Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, students should be able to:
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
We have presented a number of motivation theories and applications in this and the previous chapter. While it is
always dangerous to synthesize a large number of complex ideas into a few simple guidelines, the following
suggestions summarize the essence of what we know about motivating employees in organizations.
Recognize individual differences. Employees have different needs. Do not treat them all alike. Moreover, spend
the time necessary to understand what is important to each employee. This will allow you to individualize goals,
level of involvement, and rewards to align with individual needs.
Use goals and feedback. Employees should have hard, specific goals, as well as feedback on how well they are
faring in pursuit of those goals.
Allow employees to participate in decisions that affect them. Employees can contribute to a number of
decisions that affect them: setting work goals, choosing their own benefits packages, solving productivity and
quality problems, and the like. This can increase employee productivity, commitment to work goals, motivation,
and job satisfaction.
Link rewards to performance. Rewards should be contingent on performance. Importantly, employees must
perceive a clear linkage. Regardless of how closely rewards are actually correlated to performance criteria, if
individuals perceive this relationship to be low, the results will be low performance, a decrease in job satisfaction,
and an increase in turnover and absenteeism statistics.
Check the system for equity. Rewards should also be perceived by employees as equating with the inputs they
bring to the job. At a simplistic level, this should mean that experience, skills, abilities, effort, and other obvious
inputs should explain differences in performance and, hence, pay, job assignments, and other obvious rewards.
WEB EXERCISES
At the end of each chapter of this instructor’s manual you will find suggested exercise and ideas for researching
the WWW on OB topics. The exercises “Exploring OB Topics on the Web” are set up so that you can simply
photocopy the pages, distribute them to your class, and make assignments accordingly. You may want to assign
the exercises as an out-of-class activity or as lab activities with your class. Within the lecture notes the graphic
will note that there is a WWW activity to support this material.
The chapter opens introducing Ricardo Semler whose father handed him a nearly bankrupt business when he
was just 22 years old. Ricardo decentralized the management structure and used employee involvement
strategies to simulate motivation and create a place where people want to come to work. The company has
141
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
experienced 24 percent average annual growth over the last 20 years and turnover of less than one percent.
Semler boasts that he has taken top management out of managing the company.
142
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
CHAPTER NOTES:
Management by Objectives
7. Performance feedback
• MBO seeks to give continuous feedback on progress toward goals so that
workers can monitor and correct their own actions.
Instructor Note: At this point in the lecture you may want to introduce the TEAM EXERCISE – Goal Setting
Task found in the text and at the end of these chapter notes. The purpose of the exercise is to learn how to write
tangible, verifiable, measurable, and relevant goals as might evolve from an MBO program.
1. Most organizations are under severe cost pressures, which is why recognition
programs are particularly attractive. Recognizing an employee’s superior
performance often costs little or no money.
2. One of the most well known and widely used recognition devices is the use of
suggestion systems. Employees offer suggestions for improving processes or
cutting costs and are recognized with small cash awards.
3. The Japanese have been especially effective at making suggestion systems
work. A typical high performing Japanese plant generates 47 suggestions per
employee a year and pays approximately the equivalent of U.S. $35 per
suggestion.
144
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
145
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
146
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
• The research indicates that they increase employee satisfaction, but their
impact on performance is less clear.
Instructor Note: At this point in the lecture you may want to introduce the POINT-COUNTER POINT – The
Power of Stock Options As A Motivator found in the text and at the end of these chapter notes. A suggestion for a
class exercise follows the introduction of the material.
147
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
1. Variable Pay Programs can take the form of piece-rate plans, wage incentives,
profit sharing, bonuses, and gainsharing.
2. A portion of an employee’s pay is based on some individual and/or
organizational measure of performance. Unlike more traditional base-pay
programs, variable pay is not an annuity—there is no guarantee.
3. The fluctuation in variable pay programs makes them attractive to
management. The organization’s fixed labor costs turn into a variable cost
reducing expenses when performance declines. Also, tying pay to performance
recognizes contribution rather than being a form of entitlement.
4. Four widely used programs are piece-rate wages, bonuses, profit sharing, and
gain sharing:
• Piece-rate wages
a. Around for nearly a century
b. Popular as a means for compensating production workers
c. Workers are paid a fixed sum for each unit of production completed.
d. A pure piece-rate plan—the employee gets no base salary and is paid
only for production. For example: Selling peanuts in ballparks works
this way.
e. Modified piece-rate plan—employees earn a base hourly wage plus a
piece-rate differential.
