388 PART 5 • Leading in Agribusiness

CHAPTER ACTIVITIES

REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What are the three basic historical perspectives through which motivational theory has passed?
2. What are the five basic need levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs?
3. Summarize the basic premises of expectancy theory.
4. What is the relationship between performance and satisfaction?
5. What are the four basic types of reinforcement? What are the five schedules of reinforcement?

ANALYSIS QUESTIONS
1. How important do you think money is in motivation? Explain.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the basic premises of the two-factor theory? Why or why not?
3. How do you think performance and satisfaction are related?
4. Explain how you personally might form equity perceptions in your role as a student.
5. Which new reward system do you think holds the most potential? Why? Why might workers oppose it?

FILL IN THE BLANKS

1. The drives or forces that initiate behavior are called .
2. The set of processes that determine the choices that people make about their behaviors is called .
3. The need to work with others, to interact, and to have friends, is the need.
4. Shaping behavior by rewarding desirable behavior but not rewarding undesirable behavior is known as
.
5. The desire to excel or to accomplish some goal more effectively than in the past is the need for .
6. The model that suggests that motivation is determined by how much we want something and how likely
we think we are to get it is called the model.
7. The need hierarchy has five levels of needs: , , , , and .
8. The theory that specific and moderately difficult goals may increase motivation is called the
theory.
9. Four kinds of reinforcement are ______ reinforcement, , , and .
10. A view of motivation that suggests employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction are two distinct dimensions
affected by different sets of factors is the view.

CHAPTER 18 CASE STUDY

LEAVING BEFORE THE GAME IS OVER
M ost business schools spend a significant amount of instruction time teaching students how to think
strategically, how to motivate a company and its employees, and how to reach (or at least strive for) the
corner office. Much time is spent on “staying in the game” and setting achievable goals as well as “stretch”
goals—all aimed at becoming “numero uno”: the boss. It appears that 2010 may have been the year that
introduced a new concept: the end game or exit strategy—or how to get off the field before the game is over.
Often, so much instruction time is spent on personal motivation and developing self-discipline—
staying focused—that little or no time is spent on recognizing when the “game” is or should be over. It is just

