motivation in work organizations.by edward e. lawler,

Motivation in Work Organizations. by Edward E. Lawler,Review by: Henry TosiAdministrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jun., 1975), pp. 313-317Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management,Cornell UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391709 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 23:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.203 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:39:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391709?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Book Reviews

here; next comes a serial presentation of two or three alternative formulations of the topic from the organizational behavior or management literature (Motivation: Maslow, Herzberg, Vroom; Leadership: Lewin, Fielder, House; and so forth). Finally, the chapters end with a summary and a restatement of the importance of the material for management. The chapter does not point out how the topic is important or how the selected alternative formulations facilitate the management of organizations.

The writing in the chapters themselves is not well integrated or provoking. The illustrative examples of points made about management or behavior are limited either to incomplete reports of well-known case studies or to the organizational experiences of one of the authors-a summer job as a laborer in a tire plant and an adventurous establishment of a campus copy center. Integration of topic areas between and within chapters is accomplished by paginal reference to the relevant material mentioned before or soon to be mentioned. The disparate nature of the presentation and the material is further illustrated by the excessive use of sentence starters like "However," "But," or "On the other hand," and limited use of "Then," "Therefore," or "Most likely." The book is also filled with throw-away lines which never go anywhere-that is, abstract statements are made, which sound important, but are never developed or clarified. (For example: "Heuristics often provide partial solutions and guesses to problems, rather than optimal or even satisfactory solutions." The meaning of the statement is never explained.)

The book, in short, is not focussed, not integrated and not filled with concrete meaning that is communicable to introductory management students. The title, while laudatory, does not change what is inside.

Gerald R. Salancik Organizational Behavior Group University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Motivation in Work Organizations. Edward E. Lawler, 111. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1973, 234 pp. $3.50.

On balance, reading this book was a pleasant experience. It is well written, logically organized, and treats the subject of motivation from an expectancy theory viewpoint rather well. Two things are nicely done in Motivation in Work Organizations. First, a fairly extensive review of antecedent and related theories of motivation is presented. Too often in other discus- sions of expectancy theory, the work of Tolman (1932), Rotter (1966), and Lewin (1935) are frequently omitted or at best mentioned in passing, leaving the impression that expectancy theory developed in the early 1 960s. In the early chapters, Lawler notes the theoretical forebearers of expectancy theory in such a fashion as to make the reader aware that the model he proposes represents current development from a body of theory which has been around for a reasonably long period of time. Expectancy theory is also compared to other theoretical approaches, such as drive theory, to show where there is com-

313/ASQ



patibility but also where differences exist. This is done in a scholarly way, contrasting with the frequent strategy of many writers who set up artificial straw men from competing points of view, and using them as a rationale for their own theory. While Lawler (1973) certainly seems a strong advocate of an expectancy theory approach, he says: Still, many of the points made by drive theory about how associations come about do appear to be generally valid. Expectancy theory, or for that matter any motivation theory, could profit by specifying some of the more obvious factors that influence response-outcome connec- tions; however, as an overall theory the expectancy theory approach seems to be the most useful one for studying motivation in work organizations.

While one might argue that he has too strong a bias toward expectancy theory, it seems to me that this is the prerogative of the theorist. And certainly, he presents theory and evidence consistent with his point of view. The critical question for the advocates of alternative theories is not whether a theory is different in the concepts used, but rather whether or not using those concepts leads to different hypotheses about performance outcomes. This then becomes a question which may be resolved through research. I found this recognition of alternative and antecedent theories by a scholar of Lawler's caliber quite refreshing in an area of study that is too often filled with subjective criticisms of others' works. The way he treats alternate theories and approaches should be a model for all who work in this area.

Secondly, the coverage of the basic postulates of expectancy theory is lucidly presented. The logic of the expectancy model is relatively easy to follow. Terms are clearly defined and relationships among variables are explicated through the use of dia- grams and clear written statements.

Motivation in Work Organizations will make a useful classroom contribution. It is written at a level which should make it a widely used primer for courses in motivation, yet it is theoretically sound and logically consistent.