• Bonuses
a. These can be paid exclusively to executives or to all employees.
b. Increasingly, bonus plans are taking on a larger net within
organizations to include lower-ranking employees to reward production
and increased profits.
• Profit-sharing plans
a. Organization wide programs that distribute compensation based on
some established formula designed around a company’s profitability
b. Direct cash outlays or, particularly in the case of top managers,
allocated as stock options
• Gainsharing
a. This is a formula-based group incentive plan.
b. Improvements in group productivity—from one period to another—
determine the money allocated.
c. Gainsharing and profit sharing are similar but not the same thing. It
focuses on productivity gains rather than profits.
d. Gainsharing rewards specific behaviors that are less influenced by
external factors. Employees in a gainsharing plan can receive
incentive awards even when the organization is n0t profitable.
2. Variable-pay programs are generally successful in increasing motivation and
productivity. Studies generally support that organizations with profit-sharing
plans have higher levels of profitability than those without.
Instructor Note: At this point in the lecture you may want to introduce the CASE INCIDENT – The 401k Blues
found in the text and at the end of these chapter notes. A suggestion for a class exercise follows the introduction
of the material.
148
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
6. Gain sharing has been found to improve productivity in a majority of cases and
often has a positive impact on employee attitudes. For example:
• An American Management Association study of 83 companies.
• On average, grievances dropped 83 percent, absences fell 84 percent, and
lost-time accidents decreased by 69 percent.
7. The downside of variable pay is its unpredictability.
• Depending how your variable pay is determined, company downturns can
cut income.
• Moreover, people begin to take repeated annual performance bonuses for
granted.
1. Variable pay is rapidly replacing the annual cost-of-living raise. This is because
of its motivational power and cost implications, avoiding the fixed expense of
permanent salary boosts.
2. This pay strategy has been practiced in managerial levels for the last 10 or so
years. The new trend has been expanding this practice to non-managerial
employees.
3. Variable-pay plans are becoming increasingly popular: Seventy-eight percent
of U.S. companies have some form of variable pay plan with rank and file
workers. Even Japan has introduced these programs—a recent survey found
that 21.8 percent of Japanese companies now use such pay systems.
4. Gain sharing’s popularity seems to be narrowly focused among large,
unionized manufacturing companies.
5. Common concerns among firms that have not introduced performance-based
compensation programs are:
Instructor Note: At this point in the lecture you may want to introduce the ETHICAL DILEMMA EXERCISE – Are
American CEO’s Paid Too Much? box found in the text and at the end of these chapter notes. A suggestion for a
class exercise follows the introduction of the material.
149
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
Instructor Note: At this point in the lecture you may want to introduce the OB IN THE NEWS – Pay for
Performance at Siebel Systems box found in the text and below. A suggestion for a class exercise follows the
introduction of the material below.
Executives at Siebel Systems, the sales automation software firm headquartering in San Mateo,
California, understand how rewards shape behavior. They have scrapped their traditional system of rewarding
their sales people solely on the basis of how well they achieve their sales targets. They have replaced it with a
new motivation system that broadens the definition of sales performance to include building long-term customer
satisfaction.
Siebel considers building long-term customer relationships to be its top priority. Says the company’s vice
president of technical services, Steve Mankoff: “[If reps] close a contract with a customer, continue to follow up
with that customer, and make sure that customer is successful, chances are that customer will come back for
more. In any given quarter, 45 to 60 percent of our business is from repeat customers.”
So now nearly 40 percent of each salesperson’s incentive compensation is based on their customer’s
reported satisfaction with service and implementation of the products they have purchased. To determine how
well its salespeople are doing, Siebel regularly surveys customers on the responsiveness of its sales
organization, the sales consultant’s ability to integrate a customer’s requirements with Siebel’s software solutions,
the rep’s knowledge of the products and of the customer’s project, and ease of purchasing and contracting.
By broadening pay for performance from just generating sales to also including customer satisfaction,
Siebel is getting its sales force to focus on the needs of its customers. “It works,” says Mankoff. “Our loyalty rate
among customers is in the 96 to 99 percent range.”
Source: E. Zimmerman, “Quota Busters,” Sales & Marketing Management, January 2001, pp. 59–63.
Class Exercise:
1. Ask students to break into small groups. Their assignment will be to develop customer retention/loyalty
strategies for a landscape design and installation business. (These strategies can be any number of things
such as: calling a customer after a patio installation, calling to offer additional products and services, holding
free gardening seminars, having a booth at the annual home and garden sales, and providing a free monthly
newsletter by email to customers.)
