Week 12

The following is the analysis of our team’s individual jobs according to the Job Characteristic Model (JCM). As you can see from the results, all of our positions appear to be designed with high motivational potential with minimal potential for any of our positions to be designed with the low motivational potential. The following provides details of our positions as it relates to the Job Characteristic Model (JCM):

	Skill Variety	Task Identity	Task Significance	Autonomy	Job Feedback
Kara	High	High	High	High	Moderate-high
Ellen	High	High	High	High	High
Randy	High	Moderate-high	High	Low	Low-Moderate
Simon	High	Moderate	High	High	Moderate

Ellen has high degree in all core job characteristics. "Employees are more motivated and satisfied when jobs have higher levels of these characteristics" (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, page 177).

Randy has low degree in two of the core job characteristics - autonomy and job feedback. Autonomy - "Employees must be assigned control of their work environment to feel responsible for their success and failures” (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, page 178). Job feedback- employees want information about the consequences of their work effort.

It is clear that Bill Kap’s current job design has the low motivational potential. The following provides details on Bill’s position as it relates to the JCM:


Bill Kap – Warehouse Employee

Skill Variety (low): this position involves the skills to use a hand dollies or a forklift to stack finished products on a pallet.

Task Identity (low to moderate): this position has an “identifiable piece of work” (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, p. 177) which provides narrow task identity.

Task Significance (low to moderate): as noted in the article – “A large warehouse operation is crucial to the efficiency of the Kitchener plant.” There is a high degree of task significance for the organization, but Bill may not share this same level of significances towards his job.

Autonomy (low to moderate): this position has a structured schedule; part of ‘system’ - follows a set of established procedures when performing job (no freedom or independence to schedule work or determine procedures).

Job Feedback (high): as noted in the article – “If warehouse employees get behind, the whole system becomes clogged and finished products stack up in the manufacturing plant.” Bill will be able to immediate tell if he's not doing well if the system becomes clogged. He has impact on getting the finished product ready for delivery which may give him a sense of feedback.



Bill’s current job’s ability to motivate and create job satisfaction is low. This may be why he is absent so often. Low skill variety and task identify / significance makes his job less meaningful which leads to low motivation to succeed. The results of this have been proven by Bill missing work repeatedly. Low / moderate autonomy can cause for the lack of performance and motivation.

His job and current work situation does not satisfy his needs. Each person works independently and there is no feedback for a good or a bad work performance. The only need that his current job satisfies is affiliation.

The following are actions we would recommend to Bill’s current boss to increase his motivation:

Job rotation (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, page 180) may be used to provide Bill with motivation. This will increase his skill variety and will make work more meaningful. Job enrichment (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, page 181) which has proven to give higher job satisfaction and motivation would be a definite plus for Bill, but not likely in this type of work environment. If this could happen, Bill’s boss could provide Bill with a more flexible schedule.

Bill needs to work at extra jobs to make more money. Possibly he would make more of an effort to limit his days out of work if there was a reward system (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, pages 172 – 175) in place which could also be used to increase his productivity. The company may also look at including the work force in discussion about how to increase employee satisfaction through goal setting (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, page 146). Also, find ways to get Bill to feel connected at work through drive to bond (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, page 140).

The majority of the team felt that Bill’s most dominant need is affiliation (nAff) (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, page 139). Individuals with nAff work well when their main focus is cultivating long term relationships. Bill’s boss may want to recommend a career path, possible in sales, where Bill could cultivate these relationships.

Bill’s motivational needs are not being met, leading him to feel much less loyal to the position. Bill’s boss might want to move Bill to another position. If he was to be placed in a position that a more extroverted work style, such as sales or customer service, he might end up having a much more motivating experience at work.