The development of material is sequentially clear and flows nicely. The basic relationships between motivation, performance, and ability are defined in Chapter 1. Performance is a function of motivation times ability. Perhaps Lawler is a little too facile in his treatment of the importance of ability as a determinant of performance. Even though the topic of the book is motivation, it seems that more consideration of ability as a performance determinant would strengthen the arguments he makes in later sections. For instance, when Lawler treats the utility of job design as a way to improve performance, he implicitly argues that it results because of increased motivation attendant to job design. One could argue, as convincingly, that better performance results, not from higher motivation, but from changing the configuration of individual abilities required on the job, thus making better use of human skills. And, if one takes the position that motivation is a personality variable or an individual drive developed after years of socialization, those familiar with therapeutic practice know only too well how long a change in the psychological character of an individual takes. How can a manager expect to change values, attitudes, and orientations that have taken years to form in a relatively short

3 14/ASQ



Book Reviews

time frame during which a job is altered, restructured, or otherwise redesigned?

Chapter 2 is an overview of theories about human needs, need strength, and outcome preferences. General need and drive theories and their application to the analysis of the work situation are discussed. This chapter introduces the reader to Maslow, McClelland, affiliation needs, achievement needs, competence needs, and self-actualization needs.

In Chapter 3, Lawler develops the various components of expectancy theory and its theoretical relationships to drive theory. Chapter 4 treats job satisfaction and outcomes. What does not come through clearly in these two chapters, or in the whole book, is how satisfaction and motivation are related to each other. It appears that Lawler wishes to distinguish concep- tually between motivation and satisfaction. Yet, in the context of the whole book this distinction is blurred. For example, he notes that the same study (Vroom, 1960) shows that workers are "motivated by participation," (p. 185) when in fact Vroom found they were less satisfied (p. 180).

The decision to work in an organization (Chapter 5) is a brief and insightful synopsis of how expectancy theory can deal with a question of career and job choices. The chapter is somewhat dimmed, however, in that it takes a careful reading to avoid coming away with the impression that individuals choose careers and jobs with highest-order preferences. Lawler notes, but almost in passing, that there are barriers to entry to some occupations which are beyond the individual's control. But, when he cites the relationship between occupational status and ethnic origin, the reader must remember that Lawler has distinguished between occupationspreference and occupational choice, and that "people will not be motivated to enter an occupation, no matter how attractive it is, if they see no probability of being accepted."

Chapter 6, and subsequent chapters, move from the theory to application. Different types of pay plans are described along with suggestions for implementing them. Characteristics of these plans, along with positive and negative effects are dealt with in a way which makes clear that tying pay to performance may be a desirable circumstance, but that it is not always a simple problem. The role of participation in goal setting could be more clearly developed. Should one participate in setting all work goals? Some work goals? And what does participation in performance appraisal mean? How does one participate in it? Do you tell your superior what you did well? Poorly? In the chapter on job design, (Chapter 7), Lawler is consistent with the scientific management point of view-increase performance by job design. The significant difference, though, is that he argues for enriching jobs while the scientific management advocates, he says, propose more narrow job definitions. Now, there is little doubt about the intuitive appeal to increasing job scope, but the question is whether it is effective in terms of any outcome criteria, hard performance, or individual satisfaction. Lawler himself notes that "some people want to be told what to do." The abundant evidence, I believe, is on the side of narrow job definitions, at least in terms of efficiency criteria. Lawler has not been convincing in developing the argument that substantial human costs are incurred-or benefits derived from

3 1 5/ASQ



his approach to job redesign. The seductive bias of the old human relations school still comes through very strongly.

Chapter 8, Leadership, simply misses House's (1971) effort to tie leader behavior to expectancy theory. The empirical research which Lawler cites, the Ohio State Studies, the Michigan Studies, and Fiedler's work, have been integrated by House into a set of propositions which cannot be ignored if a book is to deal with expectancy theory. I n a more general vein there are three other areas that drew my attention. First, there is a tendency to fail to cite research inconsistent with other studies that are used to support a particular position; for example, Tosi (1970) on Vroom (1960) where the effects of personality determinants and participation are considered and Locke (1968) on goal difficulty which is somewhat inconsistent with the findings of Atkinson.

