People in an organization generally know who has the power to sign vouchers or give raises

Reward power

Reward power grows out of the ability to give income, praise, recognition,. promotion, or other valuable tangibles and intangibles. People in an organization generally know who has the power to sign vouchers or give raises; they know whose compliments are a sign of high status. We analyzed this kind of power extensively while discussing the perfOlmance model.

Coercive power

Coercive power is the opposite of reward power in that coercive power is based on fear. A manager who can give out a reward in a given situation can also use coercion-if only by withholding rewards. People may work hard to avoid embmassment or scorn.

The power to reward and coerce are tangible resources when a manager is directly responsible for an employee. But what happens when a manager has no direct control? Obviously one cannot give a raise to, or fire, or suspend a fellow manager. In this situation, conformity and identification are strong motives and operate together. One person identifies with another when he feels that the other person has some quality that is desirable, appealing, or worth imitation. This identification will influence a person to act like another and meet his requests. In turn, this identification often leads to conformity.

The need to identify and conform can lead to peer pressure, which is a powerful management tool. The makers of T.V. commercials use celebrities in the hope that a customer will identify with them. Many commercials imply, "Wouldn't you like to be like this hero; everyone else is. Surely you don't want to be different." Likewise, a peer may be influenced by saying, "Ruth, all the other managers are sending a representative to the safety meeting. Even the V.P. of finance is going to have a representative present. Whom will you be sending?

The manager must understand the power base and communicate accordingly.

From this example, it is clearly possible that a person will benefit from not performing in the desired manner. Managers must remain alert to the existing possibilities.

The six questions we have just examined should help managers to use the model when diagnosing a performance problem. If managers ask each of these questions, they can be assure that they Dave taken a systematic approach to understanding the total situation.

So far this discussion has been from the perspective of a manager trying to increase the motivational level and productivity of subordinates. However, a manager also needs to be concerned with motivating employees in the organization other than those who have a direct reporting relationship to the manager. An alternative may be to say that a manager is concerned with influencing others to act in a particular way. To influence others, the manager must understand the power base and communicate accordingly.

Power and Influence

Power can be defined as the capacity to apply "any force that results in behaviour that would not have occucred if the force had not been present." This force can originate from the individual, the organization, or the specific situation. Not all managers are able to use their power or force to influence. In fact, some managers shy away from' the concept of power because it seems to be "undemocratic". Of course, some basis of power is usually implemented, but often it is done incorrectly since some managers do not even know they are using it.

The fIrst step in using power comctly to influence . others is to recognize the different types of power that. a manager may possess. The satne manager may have access to several types of power resources or may depend on a single resource to accomplish many power relationships. French and Raven suggest the fIve sources detailed in the paragraphs that follow. This discussion can serve as a comprehensive reference.

Analyzing a performance problem, manager tend to miss the obvious and make the entire situation much more complicated than necessary

QUESTION : Has the desired behaviour even been performed before?

It is easy to assume that employees could perform a certain job if they wanted to, but a manager cannot be sure that employees have the appropriate ability and skill unless they have done it before. Employees who have not fully met the goal before they require training.

However if the job has' been done before, but performance is now slipping, incentives or rewards are the problem.

How can a manager determine whether it is lack of skills or lack of incentive at the root of a performance problem? It may be necessary to ask previous supervisors or to investigate previous performance information.

QUESTION : Is adequate cooperation being received, and are the necessary tools and equipment present?

We discussed the question of adequate cooperation and equipment earlier when presenting the model, but it is easy to overlook this concern. When analyzing a performance problem, manager tend to miss the obvious and make the entire situation much more complicated than necessary.

Listening may be particularly critical when attempting to determine if lack of cooperation or an equipment shortage is a problem. Employees will often blame poor performance on a lack of cooperation or equipment

because they are easy excuses. Interactive listening to both the subordinates and other key employees helps a manager to determine if employees are making xcuses or if these are the real cause of the performance problem.

If the fn'st five questions do not resolve the problem, a manager needs to move on to the next question. After asking each of these questions in a sequential manner. a manager can be sure that the motivational model has been applied in a systematic manner in the attempt to
understand a performance problem.

QUESTION : Are the employees being rewarded for satisfactory performance?

The question of adequate reward for satisfactory performance actually invol:ves three different questions:
(1) Are rewards being received for performance?
(2) Can employees see the relationship between performance and rewards? and
(3) Is there a possibility that penalties are received for performance?

We discussed the first and second questions when presenting the model; we focus here on the third: Are employees receiving a penalty or rewards? Each week the production supervisors were required to fill out the timesheets for all their employees, but their carelessness resulted in many payroll en-ors. In fact, the supervisors were making so many en-ors that payroll had to add a clerk just to COl1'ect the el1'0rs. The production manager wrote a memo to all the supervisors about the importance of the timesheets, but this did little good. When the payroll manager again confronted the production manager about the problem, the production manager said that the supervisors simply disliked paperwork and there probably wasn't any way to motivate them to do it.

