
Although originally called 'Type A personality' by Friedman and Rosenman it has
now been conceptualized as a set of behavioral responses collectively known as
Type A Behavior Pattern.
Type A Behavior Pattern (TABP)
Typical responses of TABP include:
Competitiveness

Type A individuals tend to be very competitive and self-critical. They strive

toward goals without feeling a sense of joy in their efforts or accomplishments.
Interrelated with this is the presence of a significant life imbalance. This is
characterized by a high work involvement. Type A individuals are easily ‘wound
up’ and tend to overreact. They also tend to have high blood pressure
(hypertension).
Time Urgency

Type A personalities experience a constant sense of urgency: Type A people seem

to be in a constant struggle against the clock.
Often, they quickly become impatient with delays and unproductive time,
schedule commitments too tightly, and try to do more than one thing at a time,
such as reading while eating or watching television.
Hostility

Type A individuals tend to be easily aroused to anger or hostility, which they may
or may not express overtly. Such individuals tend to see the worse in others,
displaying anger, envy and a lack of compassion.
When this behavior is expressed overtly (i.e., physical behavior) it generally
involves aggression and possible bullying (Forshaw, 2012). Hostility appears to
be the main factor linked to heart disease and is a better predictor than the TAPB
as a whole.

Type B & C Personalities

People with Type B personality tend to be more tolerant of others, are more
relaxed than Type A individuals, more reflective, experience lower levels of
anxiety and display a higher level of imagination and creativity.
The Type C personality has difficulty expressing emotion and tends to suppress
emotions, particularly negative ones such as anger. This means such individual
also display 'pathological niceness,' conflict avoidance, high social desirability,
over compliance and patience.

Empirical Research
Friedman & Rosenman (1976) conducted a longitudinal study to test their
hypothesis that Type A personality could predict incidents of heart disease. The
Western Collaborative Group Study followed 3154 healthy men, aged between
thirty-nine and fifty-nine for eight and a half years.
Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire.
Examples of questions asked by Friedman & Rosenman:
 Do you feel guilty if you use spare time to relax?

 Do you need to win in order to derive enjoyment from games and sports?

 Do you generally move, walk and eat rapidly?

 Do you often try to do more than one thing at a time?

From their responses, and from their manner, each participant was put into one
of two groups:
Type A behavior: competitive, ambitious, impatient, aggressive, fast talking.
Type B behavior: relaxed, non-competitive.
According to the results of the questionnaire 1589 individuals were classified as
Type A personalities, and 1565 Type B.

Findings
The researchers found that more than twice as many Type A people as Type B
people developed coronary heart disease. When the figures were adjusted for
smoking, lifestyle, etc. it still emerged that Type A people were nearly twice as
likely to develop heart disease as Type B people.
For example, eight years later 257 of the participants had developed coronary
heart disease. By the end of the study, 70% of the men who had developed
coronary heart disease (CHD) were Type A personalities.
The Type A personality types behavior makes them more prone to stress-related
illnesses such as CHD, raised blood pressure, etc.
Such people are more likely to have their ”flight or fight” response set off by
things in their environment.
As a result, they are more likely to have the stress hormones present, which over
a long period of time leads to a range of stress-related illnesses.

Research Evaluation
Limitations of the study involve problems with external validity. Because the
study used an all male sample it is unknown if the results could be generalized to
a female population.
Studies carried out on women have not shown such a major difference between
Type A and Type B and subsequent health. This may suggest that different coping
strategies are just as important as personality.

The study was able to control for other important variables, such as smoking and
lifestyle. This is good as it makes it less likely that such extraneous variables
could confound the results of the study.

Theoretical Evaluation
However, there are a number of problems with the type A and B approach. Such
approaches have been criticized for attempting to describe complex human
experiences within narrowly defined parameters. Many people may not fit easily
into a type A or B person.
A longitudinal study carried out by Ragland and Brand (1988) found that as
predicted by Friedman Type A men were more likely to suffer from coronary
heart disease. Interestingly, though, in a follow up to their study, they found that
of the men who survived coronary events Type A men died at a rate much lower
than type B men.
The major problem with the Type A and Type B theory is actually determining
which factors are influencing coronary heart disease. Some research (e.g.,
Johnston, 1993) has concentrated on hostility, arguing that the Type A behavior
pattern is characterized by underlying hostility which is a major factor leading to
coronary heart disease.
Other research has investigated the way that type A people experience and cope
with stress, which is the major factor leading to coronary heart disease. It would
seem that a much more sophisticated model is needed to predict coronary heart
disease than Friedman and Rosenman's Type A & Type B approach.