2. Once they have developed their strategy, ask them to determine which of these strategies applies to the sales
staff for the company. Then have them develop criteria for rewarding salespeople for engaging in these
behaviors. Or, they may choose to reward the salesperson in another way after repeat business occurs such
as giving an extra commission bonus when an existing customer reorders.
3. Discuss the strategies they came up with as a class. Was this an easy or difficult task? Why did they make
the choices they made. Ask if they would be willing to be evaluated on those criteria and how much of their
pay should be subject to those alternative criteria.
150
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
151
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
Flexible Benefits
1. Benefit for employees is the flexibility. It is attractive because they can tailor
their benefits and levels of coverage to their own needs.
2. From the organization’s standpoint, it often produces savings. Once in place,
costly increases often have to be substantially absorbed by the employee.
3. Drawbacks from the employee’s standpoint is that the costs of individual
benefits often go up, so fewer total benefits can be purchased.
A. Drawbacks for the organization are that these plans are more
cumbersome for management to oversee, and administering the programs
is often expensive.
152
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
153
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
154
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
1. Relate goal-setting theory to the MBO process. How are they similar? Different?
Answer – Management by objectives emphasizes participatively set goals that are tangible, verifiable, and
measurable. It is not a new idea. Linking MBO and goal-setting theory:
Goal-setting theory demonstrates that:
• Hard goals result in a higher level of individual performance than do easy goals.
• Specific hard goals result in higher levels of performance than no goals at all or generalized
goals.
• Feedback on one’s performance leads to higher performance.
MBO
• Directly advocates specific goals and feedback.
• Implies that goals must be perceived as feasible.
• Is most effective when the goals are difficult enough to require stretching.
The only area of possible disagreement is participation.
• MBO strongly advocates it.
• Goal-setting theory—assigning goals to subordinates frequently works just as well as
participation.
4. What are the pluses of variable-pay programs from an employee’s viewpoint? From management’s
viewpoint?
Answer – Variable pay offers bigger rewards and ties rewards to work. For management, it reduces cost
because pay is tied to productivity and eliminates or reduces permanent increases in labor costs.
Studies generally support that organizations with profit-sharing plans have higher levels of profitability than
those without. Gain sharing has been found to improve productivity in a majority of cases and often has a
positive impact on employee attitudes.
155
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
What motivates professionals? Money and promotions typically are low on their priority list. Job challenge
tends to be ranked high. They like to tackle problems and find solutions. Provide them with ongoing
challenging projects. Give them autonomy to follow their interests, and allow them to structure their work.
Reward them with educational opportunities, and also reward them with recognition. An increasing number of
companies are creating alternative career paths for their professional and technical people, allowing
employees to earn more money and status, without assuming managerial responsibilities.
What will motivate involuntarily temporary employees? An opportunity for permanent status. The opportunity
for training. From an equity standpoint, you should also consider the repercussions of mixing permanent and
temporary workers where pay differentials are significant.
10. What can you do, as a manager, to increase the likelihood that your employees will exert a high level of
effort?
Answer – Check the system for equity. Rewards should also be perceived by employees as equating with the
inputs they bring to the job. At a simplistic level, this should mean that experience, skills, abilities, effort, and
other obvious inputs should explain differences in performance and, hence, pay, job assignments, and other
obvious rewards.
1. Identify five different criteria by which organizations can compensate employees. Based on your knowledge
and experience, do you think performance is the criterion most used in practice? Discuss.
Answer – Seniority, position, merit, skill, and productivity/performance. Students’ responses will vary;
generally, there is a great deal of discussion of performance pay in the literature and among managers. The
key issue is whether employees perceive the compensation-performance linkage, regardless of what
management implements.
2. “Recognition may be motivational for the moment but it does not have any staying power. It is an empty
reinforcer. Why? Because when you go the grocery store, they do not take recognition as a form of payment!”
Do you agree or disagree? Discuss.
Answer – Students’ answers may vary more due to the personalities than facts. Some people never forget
being recognized once, others look for continual recognition. Keys to remember in the discussion include the
following: The best recognition programs use multiple sources and recognize both individual and group
accomplishments. Employees consider recognition to be the most powerful workplace motivator. Consistent
with reinforcement theory, rewarding a behavior with recognition immediately following that behavior is likely
to encourage its repetition.
3. “Performance cannot be measured, so any effort to link pay with performance is a fantasy. Differences in
performance are often caused by the system, which means the organization ends up rewarding the
156
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
circumstances. It is the same thing as rewarding the weather forecaster for a pleasant day.” Do you agree or
disagree with this statement? Support your position.
