College Of Administrative And Financial Sciences Assignment ✓ Solved

College Of Administrative And Financial Sciencesassignment 1deadline

The assignment requires students to analyze a case about Google from Chapter 6 on motivation in their textbook "Organizational Behaviour: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace" by Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson (2019). The task involves answering specific questions related to performance evaluation, compensation, motivation theories, and employee motivation outcomes based on provided data.

Students must submit their work on Blackboard in Word format by the specified deadline, following guidelines including proper formatting (Times New Roman, size 12, double-spaced), clear question responses with question numbers, and avoiding plagiarism. Late submissions will not be accepted, and no email submissions are allowed. Proper presentation and adherence to instructions are essential for full marks.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The understanding of motivation in organizational contexts is fundamental for improving employee performance and organizational success. Google's strategies for motivating its workforce, as highlighted in the case study from Chapter 6 of Colquitt et al.’s textbook, provide insightful examples of applying motivation theories practically. This paper analyzes Google's approach through the lens of performance evaluation, reward systems, and motivational theories. It addresses key questions regarding star performers’ compensation, the fairness of salary raises, and the motivation mechanisms used by Google to foster a productive work environment. Additionally, it evaluates individual preferences for extrinsic versus intrinsic motivational outcomes and how these preferences might evolve over time.

Performance Evaluation and Compensation at Google

Star Performers and Compensation Differentials

According to Laszlo Bock, Google's former SVP of People Operations, star performers should receive substantially more than average performers. This perspective aligns with the principles of equity and reinforcement theories, which advocate recognizing high performers to motivate continued excellence (Colquitt et al., 2019). If a person earning a 3 in Google’s evaluation system receives a 2% raise, employees rated 4 and 5 should logically receive higher raises, proportionate to their performance ratings, such as 4% and 5%, respectively. Such differential reinforces the value of superior performance and sustains motivation among high achievers.

Budget Considerations and Fairness in Raises

Given budget constraints, whether someone earning a 3 should get less than a 2% increase is a contentious issue. Advocates for equal or slightly reduced raises for average performers argue that it maintains fairness and morale, discouraging perceptions of inequity that can demotivate employees (Colquitt et al., 2019). Conversely, critics contend that smaller raises might demotivate middle-tier performers, potentially leading to decline in overall productivity. The decision thus hinges on balancing organizational budget limitations with motivational needs, suggesting that a tailored approach, possibly offering non-monetary rewards, might better sustain motivation without disproportionately increasing costs.

Motivation Theories Leveraged by Google

Application of Motivation Theories

Google’s employee motivation strategies seem to harness several classical and contemporary motivation theories. The use of performance-based rewards aligns with Expectancy Theory, which posits that employees are motivated when they believe their efforts lead to desirable outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2019). Google's emphasis on recognition, challenging projects, and flexible work arrangements draws upon Self-Determination Theory, fostering intrinsic motivation through autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Moreover, Google's culture of innovation reflects principles of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory by providing meaningful work and recognition, reducing dissatisfaction related to extrinsic factors.

Outcomes in Motivational Preferences

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Outcomes

The outcomes presented in Table 6-2 (not provided here) typically include extrinsic rewards like pay and promotions, and intrinsic rewards such as personal growth and job satisfaction. Personally, intrinsic outcomes such as meaningful work and professional development are more appealing due to their lasting motivational impact. As individuals age, it is common for intrinsic motivators to become more significant because of increased desire for fulfillment, purpose, and life meaning, which often surpass extrinsic rewards in importance (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Conclusion

Google’s employee motivation practices exemplify the integration of multiple motivational theories to sustain high performance and commitment. Recognizing star performers with differentiated rewards aligns with reinforcement principles, while fostering intrinsic motivation through meaningful work complies with contemporary motivation models. Individuals’ preferences for motivational outcomes may evolve, emphasizing the importance of organizations adapting their reward systems over time to maintain engagement and satisfaction.

References

• Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2019). Organizational behaviour: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (6th ed). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
• Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Sage Publications.
• Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Motivation and leadership. Harper & Row.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
• Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
• Kuvaas, B. (2006). Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: The roles of pay administration and pay level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 365-385.