Organizational Behavior Case Analysis Discussion Questions

Organizational Behavior Case Analysisdiscussion Questions A Zero Wage

Organizational Behavior Case Analysis discussion questions: A Zero Wage Increase Again.

1. What outcomes does Mark seem to want to achieve by addressing wages & rewards?

a. What are Mark’s goals?

b. How important is money in individual motivation?

c. Will money make people work harder or smarter on a day-to-day basis?

2. Contrast the outcomes that might be expected in the following two scenarios: (1) Mark uses the process improvement savings to give a 3% wage increase to all employees, and (2) Mark uses the money currently available in the budget to give raises to Aaron, Simon, and Wesley only.

a. Do the employees know whether they are currently meeting Mark’s expectations?

b. Do you think Mark’s frustration is affecting his decision-making?

3. As a consultant to Mark, would you advise him to give a raise to all, to none, or to the deserving minority? Explain your reasoning and how you would mitigate against possible repercussions.

a. What are the potential reactions of the various employees? Consider the potential individual reactions, as well as costs to the organization.

4. Design a reward system that will improve the behavior of employees like Anne, Marie, and Dougie.

a. What should Mark understand about individual motivation and rewards to help him create an effective reward system?

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Mark and the wage dilemma illustrates core issues within organizational behavior, specifically motivation, perception of fairness, and reward systems. Mark's primary challenge is to align company incentives with employee motivation while managing organizational expectations and perceptions of justice. This analysis explores Mark's goals, the motivational effects of monetary rewards, scenario outcomes based on different reward strategies, and proposes an effective reward system tailored to enhance employee behavior.

Initially, Mark’s ostensible goal is to motivate employees and improve organizational performance without increasing wages. His focus appears to be on leveraging process improvements to generate cost savings, which can then be reinvested into the workforce. From this, it can be inferred that Mark aims to foster a culture of efficiency and fairness, while maintaining fiscal responsibility. His frustration hints at a perceived disconnect between employee effort and recognition, fueling his reluctance to increase wages despite available savings.

The importance of monetary rewards in individual motivation remains a complex topic. Traditional economic theories suggest that money is a fundamental motivator because it satisfies basic needs and provides tangible recognition of effort. However, contemporary behavioral theories, such as Herzberg’s two-factor theory, indicate that while salary is a hygiene factor, intrinsic motivators like meaningful work, recognition, and personal development often have a more profound impact on long-term motivation. In the day-to-day operations, monetary rewards may only produce short-term compliance, whereas intrinsic motivators tend to foster engagement and innovation.

Analyzing the contrasting scenarios, in the first, using process savings to give a 3% wage increase across the board could promote a sense of fairness and collective achievement. This might improve morale broadly, though the modest increase may have limited motivational impact. Conversely, targeted raises for Aaron, Simon, and Wesley could reward specific performance, potentially motivating those individuals more directly but risking perceptions of favoritism. Employees unaware of performance expectations or the rationale behind raises may become disillusioned or demotivated, especially if they perceive unfair treatment.

Mark’s frustration and decision-making are likely influenced by perceptions of fairness and organizational dynamics. His hesitation to grant widespread raises might stem from concerns about budget constraints, fairness, or effectiveness. Differently, if employees know their performance and understand the criteria for rewards, perceptions of fairness could improve, reducing frustration. Conversely, if employees perceive a lack of transparency, dissatisfaction may increase, exacerbating Mark’s frustrations.

As a consultant, advising Mark involves balancing fairness and organizational goals. Giving a raise to all employees might appear fair but could strain finances and diminish the perceived value of merit. Giving raises only to certain individuals may motivate specific employees but risk undermining team cohesion and fairness perceptions. A targeted approach with clear communication about performance criteria and fairness can mitigate negative reactions. Recognizing deserving employees like Aaron, Simon, and Wesley may also inspire others to improve performance, provided the rationale is transparent and consistent.

Designing an effective reward system requires understanding individual motivators and the importance of intrinsic rewards. For Anne, Marie, and Dougie, non-monetary rewards such as recognition, professional development opportunities, and meaningful work can significantly enhance motivation. Mark should consider personalized reward strategies that align with individual values and preferences, fostering a sense of achievement and belonging. A balanced mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators ensures sustained engagement and improved organizational behavior.

In conclusion, Mark’s situation exemplifies the complexity of motivation management within organizations. An effective reward system must consider both monetary and non-monetary incentives, transparency, fairness, and individual differences. As organizations evolve, understanding these principles allows leaders like Mark to foster motivated, committed, and high-performing teams.

References

• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. Wiley.
• 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.
• 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.
• Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62–67.
• Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organization effectiveness: A psychological view. McGraw-Hill.
• Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516.
• Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
• Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A multimethod analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 363–423.