A quick analysis revealed that there was no reason for the supervisors to complete the timesheets accurately. In fact, they would be penalized for doing so. They submitted time sheets on Friday afternoons, a busy production time for the superviors. If the supervisors went through the time sheets quickl)(. they saved time and the payroll department would cOl1'ecttbe el1'0rs anyway. In other words, they were penalized for pelfonning in the manner requested of them. Once the supervisors learned payroll would no longer correct the el1'0rs, they turned in the time sheets en'or free. What supervisor wants to meet an employee who does not receive pay for the total number of homs worked?

Large discrepancies between a manager's and a subordinate's perceptions

QUESTION : Precisely what is the desired behaviour?

As we saw earlier under criteria a feedback, concrete criteria need to be established. What precise quality and quantity are expected? Such terms as soon, good, many, nice, fast, and acceptable mean little in discussion of performance. A person explains little by saying, "You
aren't getting the reports done fast enough, -and they aren't accurate." Compare the last communication with the following: "The last two reports were submitted one day after the expected completion date. Also, they both had incorrect accumulated discount figures." The second explanation provides a clear understanding of the problem.

However, it still does not indicate what the manager expects. Is half-a-day late acceptable? How may en-ors are acceptable? Be precise on the quality and quantity of the desired behaviour.

Managers sometimes feel that performance is not up to par, but they are not really sure why. A deeper analysis may indicate that the manager does not really know what he wants in this situation. It can be difficult to determine exactly what one expects, but it is necessary to analyze performance problems accurately.

QUESTION : Does the employees now what is expected?
How can a manager be sure?

As simple as it seems, lack of employee understanding is the problem that causes many perfonnance breakdowns. Do not assume. Ask employees what they believe is' expected of them. Do not settle for general terms. Large discrepancies between a manager's and a subordinate's perceptions may be revealed in a short exchange of expectations.

The importance of clear goals cannot be overemphasized. It does not take extensive research to substantiate the fact that goals are easier to meet when they are well defined and observable than when they are not. Employees cannot be expected to perform when they have knowledge of the goals or the reasoning behind them. Unclear goals can cause problems. For example, a fields sales force was given an urgent message.

Headquarters wrote letter to all the field people saying that product A was tremendously overstocked and that the finance charges on the inventory were creating a burden.

Management urged sales personnel to push this item. As a result, the sales staff took orders for all the items in three weeks. Unfortunately, they granted liberal discounts and ignored the other products, all factors that placed an even greater burden on the company. Management failed in relating goals to the salespeople clearly and completely.

If any first three questions results in a negative answer, further questions are not necessary. For instance, if the manager is not sure what is expected or cannot be sure the employee,) know, sh,e must establish clear expectations. This would require an analysis of the job and a meeting between the manager and employee to compare job expectations. Skilfully managed communication that results in an open and trusting environment is required for job expectations to be compared successfully.

Once everyone involved is dear on the expectations, performance should probably improve. If after a period' of time performance does not improve, it would be necessary to add the next question in the sequence to the performance analysis.

Avoid leading questions whose answer may support a previous bias or inclination

Diagnosing performance problems

A formalized approach helps when a manager faces a performs problem. The following diagnostic scheme, adapted from Mager" and Pipe, should help to pinpoint the exact nature of the problem. The most efficient strategy for understanding the nature of a problem is to ask the people involved the six critical questions presented here. As you review these questions, remember the importance of open-ended questions. Closed questions, those that can be answered with a "yes" or "no", do not provide the required in-depth information. Also avoid leading questions whose answer may support a previous bias or inclination while completely hiding the real problem.

In some situations, questions can also be a threat. Questions should be put in such a context to make it clear that the manager is seeking to improve performance so that organizational and personal goals can be met.

Unfortunately, questions too often sound like an attempt to indict an individual, so it is important for managers to remain positive and sensitive to the perceptions of employees.

The following six questions are presented in a sequential. additive fashion. This means that if the managers sk. themselves the questions as well as ask their employees in the sequence presented here, the answers should combine to develop an understanding. The answer to one question should add to the meaning and significance of the next one, and so on. QUESTION 1: Does the performance really make any difference? A subordinate's performance may be personally irritating to a manager without really affecting the organizational goals. For instance, an employee may come to work dressed in a manner considered inappropriate by a manager, but this dress may not affect overall performance. Another person may have a messy desk while the manager takes pride in a neat, well-organized office. Such mannerisms can irritate without affecting overall performance.