References
McShane, S. & Von Glinow, M (2010). Organizational Behavior (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Week 11

This week we were asked to compare and contrast our Motivational Needs based on the questionnaire we independently completed. The following are our individual results:

	Achievement	Power	Affiliation
Ellen	25	16	15
Kara	25	17	9
Randy	21	11	10
Simon	19	13	12

We were asked to consider how our differing needs, if any, could affect our team performance. We had a few different thoughts this week. All of our primary motivational needs involve achievement, which is why most of our team's work has turned out to be such high quality. None of us are motivated by personal recognition, so coming to a quick consolidated response each week is accomplished quickly and painlessly. One member felt that differing needs is a must to have a well balanced team. As a result of our team having high scores in affiliation, we may lack unbiased decision making. If our team had all scored high in power; each member may not have wanted to give up their concern with maintaining individual power. Others felt that differing motivational needs could affect our team performance by interfering with our own motivation to complete weekly assignments. For example, one team member expressed that they were turned off by individuals who are motivated by power, especially personalized power. Also, if a team member(s) is motivated by power, they can put the project behind so that they can have the power by fixing it! It was also thought that those who are motivated by affiliation are never able to get their work done because they need to make sure that everyone agrees and no feelings get hurt.

As a team, how will we ensure that each of our team’s motivation needs is met including practical steps we can take as we organize our work on our team project to design in ways to meet each team member’s unique needs? We already seem to cater to high achievers, which helps satisfy all of our primary needs. It doesn't feel like any of us are feeling closed in or have our hands tied, which is why those of us with higher power needs hopefully haven't had any qualms with it. If our needs had been different from each other, we would have needed to make sure we understood the different motivation needs of our team mates and to do our best to accommodate their needs if different than our own needs without it effecting our motivation. Understanding each team members motivational needs will assist in getting their needs met – keeping in mind our own motivational needs but willing to adjust them and compromise to meet each team members. We also need to ensure that we don’t let our own needs become overpowering and close ourselves off to each other team members needs.

Based on the case we read about Bill Kap, the majority of the team felt that Bill’s most dominant need was affiliation since he was involved in multiple activities. Bill wants affiliation because he values his outside affiliations more than he does his work. He needs to feel connected. Another team member felt that affiliation is Bill's driving motivator, but not when it comes to work. The fact that he had less attendance problems with a more hands off management approach leads this team member to believe that power is also a driving factor for him, as he probably secretly takes offense to some micro-managing. And still another team member felt his dominant need was achievement – that perceptual bias would say Bill’s dominant need is affiliation since he is widely known for his socializing and “likes a good time”. However, in looking at his job tasks, they are more in line with achievement. Instead of being a member on the soccer team (affiliation), he is the referee (individual task). In the warehouse, he is individually tasked with putting finished products on a pallet vs. working on an assembly line with other employees where products are being manufactured (sequential interdependence).

We all agreed that power is definitely not a need for Bill. Power is his least dominant need since he does better with hands-off type managers. It appears that he is de-motivated by these types if individuals. The way that this manifests itself is through absenteeism.

Week 10

While the halo effect could affect the validity of our team peer evaluations of shared leadership, our group does not feel it will. Our team is dynamic and each person picks up and does what needs to be done. The team is cohesive in its approach to weekly assignments. There don’t appear to be any hidden agendas or personality conflicts on the team. Because our personality types are very similar, we’ve not experienced some of the challenges other teams with more diverse personalities may encounter. We have shown great first impressions and have carried out good work throughout the semester. We have maintained open communications and work well together.

But if the question is to be hypothetical, each group member could control your grade if a bad impression was made. The contact hypothesis (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, p. 81) “states that, under certain conditions, people who interact with each other will be less prejudiced or perceptually biased against each other”. “The halo effect is most likely to occur when concrete information about the perceived target is missing or we are not sufficiently motivated to search for it.” (McShane & Von Glinow, 2010, p. 78). To avoid a bad effect to our ratings, more interaction with group members would help and missing information would be needed. Since our team is very good about gathering the data and information needed before we discuss the problem, we proactively negate the halo effect before it arises.