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

44867_ch18_ptg01_hr_p371-[Link] 388 02/04/13 10:37 AM

 CHAPTER 18 • Employee Motivation 389

as important to recognize when the “game” has become too much and is exacting a toll far more personal
and less business-oriented than was expected. Jeffrey Kindler, CEO of Pfizer, Inc, the world’s largest drug
company, abruptly quit as CEO, admitting that the job wore him out. He was only 55 years old. He had tried
for months to convince his board of directors that he needed someone to lighten his load. The board did not
act fast enough. Mr. Kindler did.
Compared with a few years ago, pressures on CEOs “are substantially different—especially in certain
industries,” said Steve Reinemund, retired CEO of PepsiCo. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of the Yale University School
of Management added that many CEOs now look at the corporate throne “. . . as a position with a limited
term of office. They rarely seek to stay a minute more than a dignified decade.” Sonnenfeld may be optimis-
tic with his decade timeline.
Some CEOs wear themselves out. Sometimes enough is enough. Kellogg’s CEO David Mackay
announced to his board in December 2010 that he is retiring at the start of 2011. He was tired after facing
two of the largest product recalls in Kellogg’s history, being slapped by federal regulators for crossing the
line on nutritional profiles on its packaging, failing to anticipate an aggressive campaign by its closest com-
petitor (General Mills Inc.), watching cereal sales get battered by supermarket house brands, and coping
with the flooding of a waffle-making plant. At least the board got a two-week notice.
Adding to this pressure-cooker environment is an acknowledgement that the corner office has plenty
of windows. Everyone is watching and they are monitoring and measuring. The motivation to assume and
stay in the office grows smaller. In 2010, Kenexa Research Institute conducted a survey to measure the
effectiveness of senior corporate management based on several attributes, for example, people manage-
ment skills and commitment to quality products. Of the 29,000 respondents, globally 55 percent of employ-
ees rated their senior managers highly. In the United States—the country that practically invented the
“B-School”—only 56$percent of employees gave their managers high ratings.
Who finished in the top five spots? The top five scores in the leadership-effectiveness index were
India with employee ratings of 72 percent, China with 71 percent, Switzerland with 63 percent, Mexico with
62$percent, and Russia with 59 percent Japan, once the icon of global competitiveness and internationally
centric management, finished “dead last” with a 39 percent rating.
Sometimes the pressure prompts strange actions or the need to employ “gamesmanship” more along
the lines of “brinksmanship.” When the Prime Minister of Fiji, Voreqe Bainimarama, announced a 15-cent/
liter tax on bottled water, Fiji Water, which bottles 3.5 million liter/month, announced it was closing the
plant. This move eliminated the largest company from Fiji tax rolls. It was also an act of hari-kari for Fiji
Water; it could not produce “fiji” water elsewhere. Everyone realized the “lose-lose” positions in this game
and reversed themselves a day later. Newton’s law—every action fosters an equal and opposite reaction—
seemed to be in play.
This was not a one-time use of gamesmanship or brinksmanship. Lynda Resnick, owner/CEO of POM
Wonderful LLC, launched a $10 million dollar advertising campaign against the Federal Trade Commission
and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for criticizing her company for its pomegranate juice product.
The FTC and the FDA were not amused. What is the connection? Lynda Resnick and her husband, Stewart
Resnick, through a holding company, Roll International, own Fiji Water. Sometime the best response to pres-
sure is to return in kind.
Of course, this pressure-filled environment can induce forgetfulness. Mickey Drexler, CEO of [Link]
Group, the “preppy” clothing company, negotiated for almost two months with an outside company to sell
J. Crew before he remembered to tell the [Link] board of directors what he was doing. When you are under
a great amount of stress, apparently it is hard to remember that you are selling the company for $3 billion
dollars or at least you forget to mention it for two months.
Who bought the company? TPG Capital, which had a member on the [Link] board of directors, and
Leonard Green & Partners—and, oh yes, did we mention Mr. Drexler himself?

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

44867_ch18_ptg01_hr_p371-[Link] 389 02/04/13 10:37 AM

 390 PART 5 • Leading in Agribusiness

All of this indicates that a prize can be highly motivational and cause one to be singularly focused. So
much so that once the prize is gained, a response may be, “Is that all there is?” Less philosophically, it might
prompt a reality television program, “CEOs Behaving Selfishly.” But for more and more CEOs, it may be that
the star player just wants or needs to go to the locker room early. Maybe the media networks will offer him
an on-air analyst job.43
Case Study Questions
1. What theories of motivation seem useful in understanding why one might want to become the CEO of
a corporation?
2. Based on the information in this case, how has the motivation to be CEO changed and how might it
change in the future? See if you can find examples other than the ones mentioned in the case.
3. What might an organization do to motivate high-quality individuals to seek the CEO position?