One way to detem1ine if an element of performance really is critical is to ask a fellow manager who may be more objective. If asked about a particular behaviour in an open, nonleading manner, the other manager may reveal that the behaviour is nothing more than a personal irritant to the first manager. Then, too, it may become apparent that the performance really does need rectifying. When this is the case, the second question is appropriate.

Employee voluntarily began to work with a junior achievement group

The direct and immediate feedback also makes it clear to employees that they experience the results of their performance-either negatively or positively. When employees do not know why they are penalized, they may become confused, disillusioned, and demotivated; the same is true for a reward. Consider a small boy who gets in a fight with the neighbour's child. The boy's mother punishes him by saying that he will receive a spanking from his father when the father comes home from work. Six hours later the father comes home and spanks the small boy. Unfortunately, by then the boy has forgotten why he is being paddled, or, even worse, the boy has just cleaned up his room. The poor boy may think he is getting paddled for cleating his room.

This is extreme example, of course. But the point is that employees must be told why they are receiving a reward or a penalty as soon as possible after the appropriate or inappropriate behaviour.

Managerial communication is important here in several ways. First, employees must clearly understand policies and procedures. In one situation an employee voluntarily began to work with a junior achievement group. He stated that he was representing his company in this activity. Unfortunately, he was reprimanded for announcing this connection because he was told, he could not officially represent the company without the public relations director's prior approva1. The fact that the company policies were not communicated to him resulted in a penalty for exerting extra effort.

Another common example of instrumentality involves the relationship between promotions and performance. In many organizations, seniority almost automatically leads to an upgrade in title. For instance, nurses may move up in classification, teachers may become tenured, and engineers may move from a junior-to a senior-level classification. But in many instances, the employees did not know exactly what is expected of them other than longevity; consequently, when a person does not receive an upgrade for some unknown reason, frustration and bitterness may result. Clear communication between managers and subordinate ensures clear expectations and an understanding of either the rewards or penalties received. The reward-penalty structure should operate as feedback, not as a surprise!

The model we have been examining shows that employee motivation is not a simple matter. A manager cannot read about a motivational theory in the hope that this will be the key to the problem. The real key is effective, strategic communication. Theory has minimal value unless a manager is an effective communicator. All the different elements of the model must be analyzed to help establish a motivational climate which can be established through strategic communication.

While this model helps to explain how effective communication can facilitate the motiv(!.tional process, it is clearly helpful to be able to diagnose a situation where performance does not meet expectations. The following discussion presents a concrete way in which the model can be used to diagnose a situation.

Communication from the managers and past experience

Instrumentality

Instrumentality is the degree of assurance that an employee feels that performance will lead to rewards. The discussion has already emphasized the importance of rewards as well is expectations; however, the relationship among expectations, performance, and rewards is so important that it reserves special attention. Also, this relationship is directly controlled by the managerial communication process and is affected by past experiences, by organizational policies and by the relationship between the manager and subordinate. It is this last component-the manager-subordinate relationship-that an individual manager can use best to improve the motivational process.

The fIrst aspect of this relationship to consider is that both the manager and subordinate have expectations that they communicate to one another. Similarly, in George Bemard Shaw's classic play, pygmalion, Professor Henry Higgins had high expectations for Eliza Doolittle and turned the guttersnipe into an elegant lady. The professor communicated his high expectations to the lady, and these led to positive results.

In one study, supervisors received what they thought were test results on employees whom they were to begin supervising. The survey found that those employees whose supervisors had high expectations as a result of their "higher" test scores actually performed better than those
employees whose supervisors had lower expectations. A number of studies have also demonstrated that a teacher's expectations of his students appears to influence directly the student's perfonnance. Similarly, the expectations of coaches and fellow players appear to influence directly an athlete's perfonnance.

Just as the manager communicates expectations her subordinate, subordinates expect a certain reward based on their level of performance. This reward expectation is based on communication from the managers and past experience. After an employee has perfonned and received a reward, the level of expected reward is adjusted accordingly. In other words, the reward an individual receives acts as a feedback loop and affects the amount of reward expected for future effort. The feedback loop can be put in the model so it now looks like this. It is easy to see that the reward a person receives affects the expected rewards for future behaviour, which in turn affect the future effort.

An employee can enter a situation highly motivated, but soon become disillusioned and demotivated when he received reward is not consistent with the expected reward. Because of the relationship between expected and received rewards, it is critical that an employee not receive false promises or foster unrealistically high expectations. At the same time, it is important to relate rewards directly to performance so that a person knows why he is recei ving the rewards. Managers create accurate expectations and reduce uncertainty through frequent communication and follow-up. These factors help employees to understand what tasks they must perform and the level of performance required for reward. Remember, uncertainly is demotivating.