case study 1, “Remedying Motivation and Productivity Loss in Collective Settings.

case study 1, “Remedying Motivation and Productivity Loss in Collective Settings.

Read case study 1, “Remedying Motivation and Productivity Loss in Collective Settings.

” After reading the case study, submit your responses to the three questions listed below.  Student must support their reasoning using the course material or resources from their own research.  Submit your responses to the appropriate Assignments Folder by the due date.

Remedying Motivation and Productivity Loss in Collective Settings

http://www.psych.ufl.edu/~shepperd/articles/Current%20Directions.pdf

Case Study 1 Questions

1. “Social loafing” refers to members of a group working together who exert less effort than they would if they worked alone.

Question: What challenges prevent your department/organization and its members from performing optimally? In your experience, what qualities should a “team” have to ensure that each member performs well? What conflict resolution strategies would you use to ensure success?  In responding to these questions, students are expected to provide examples and use course material to support reasoning.

2. The article mentions that “social loafing” is universal—meaning that some cultures are lazier than others.

Question: Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not, and provide an example to back up your answer as well as support you reasoning using the course material. What behaviors that contribute to social loafing are acceptable or unacceptable, and how would you resolve interpersonal conflict with “social loafers”?  Support your reasoning using the course material

3. Question: After reading the article, do you believe there are social loafers on your job? Explain you answer.  What do you think management in your organization can do to avoid low productivity in group projects to counter social loafing?  In responding to these questions, students are expected to provide examples and use course material to support reasoning.

Required Formatting of Case Study 1:

This paper should be double-spaced, 12-point font, and between 3-5 pages in length excluding the title page and reference page.
Title page with your name, the course name, the date, and the instructor’s name.
The last sentence of your introduction will be your focus or thesis statement. The focus/thesis is an argument, in statement form, that you would support or develop throughout the paper. The focus/thesis must be in your own words and is in third person.
Remember to carefully check and correct for writing, grammar, and punctuation errors.
An introductory paragraph, a summary paragraph and the use of headings are required;
Use APA formatting for in-text citations and reference page.  You are expected to paraphrase and not use quotes. Students will be penalized if direct quotes are used. Note that you can not start/end a paragraph with author information, have author information following author infomration, or have more than 25% author information in a paragraph. Your own ideas must be foremost and you need to explain and discuss how the author information best supports your own ideas. Critical analysis is key. You would use the research and author information to support your own arguments and key points.
Write in the third person;
Note that a complete paragraph is a minimum of three sentences, with discussions.

Remedymg Motivation and Productrvrty 333:33;9.’°W mot’vat’o” and “0′
Loss in Collective Settings The second source of low pro-
ductivity (contributions are unneces-
James A. Shepperd sary) results when contributors per-
ceive no contingency between their
contributions and achieving the col-
Perhaps the most annoying thing rewarding contributors, to name a lective goal. That is, contributors be-
about working in a group or other few. lieve that the collective product
setting in which efforts are pooled to Recently, I proposed a model for (e.g., winning a tug-of-war match,
form a collective product is that not understanding the problem of low building a house, writing a group re-
all individuals contribute equally. effort in groups and other collective port) will be achieved regardless of
There always seem to be some peo- settings.2 The model, based on ex- whether they work hard or not.
ple who loaf or choose to free ride pectancy theory, conceptualizes Thus, personal contributions are
on the efforts of other people. Over low effort as a problem of low mo- perceived as dispensable, leading
the past two decades, this irksome tivation arising when individuals individuals to free ride on the con-
aspect of groups has captured the at- perceive their contributions to the tributions of other people. The solu-
tention of researchers in psychology, collective as u nreward ed, un- tion to this second source of low mo-
sociology, management, econom- needed, or too costly. The model tivation and productivity is to make
ics, and political science. The guid- further specifies that productivity individuals perceive their contribu-
ing questions underlying the re- loss in collectives can be remedied tions as indispensable, for example,
search are why do people exert less by (a) providing incentives for con- by decreasing the redundancy of
effort in collective settings, and what tributing, (b) making contributions contributions or by dividing the task
can be done about the reduction in indispensable, and (c) decreasing so that each contributor provides
effort. the cost of contributing. The first and something unique and essential.
third solutions affect the value asso- The third source of low produc-
ciated with contributing, whereas tivity (contributions are too costly)
SOURCES ‘0′; AND ‘ , the second solution affects the ex- results when contributors regard the
SOLUT’ONS To Low pectancy that personal contributions material or psychological costs of
EFFORT [N are consequential. contributing to exceed any benefit
COLLMIVE smmcs The first source of low productiv- that might be attained from achiev-
ity (contributions are unrewarded) ing the collective product. The ma-
results when contributors derive no terial costs refer to the depletion of
The problem of low effort in col- benefit from contributing, either be- resources that are diverted from
lective settings has been character- cause personal contributions are un- some other, more profitable venture.
ized as a social disease,1 and re- identifiable (thus, individuals cannot The psychological costs refer to a
searchers have rallied their efforts to enjoy the proper rewards for a good feeling of exploitation that arises
find a cure. The cures or remedies performance) or because the behav- from the perception that other peo-
proposed include making individual ior or its Outcome is not valUEd (i.e., ple are free riding on one’s own ef-
comributiong identifiable, unique, the contributors do not care if the forts, enjoyingthe benefits ofagood
or difficult; increasing group identity collective goal is realized). The so- collective performance (e.g., an A
and group cohesiveness; increasing lution is to provide an incentive for on a group project in a course) while
personal involvement in the task; contributing. The incentive need not personally contributing little. Gener-
making the task more attractive; and be a material one, such as money or ally, people are loathe to be ex-
bonuses. Because people are gener- ploited in this way and will even re-
ally concerned with achieving a pos- frain from contributing themselves to
itive evaluation (or avoiding a nega- avoid this psychological cost, even
James A. Shepperd is an Associate tive evaluation), merely the DTOSPECt though holding back may mean that
Professor in the Department of Psy- of evaluation is sufficient to remedy the collective outcome is not
chology at the University of Flor- low productivity.3 Moreover, the achieved. The costs can be thought
ida. Address correspondenCe to evaluation need not be external. To of as disincentives to contributing
lames A- Sheppérd’ Pepanmeflt of the extent that individuals are con- that undermine achieving the collec-
PsthOlOSY’ Umvers’ty of Honda! cerned with evaluating themselves tive goal. The solution is to decrease
gigglgléaeglg SfyiLlJfleémla’l: favorably, merely the opportunity or eliminate the material and psy-
for self-evaluation is sufficient to chological costs of contributing. The
Copyright © 1995 American Psychological Society 131

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