Ques 1: Some Companies Have Offered New Employees Money To Q

Ques 1 Some Companies Have Offered New Employees Money To Quit One

Ques 1) Some companies have offered new employees money to quit. One company (Zappos) offered $2,000 to quit but less than 2% of employees took the deal. What do you think of this program? Is this a good idea? Can you apply anything we covered in chapter one to help support or explain your answer?

Ques 2) The classic view is characterized by, among other things, high levels of supervision while the human relations view gives more autonomy to employees. The contingency approach would say that the level of supervision is contingent on the situation. What are some factors on which closeness of supervision might be contingent?

Ques 3) Employee of the month (EOM) programs are one of the most popular forms of employee recognition in organizations. However, there is some evidence that such programs are not effective and can even have detrimental effects, such as sabotage and unhealthy competition. Based on the material presented in Chapter two, why do you think that the typical EOM program is not effective, and how should EOM programs be designed to make them more effective?

Paper For Above instruction

Ques 1 Some Companies Have Offered New Employees Money To Quit One

Offering monetary incentives for employees to resign, as exemplified by Zappos’ initiative to pay new hires $2,000 to leave if they choose, is a strategic approach aimed at fostering a committed and self-selected workforce. This practice, often called "quit incentives" or "golden handcuffs," operates under the assumption that only genuinely interested and aligned employees will remain, thereby minimizing turnover and improving overall organizational fit. Although less than 2% of employees accepted Zappos’ offer, the low participation rate indicates a strong commitment among remaining staff and perhaps an organizational culture that fosters engagement and loyalty.

From the perspective of motivation theories discussed in chapter one, such as the self-determination theory, employees who voluntarily stay demonstrate intrinsic motivation and alignment with organizational values. Conversely, those who accepted the quit offer might have been seeking an exit for personal reasons or lack of engagement. The program could also be viewed through the lens of expectancy theory, where employees evaluate the value of quitting versus staying, and in this case, the benefits of staying outweigh the financial incentive to leave.

Regarding whether this is a good idea, it appears to be effective in filtering out less committed employees, reducing turnover costs, and reinforcing organizational culture. However, it might also risk fostering mistrust or competition if not managed carefully. Implementing such programs should consider internal fairness perceptions, communication transparency, and the potential impact on workplace morale. Overall, leveraging basic management principles such as employee engagement, motivation, and organizational fit, this program can be a strategic tool to optimize workforce quality.

Ques 2 Some factors on which closeness of supervision might be contingent

The classical management view emphasizes strict supervision and control to ensure efficiency and consistency. In contrast, the human relations approach advocates for autonomy and employee participation. A contingency perspective suggests that the degree of supervision should depend upon various situational factors. These factors can include employee skill level, task complexity, motivation, and the organizational environment.

For instance, highly skilled and experienced employees may require less supervision because they can work independently and efficiently. Complex or unfamiliar tasks might necessitate closer supervision to prevent errors and ensure quality. Additionally, employees with high motivation and self-efficacy might perform well with minimal oversight, while those lacking confidence or with lower motivation could benefit from more direct supervision.

Organizational culture and leadership style also influence supervision levels. In environments emphasizing innovation and empowerment, autonomy is generally encouraged, whereas in highly regulated or safety-critical industries, close supervision becomes essential regardless of individual differences. Thus, the contingency approach recognizes that effective management depends on evaluating these situational variables and adjusting supervision accordingly to optimize performance and satisfaction.

Ques 3 Why Employee of the Month (EOM) programs are often ineffective and how to improve them

Employee of the Month (EOM) programs are widespread due to their simplicity and potential to motivate employees through recognition. However, evidence suggests that these programs often fall short of their goals and can produce unintended adverse effects, such as unhealthy competition, sabotage, favoritism, and decreased team cohesion. One primary reason for their ineffectiveness is that EOM programs tend to promote individualistic competition rather than collaborative effort, leading employees to focus on personal accomplishments at the expense of teamwork.

Moreover, EOM awards often foster perceptions of bias or favoritism, undermining morale among non-recognized employees. The emphasis on a single "winner" can create an environment where peers feel pressured to outperform each other, which can result in sabotage and dishonesty. The recognition process may also lack transparency or objectivity, exacerbating perceptions of unfairness and reducing motivation over time.

To improve the effectiveness of recognition programs, organizations should adopt a more inclusive and team-oriented approach. Instead of selecting a single individual each month, multi-faceted recognition systems that highlight group achievements, peer nominations, or ongoing feedback can foster a culture of collective success. Implementing 360-degree feedback, emphasizing core values, and aligning recognition with team goals can enhance motivation and reduce unhealthy competition. Additionally, timely and specific recognition that acknowledges efforts rather than just outcomes tends to be more impactful. Such strategies promote engagement, fairness, and positive organizational culture, ultimately leading to better performance and morale.

References

• Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2022). Management (15th ed.). Pearson.
• Miner, J. B. (2005). The power of recognition: Strengthening relationships by helping others succeed. AMACOM.
• Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A. D. (1999). Reinforce for performance: The need to go beyond pay and benefits. Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 475-493.
• 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. (2011). The motivation to work. Transaction Publishers.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work, hygiene, and motivation. Harvard Business Review, 44(4), 53-62.
• Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: Contemporary issues and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 39-67.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.