Answer – Performance measurement can be difficult depending on the type of job being evaluated. The key
is to try to control for those factors that employees cannot control, measure, and reward those that employees
can control. Also, building in base income in an incentive system helps smooth the dips that come due to
factors beyond employee control.
4. It is an indisputable fact that there has been an explosive increase in the difference between the average U.S.
worker’s income and those of senior executives. In 1980, the average CEO made 42 times the average blue-
collar worker’s pay. In 1990, it was 85 times. In 2000, it had risen to 531 times. What are the implications of
this trend for motivation in organizations?
Answer – Student’s will have varying opinions on this. Given recent corporate scandals involving CEO’s
who took millions at the expense of employees’ retirement accounts they should take into account such
factors as trust, employee retention, productivity, efficiency, etc.
5. Your text argues for recognizing individual differences. It also suggests paying attention to members of
diversity groups. Is this contradictory? Discuss.
Answer – There is no inherent contradiction because both approaches seek to treat people as individuals.
Sensitivity to diversity is not sensitivity to a group, but to the individual within the group.
157
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
Stock options are being used as incentives for booksellers at Borders, clerks at Wal-Mart, box packers at
Pfizer, chemical-plant operators at Monsanto, baggage handlers at Delta Air Lines, and part-time espresso
servers at Starbucks.
Approximately 10 million U.S. employees currently receive options, roughly a 10-fold jump since 1992.
One study found that 39 percent of large U.S. companies now have stock option plans that cover all or a majority
of employees—from the CEO down to operatives. While plans vary, most are allocated as a percentage of annual
income and allow employees to buy their employer’s stock at a price below the fair market value.
Proponents of broad-based stock offer a long list of reasons to explain these plans’ popularity: They help
to: create a company-wide “ownership” culture by focusing employees’ attention on the employers’ financial
performance; create a pay-for-performance climate; foster pride of ownership; raise morale; encourage retention
of employees; attract new employees; and motivate front-line employees who interact with customers.
Starbucks’ experience provides insights into the power of stock options as a motivator. Their program
began in 1991. Each employee was awarded stock options worth 12 percent of his or her annual base pay. Every
October since then, high profits have allowed Starbucks to raise the grant to 14 percent of base pay. An employee
making $20,000 a year in 1991 could have recently cashed in his 1991 options alone for more than $70,000.
Starbucks’ management believes stock options allow employees to share both the ownership of the
company and the rewards of financial success. Management contends that it is working. The company’s CEO
says, “People started coming up with innovative ideas about how to cut costs, to increase sales, to create value.
Most important, they could speak to our customers from the heart, as partners in the business.”
This is based on “Starbucks’ Secret Weapon,” Fortune, September 29, 1997, p. 268; “Stock Options for the Ranks,” Business Week,
September 7, 1998, p. 22; and E. Ackerman, “Optionnaires, Beware!” U.S. News & World Report, March 6, 2000, pp. 36–38.
COUNTER POINT
Broad-based stock options sound terrific in theory. Motivation increases because employees see
themselves as owners, rather than merely workers. These options create the opportunity for moderately paid
employees to accumulate substantial savings. What is wrong with the theory? Several things.
First is the fact that options tend to be disproportionately allocated to managers. Because options are
typically distributed as a percent of base pay, managers get more of them because they make more money.
Senior executives also tend to get additional options based on company profitability or stock performance. This is
how someone like Gerald Levin, when he was CEO of AOL Time Warner, could make $152 million in one year
alone from his options. Such huge payoffs make the few thousand dollars a low level AOL Time Warner employee
gets from her options seem like “chump change.” This comparison is just as likely to anger or frustrate non-
managerial employees as it is to motivate them.
Second, stock options are poor motivators because they offer a weak link between employee effort and
rewards. How much impact can the average worker really have on the company’s stock price? Very little! The
decline in the price of high-tech stocks in 2000 and 2001 made a majority of stock options at these firms
worthless, yet this was a time when many employees of these high-tech firms were working harder than ever to
try to keep their companies alive.
Finally, stock options are great when a company is growing rapidly or during bull markets in stocks.
Starbucks’s plan proved very profitable for employees between 1991 and 2000 because the company grew
rapidly. Yet all companies are not growing, nor do stock markets go up forever. Stock options issued to
employees at companies like Cisco Systems, Amazon.com, Oracle, and eToys in the mid-1990s were essentially
worthless in the summer of 2002. When high-tech stocks imploded, so did thousands of employees’ dreams of
wealth and early retirement. Stock options may actually become demotivators when employees realize that they
are like a lottery, with very few big winners.