REFERENCES 15. E. Cornelius and F. Lane, “The Power Motive and Managerial
Success in a Professionally Oriented Service Company,” Journal of
1. Sharon Bernstein, “Food Trucks Are Rolling into the Main- Applied Psychology ( January 1984): 32–40.
stream,” Los Angeles Times (September 9, 2010) at [Link]. 16. David McClelland and David H. Burnham, “Power Is the Great
com (accessed December 9, 2010); Sarah E. Needleman, “Restau- Motivator,” Harvard Business Review (March–April 1976):
rant Franchises Try Truckin’ as a Way to Grow,” The Wall Street 100–110.
Journal (October 28, 2010) at [Link] (accessed December 9, 17. Victor Vroom, Work and Motivation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2010); Kimberly Weisel, “Spurred by a Passion for Gourmet 1995).
Grub, Ben Van Leeuwen Launched a Fleet of Trucks Offering 18. See also David A. Nadler and Edward E. Lawler, III, “Motivation:
a ‘Taste of Creamy Ecstasy,’” Inc. Magazine (October, 2010), A Diagnostic Approach,” in Perspectives on Behavior in Organi-
66; “Dough Rising,” The Economist (October 7, 2010) at www zations, 2nd ed., eds. J. Richad Hackman, Edward E. Lawler, and
.[Link] (accessed December 8, 2010). Lyman W. Porter (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983), 67–78.
2. “Domino Sugar Plant Reopens,” PBS NewsHour (March 8, 2006) 19. Kurt Eichenwald, “America’s Successful Steel Industry,”
at [Link] (accessed June 29, 2010). Washington Monthly, February 1985, 42.
3. Seth Lubove, “Food Porn,” Forbes, February 14, 2005, 102. 20. Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler III, Managerial Atti-
4. Linda-Eling Lee, “Employee Motivation—A Powerful New tudes and Performance (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1968).
Model,” Harvard Business Review (2008): 78–89. 21. Richard T. Mowday, “Equity Theory Predictions of Behavior in
5. Lyman W. Porter, Gregory A. Bigley, and Richard M. Steers, eds., Organizations,” in Motivation and Work Behavior, eds. Steers
Motivation and Work Behavior, 7th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, and Porter, 91–113: see also J. Stacey Adams, “Toward an Under-
2003). standing of Inequity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
6. Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, “What Should We Do About (November 1963): 422–436.
Motivation Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-First 22. “Will Clack Package Zooms to $15 Million,” The New York Times
Century,” Academy of Management Review (2004): 388–403. ( January 23, 1990) at [Link] (accessed June 30, 2010).
7. Walter Kiechel III, “The Workaholic Generation,” Fortune, April 23. Jerald Greenberg, “Equity and Workplace Status: A Field Experi-
10, 1989, 50–62. ment,” Journal of Applied Psychology (November 1989): 606–613;
8. Abraham H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psycho- Edward W. Miles, John D. Hatfield, and Richard C. Huseman,
logical Review (1943), 50: 370–396. “The Equity Sensitivity Construct: Potential Implications for
9. Clayton P. Alderfer, “An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Work Performance,” Journal of Management (December 1989):
Human Needs,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 581–588.
(April 1969): 142–175. 24. R. A. Cosier and D. R. Dalton, “Equity Theory and Time: A
10. Clayton P., Alderfer, Existence, Relatedness, and Growth (New York: Reformulation,” Academy of Management Review (April 1983):
Free Press, 1972). 311–319; and R. C. Huseman, J. D. Hatfield, and E. W. Miles,
11. Frederick Herzberg, “One More Time: How Do You Motivate “A New Perspective on Equity Theory,” Academy of Management
Employees?” Harvard Business Review ( January–February 1968): Review (April 1987): 222–234.
53–62 (reprinted in Harvard Business Review, January 2003, 25. “Paying Workers to Meet Goals Spreads, But Gauging Perfor-
87–98). mance Proves Tough,” The Wall Street Journal, September 10, 1991,
12. Craig C. Pinder, Work Motivation in Organizational Behav- B1, B8.
ior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997). Pinder, Work 26. Yitzhak Fried and Linda Haynes Slowik, “Enriching Goal-
Motivation. Setting Theory with Time: An Integrated Approach,” Academy of
13. David McClelland, “That Urge to Achieve,” Think, November– Management Review (2004): 404–422.
December 1966, 22. 27. Gary P. Latham and Edwin Locke, “Goal Setting—A Motiva-
14. David McClelland, The Achieving Society (Princeton, NJ: Van tional Technique That Works,” Organizational Dynamics (Autumn
Nostrand, 1961). 1979): 68–80.

Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

44867_ch18_ptg01_hr_p371-[Link] 390 02/04/13 10:37 AM