We have evolved and have made our team successful. After completing the Team Roles Preference Scale again, our roles are the same as note on ‘Week 6 Update’ of our blog. We have grown in our trust of each other and ourselves. The assignments are an opportunity for the group to discuss what they have learned during the week. We also have mutual respect for each other. The team is dynamic and there is no distinct leader. Each person fills in where they are needed.

Our shared leadership was established quickly after our first team meeting. We continue to communicate well and definitely have built trust knowing each others contributions will be completed on time. Each member’s contribution is valued and made part of the end product.

As we head into the final stretch of the course, our group needs to continue to be understanding of personal schedules. We will also need to continue to communicate and be as flexible as possible with each others needs. Along with these team commitments, each of us has made the following personal commitment on areas to improve on / remain consistent with:

• Ellen plans on fulfilling the needs of the assignment with the help of the team.
• Kara will continue to consolidate individual responses which will be used to post our team’s collaborative response.
• Randy will continue to work towards getting assignments in on time.
• Simon will work to improve his information gathering and try to improve his timely submissions to the discussion.

References

McShane, S. & Von Glinow, M (2010). Organizational Behavior (5^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Week 9

This week we were tasked with reminiscing about problems we have encountered in our past workplaces that were caused by some sort of attribution error, such as a self-serving bias or self-fulfilling prophecy. We each discussed times when these have affected us, and detailed how this can help us to stop these same issues from effecting our group dynamic.

While raising children, Ellen has seen self-serving bias. They are always blaming their failures on the external factors.

Kara has seen fundamental attribution error in her workplace when dealing with some individuals who cannot get the job done according to established procedures. Without Kara understanding procedures weren’t being followed due to being understaffed (external factor), this could cause her to avoid working with these individuals.

Simon has seen people get "thrown under the bus" because of a self-serving bias during project work. As a member on a team working on a website, the client refused to provide guidance, even with the project leaders continued harassment. When the project was not delivered on time, the project leader told the client it was Simon's fault because he could not do the required coding for the project, when really it was the project leaders fault for not getting the final deliverable list nailed down, leading to scope creep.

Randy has seen self serving biases many times in his work environment. A former co-worker would always have the tendency to take credit for department successes. This tendency made for low cohesion and a tendency for Randy to be less of a team player. The self serving bias can cause many issues within a small department, especially when the outcomes are unfavorable and you get blamed for it. Also, Randy has personally experienced fundamental attribution error. Through the “grapevine” at work, it may have been mentioned he comes in late (internal factor) but do these people really know his schedule. This attribution error is understandable, but the perceivers need to get the facts straight. With his work responsibilities, he’s required to stay late and work weekends (external factors).

In our group situation, there are many opportunities to have attribution errors since we do not interact with each other for any length of time and we have very limited information about each other. There is the potential to blame each other for our failures. While our group has only been together for a relatively short period of time, the limited information that we do know about each other has made us aware of external factors that “could” hinder team member’s contribution; i.e., fluctuating work schedule; raising small children, traveling; etc. Without this information, it could appear team member(s) aren’t pulling their weight. Also, along with causing low cohesion and lack of team work mentioned above, internal and external factors have bad effects on work teams; i.e., causing deadline delays, a “bad” end product, etc.

How will each of us avoid attributions errors in our team for the rest of this semester? Ellen will try to give the team the information needed concerning her needs. We communicate and discuss what we have for needs concerning this class. Kara will clarify with the team member(s) what external factor(s) might be causing them not to contribute to the weekly team assignment(s) should this happen. Simon hopes to take responsibility for problems that arise because of his own doing. Our team is thoughtful enough to see the wisdom in that and he does not feel that anyone would blame something on a fellow team mate when they know that it isn't the case. Randy indicated we will continue to communicate openly. Also by reading Chapter 3 and knowing attribution errors exist will be a great help in avoiding them.