COGNITION, MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE

Cognitive approaches to motivation remain a dominant force in the study of organizational

behavior.

equity theory, goal‐setting theory and expectancy/valence theory

These theories are based largely on the assumption that people tend to make reasoned choices
about their behaviors and that these choices influence, and are influenced by, job‐related
outcomes and work attitudes.

Equity theory focuses on the motivational consequences that result when individuals
believe they are being treated either fairly or unfairly in terms of the rewards and
outcomes they receive. The determination of equity isbased, not on objective reality, but on the
individual's perception of how his or her ratio of inputs to outcomes compares to the same ratio
for a valued colleague.

A second prominent cognitive theory of motivation that has received considerable

attention in the West is goal‐setting theory. Goal‐setting models focus on how
individuals respond to the existence of specific goals, as well as the manner in which
such goals are determined.
Both the equity and goal‐setting principles can be found in the integrated expectancy/
valence theory of work motivation.
This theorypostulates that motivation is largely influenced by a multiplicative combination of
one'sbelief that effort will lead to performance, that performance will lead to certain
outcomes,and the value placed on these outcomes by the individual.
The second part of the theory uses the equity principle to examine the relationship between
performance and satisfaction. This model predicts that subsequent job satisfaction is
determined by employee perceptions concerning the equity or fairness of the rewards
received as a result of performance. High performance followed by high rewards should lead
to high satisfaction, while high performance followed by low rewards should lead to low
satisfaction.

INCENTIVES, REWARDS, AND REINFORCEMENT

A third important category of work motivation research focuses on how incentives,

rewards, and reinforcements influence performance and work behavior.

Theoretical justification for this research can be found in both cognitive theories and
reinforcement theories, including social learning theory, behavior modification, and
behavioural management theory.
Critical to
much of this research is the role played by self‐efficacy in helping determine behavior.
Bandura (1986) has argued that incentives and reinforcements can be particularly
meaningful if the employees have a high self‐efficacy; that is, if they genuinely believe
they have the capacity to succeed. Self‐efficacy is important because it helps
individuals focus their attention on task, commit to challenging goals, and seek greater
feedback on task effort.
Considerable research indicates that culture often plays a significant role in determining
who gets rewarded and how. Huo and Steers (1993) observed that culture can influence
the effectiveness of an incentive system in at least three ways: (1) what is considered
important or valuable by workers; (2) how motivation and performance problems are
analyzed; and (3) what possible solutions to motivational problems lie in the feasible set
for managers to select from. Thus, while many American firms prefer meritbased reward
systems as the best way to motivate employees, companies in less individualistic cultures
like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan frequently reject such approaches as being too disruptive
of the corporate culture and traditional values (Milliman, Nason, von Glinow, Hou, and
Kim, 1995).
in all
countries, the most important rewards that were sought involved recognition and
achievement. Second in importance were improvements in the immediate work
environment and employment conditions such as pay and work hours. Beyond this,
however, a number of differences emerged in terms of preferred rewards. Some countries,
like England and the United States, placed a low value on job security compared to
workers in many nations, while French and Italian workers placed a high value on
security and good fringe benefits and a low value on challenging work. Scandinavian
workers de‐emphasized “getting ahead” and instead stressed greater concern for others
on the job and for personal freedom and autonomy. Germans placed high on security,
fringe benefits, and “getting ahead,” while Japanese ranked low on personal advancement
and high on having good working conditions and a congenial work environment.

Cultural differences concerning uncertainty, risk, and control can also affect employee
preferences for fixed versus variable compensation. As Pennings (1993) found, for
example, more risk‐oriented American managers were frequently prepared to convert
100 percent of their pay to variable compensation, while more risk‐averse European
managers would seldom commit more than 10 percent of their pay to variable
compensation.
Japanese workers who take their
full vacations or refuse to work overtime are frequently labeled wagamama (selfish). As a
result, karoshi (death by overwork) is a serious concern in Japan (Sunday Times,
December 11, 1993), while Swedes see taking time off as part of an inherent right to a
healthy and happy life.

FREE RIDERS AND SOCIAL LOAFING

social loafing is the phenomenon of a person exerting less effort to achieve a goal when they
work in a group than when they work alone.

Free-rider effect - some individuals reduce their effort when they realise that the performance of
the group will not suffer because of their lack of effort

Social loafing can only be successful when individual behavior can be hidden behind
group behavior. To accomplish this, group norms must support, or at least tolerate, a high
level of individualism. It is therefore not surprising that such behavior tends to be more
prevalent in organizations in America and Western Europe than in East Asia

for example,
that Japanese workers performed better in groups than alone. Gabrenya, Latane, and
Wang (1983, 1985) found similar results in a Taiwanese study.

he found that more social loafing occurred in the individualistic American

group than in the more collectivist Chinese group.

Building on these results, Earley (1993, 1997a) posited that while individualists would
consistently perform better when working individually rather than in a group, collectivists
would perform better either when working in an in‐group as opposed to in an outgroup
condition or working individually.

cultural differences have a strong influence on work motivation. Culture

can influence individual need strengths, cognitive processes governing effort
determination, interpretations of and responses to various forms of incentives, and output
restriction mechanisms such as social loafing.

cultural differences seem to permeate many aspects of both the decision to participate and
the decision to produce, the two fundamental decisions facing organizational members
(March and Simon, 1968). In view of these findings, it is surprising how few studies of
work motivation have intentionally incorporated cultural variables into either their
models or their research designs.