经济学论文(2):Compare and contrast Rational Economic Motivation and the Goal Setting Theory of Motivation

发表于:2022-08-17 17:39:19 范文

Goal Setting Theory of Motivation 动机的目标设定理论


Another approach to work motivation that has gained significant attention from different researchers and scholars is the goal setting theory of motivation. In reference to Lussier (2008), the goal setting theory of motivation reiterates that individuals in society and at the workplace are motivated by difficult yet achievable goals. Locke and Latham (2006) further emphasise this in their argument that past evidence from employees within an organisation were likely to be motivated by specific, high (hard) goals and as such, report higher performance levels as compared to when such goals are easy, vague or abstract. Thus, Locke and Latham (2006) point out that there is a linear relationship that exists between task performance and the level of difficulty of the goals that an individual is working towards achieving. One of the critical aspects to note about the goal setting theory of motivation is the fact that individuals at the workplace often feel a sense of achievement when they have managed to not only set difficult goals but have also achieved them. In other words, people pride in achieving goals that were first perceived as impossible. Furthermore, Locke and Latham (2006) argue that difficult goals are often perceived as relevant, important and meaningful as compared to easy, vague goals.

Therefore, individuals at the workplace often feel that achieving difficult goals is honourable, a factor that motivates then to ensure that they do not fail as far as such goals are concerned.

另一种获得不同研究者和学者极大关注的工作动机方法是动机的目标设定理论。参考Lussier(2008),动机的目标设定理论重申,社会和工作场所中的个人受到困难但可实现的目标的激励。Locke和Latham(2006)在他们的论点中进一步强调了这一点,即过去来自组织内员工的证据可能是由特定的高(硬)目标激励的,因此,与这些目标简单、模糊或抽象时相比,报告的绩效水平更高。因此,Locke和Latham(2006)指出,任务绩效与个人努力实现的目标难度之间存在线性关系。关于动机的目标设定理论,需要注意的一个关键方面是,当工作场所的个人不仅设法设定了困难的目标,而且还实现了目标时,他们往往会感到成就感。换句话说,人们为实现最初被认为不可能实现的目标而感到自豪。此外,Locke和Latham(2006)认为,与简单、模糊的目标相比,困难的目标通常被认为是相关的、重要的和有意义的。因此,工作场所的个人经常觉得实现困难的目标是值得尊敬的,这是一个激励因素,从而确保他们不会因为这些目标而失败。


Rational Economic Motivation vs. Goal Setting Theory of Motivation: Similarities 理性经济动机与目标设定动机理论:相似之处


There are key similarities that characterise both the rational economic motivation and goal setting theory of motivation. To begin with, one of the fundamental similarities between these two perspectives on motivation is the fact that both use incentives as a way to stimulate the motivation levels of employees. In reference to Swanepoel, Erasmus and van Wyk (2003), the rational economic motivation perspective emphasises that employees are likely to enhance their performance levels when they believe that higher performance will not only result in higher pay but also in other benefits from the business or organisation in question. This therefore implies that organisations can use incentives as a way to stimulate the motivation levels of employees under this perspective. In the same line of thought, whereas there is acknowledgement under the goal setting theory of motivation that employees’ behaviour are innate in nature and as such, they cannot be changed, the proponents of this perspective argue that employers at the workplace can use different incentives to motivate their employees to elicit certain form of desirable behaviour. With this in mind, both the rational economic motivation and the goal setting theory of motivation perspective agree that incentives could help improve the motivation levels of employees.