Second, there are some categorical statements made without strong justification, or a reference is made to research but never cited. An example of the first is Lawler's point that "however, as experience in the automobile industry so clearly demonstrates the work is so dissatisfying that companies have to pay higher wages to get workers even to accept assembly line jobs." (emphasis mine) If this were true, then would it logically follow that managers would be willing to accept lower pay because they are more satisfied with their work? My best guess is that the higher wages of automobile workers on assembly lines derive primarily from the strong union which represents them. There are too many instances of low paying high routine jobs that people fill, and perform well in, even with lower pay. An illustration of the second point appears on page 39, and there are others in the book, where Lawler states that "there is some direct evidence that higher educated people are more con- cerned with self-actualization." While this may be so, it would be useful to include a citation to some of that evidence. I raise these points becausethroughout the book Lawler relies heavily on empirical research support for his conclusions and it would seem only consistent to do so where the evidence exists and would make a stronger case for his position.

Finally, there is a theme throughout the book which implies that one of the benefits of improving the work situation is to enhance the psychological well being of the individual. This assumes that work plays a central role in one's life. This may or may not be true, and I believe it should be noted that extremely competent performance may obtain from disinterested, dissatisfied, or otherwise neutral employees. It is attempting to impose one's own values on another to argue that work should be humanized to make it more attractive. And if, as Lawler himself shows, job satisfaction has been increasing recently (p. 79), then what benefits derive from increasing the scope of one's work?

The comments above should not detract from the overall, general assessment of this book. It is an invaluable and useful tool for those who will teach the subject of motivation in the classroom. It is, along with other books in the Brooks-Cole Behavioral Science in Industry Series, soundly conceived and well done.

Henry Tosi Professor of Organizational Behavior Michigan State University

3 16/ASQ



Book Reviews

REFERENCES

House, Robert J. 1971 "A path goal theory of leader

effectiveness." Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 Sep- tember: 321-338.

Lewin, K. 1935 A Dynamic Theory of Personal-

ity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Locke, Edwin A. 1968 "Toward a theory of task moti-

vation and incentives." Organi- zational Behavior and Human Performance, 3: 157-189.

Rotter, J. B. 1966 "Generalized expectancies for

internal versus external control of reinforcement," Psychologi- cal Monographs, 1966, 80: 1-28.

Tolman, E. C. 1932 Purposive Behavior in Animals

and Men. New York: Century Company.

Tosi, Henry L. 1970 "A reexamination of personality

as a determinant of the effects of participation." Personnel Psychology, 23: 91-99.

Vroom, V. H. 1960 Some Personality Determin-

ants of the Effects of Participa- tion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Organizations of the Future: Interaction with External Environment. Harold Leavitt, Lawrence Pinfield, and Eugene Webb (eds.). New York: Praeger Publishers, 1974. 198 pp. $16.50.

In the last few turbulent years the study of organizations in the future and the situations they will be facing has gained increasing popularity and importance. The subject is very complex and attempts to study it have often been only partially successful. This book has made an attempt to reflect sociological and psychological thoughts within an open-systems framework. It focuses on the organizations' interactions with society and with one another as well as the probable management practices of the future. The format is a selection of articles serving as chapters.

Part I focuses on the problems of organizational responsiveness to the society and possible future improvements. Bennis' essay recalls the dilemmas of democracy in the late 1 960s and deals with his reflections on personal experiences as a university administrator. His suggestive outlines of "criteria for forecast- ing trends in human institutions" and "new forecast for public bureaucracy" are refreshing. Although the work suffers because some of the issues are outdated and some important current issues are excluded, it is stimulating and provocative. Churchman's contribution deals with the university as an organization responsive to the society. He designs an "exoteric university" to encompass the production of socially useful knowledge based on the members' need to join the organization and participate in solving social problems. Churchman's chapter reflects an abstract and highly idealistic view of the university system.

The last chapter in Part I is Crozier's-originally written in 1 970. In this provocative essay he contends that constraints on modern man are self imposed to avoid complexities in his arrangements. Man is blocked because as he searches for a definition of a final state of society or a sector he tends to perceive the available means to be preordained and adopts means which unknowingly have profound effects and impinge on the goals which he attempts to reach. Crozier takes an active position and proposes that organizations of the future need to develop capacity to consciously face the blocking contradic- tions, and suggests three sets of efforts to be considered (1) analysis and diagnosis of the complex systems in which the action is to take place, (2) full comprehension of behaviors

31 7/ASQ



motivation in work organizations.by edward e. lawler,

Documents