理性经济动机和目标设定动机理论有着关键的相似之处。首先,这两种激励观点之间的一个基本相似之处是,两者都使用激励作为激励员工激励水平的一种方式。参考Swanepoel、Erasmus和van Wyk(2003),理性经济激励观点强调,当员工认为更高的绩效不仅会带来更高的薪酬,还会从相关业务或组织中获得其他好处时,他们可能会提高绩效水平。因此,这意味着组织可以利用激励作为一种方式,在这个角度下刺激员工的激励水平。按照同样的思路,尽管目标设定激励理论承认员工的行为本质上是与生俱来的,因此无法改变,这一观点的支持者认为,工作场所的雇主可以使用不同的激励措施来激励其员工激发某种形式的理想行为。有鉴于此,理性经济激励理论和目标设定激励理论都认为激励有助于提高员工的激励水平。


Apart from the use of incentives as a means to motivate employees, another similarity between the rational economic motivation and the goal setting theory of motivation is the fact that both perspectives have weaknesses that could allow employees to engage in unethical behaviour such as cheating. In reference to Schweitzer, Ordóñez and Douma (2004), one of the greatest limitations of the goal setting theory of motivation is founded on the fact that people who fail to achieve their goals were likely to engage in unethical behaviour as a way to compensate for their failures. Findings from an experiment that was conducted to evaluate unethical behaviour as a critical limitation of the goal setting theory of motivation reveal that individuals who had goal were likely to overstate their productivity levels, especially when their productivity was close to the set minimum productivity standards (Schweitzer, Ordóñez and Douma, 2004). On the contrary, people without goals did not in any way attempt to overstate their productivity levels in this experiment. Importantly, Schweitzer, Ordóñez and Douma (2004) state that the chances of individuals overstating their performance levels increased significantly when the goals they intended to achieve were tied to some form of incentives such as higher pay and other fringe benefits. In the same way, an evaluation of the ethical behaviour of employees under the perspective of the rational economic motivation reveals that in most cases, employees engage in behaviour that support their best interest (Pascual-Ezama, Prelec and Dunfield, 2013). Whereas this is the case, such behaviour may not necessarily adhere to the existing ethical standards in the organisation in question and the society as a whole. For instance, Pascual-Ezama, Prelec and Dunfield (2013) observe that chief executives officers are likely to engage in unethical behaviour if such behaviour would lead to an increase in their economic gains. With this in mind, both the rational economic motivation perspective and the goal setting theory of motivation agree that the management of firms need to implement measures to prevent unethical behaviour of employees, who may be motivated to engage in such behaviour with an aim of earning certain incentives.

除了使用激励作为激励员工的手段外,理性经济激励和目标设定激励理论之间的另一个相似之处是,这两种观点都存在弱点,可能导致员工参与不道德行为,如作弊。关于Schweitzer、Ordóñez和Douma(2004年),动机的目标设定理论的更大局限之一是基于这样一个事实,即未能实现目标的人可能会从事不道德的行为,以此来补偿他们的失败。一项旨在评估不道德行为作为目标设定动机理论的一个关键限制的实验结果显示,有目标的个人可能会夸大他们的生产力水平,尤其是当他们的生产率接近设定的更低生产率标准时(Schweitzer、Ordóñez和Douma,2004)。相反,在这个实验中,没有目标的人并没有试图夸大他们的生产力水平。重要的是,Schweitzer、Ordóñez和Douma(2004)指出,当个人打算实现的目标与某种形式的激励措施(如更高的薪酬和其他附带福利)挂钩时,夸大其绩效水平的机会显著增加。同样,从理性经济动机的角度对员工道德行为的评估表明,在大多数情况下,员工的行为支持其更佳利益(Pascual Ezama、Prelec和Dunfield,2013)。鉴于这种情况,此类行为可能不一定符合相关组织和整个社会的现有道德标准。例如,Pascual Ezama、Prelec和Dunfield(2013)观察到,如果首席执行官的不道德行为会导致其经济收益增加,那么他们很可能会从事不道德行为。考虑到这一点,理性经济激励观点和目标设定激励理论都认为,企业管理层需要采取措施,防止员工的不道德行为,这些员工可能被激励从事此类行为,以获得某些激励。

12年代写服务-课业辅导‬最佳选择