This is based on K. Capell, “Options for Everyone,” Business Week, July 22, 1996, pp. 80–84; P. Coy, “The Drawbacks of Stock-Option
Fever,” Business Week, December 13, 1999, p. 204; and D. Henry and M. Conlin, “Too Much of a Good Incentive?” Business Week, March 4,
2002, pp. 38–39.
158
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
Teaching notes
1. This exercise will take some outside class research. A finance colleague or business librarian can probably
help. [An easy source of this data is Valueline in your university library. It lists stock prices for ten years in
chart form.]
2. Place students in teams of three. Show the teams the following list of companies and either have them
choose a company based on wanting to work for it or assign them a company to research.
• General Motors
• Intel
• Atmel
• Pifzer
• Oracle
3. Have students research the stock price of these companies in 1993, 1998, and currently.
4. Have the students assume they were given five percent of their salary in stock each year. Set a base salary
for the entire class for an entry-level position at all the companies for your region. While the companies would
hire at different salary levels you need one level for the calculations to be comparable.
5. Students should now use this data to calculate how much their stock options would be worth today if they
started in 1990 or 1995.
6. Use their discoveries as a starting point for further discussion of this Point-CounterPoint.
7. What are the implications for the students’ career choices and the use of ESOPs?
Purpose: This exercise will help you learn how to write tangible, verifiable, measurable, and relevant goals as
might evolve from an MBO program.
Instructions:
1. Break into groups of three to five.
2. Spend a few minutes discussing your class instructor’s job. What does he or she do? What defines good
performance? What behaviors will lead to good performance?
3. Each group is to develop a list of five goals that, although not established participatively with your instructor,
you believe might be developed in an MBO program at your college. Try to select goals that seem most
critical to the effective performance of your instructor’s job.
4. Each group will select a leader who will share his or her group’s goals with the entire class. For each group’s
goals, class discussion should focus on their: (a) specificity, (b) ease of measurement, (c) importance, and (d)
motivational properties.
Teaching notes:
1. The exercise is self-explanatory.
2. Focus on the criteria in #4 first. Then correct any misperceptions students have of your job.
3. Use the discussion of any misperceptions to exemplify the difficulty of setting goals.
159
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
Critics have described the astronomical pay packages given to American CEO’s as “rampant greed.”
They note, for instance, that during the 1990s, corporate profits rose 108 percent. During this same period,
workers’ pay rose only 28 percent. Yet CEO pay rose 481 percent! In the year 2000, the average CEO of a major
American corporation made 531 times as much as the average factory worker. If the average production workers’
pay had increased at the same rate as CEO pay during this period, worker pay would be $110,399 today rather
than $29,267.
High levels of executive compensation seem to be widely spread in the United States. In 2000, for
instance, John Chambers of Cisco Systems took home $157.3 million; General Electric’s Jack Welch was paid
$122.6 million; and Coca-Cola’s Douglas Daft earned $91.7 million. These figures were for pay and exercised
stock options only. They do not include potentially hundreds of millions more from appreciated value of
unexercised stock options. Twenty-five years ago, an executive who earned a million dollars a year made
headlines. Now it’s “routine” for a senior executive at a large U.S. corporation to earn more than $1 million in
compensation.
How do you explain these astronomical pay packages? Some say this represents a classic economic
response to a situation in which the demand is great for high-quality top executive talent and the supply is low. Ira
Kay, a compensation consultant, says: “It is not fair to compare [executives] with hourly workers. Their market is
the global market for executives.” Other arguments in favor of paying executives $1 million a year or more are: the
need to compensate people for the tremendous responsibilities and stress that go with such jobs, the motivating
potential that seven- and eight-figure annual incomes provide to senior executives and those who might aspire to
be, the need to keep the best and the brightest in the corporate world rather than being enticed into investment
banking or venture capital firms, and the influence that senior executives have on a company’s bottom line.
Contrary to the global argument, executive pay is considerably higher in the United States than in most
other countries. In 1998, the most recent year for which data is available, American CEOs of industrial companies
with annual revenues of $250 million to $500 million made, on average, $1,072,400. Comparable figures for
Britain, France, Canada, Mexico, and Japan were, respectively, $645,540, $520,389, $498,118, $456,902, and
$420,855. All evidence suggests that this gap between American CEOs and those from other countries has only
grown since these data were calculated.
Critics of executive pay practices in the United States argue that CEOs choose board members whom
they can count on to support ever-increasing pay (including lucrative bonus and stock-option plans) for top
management. If board members fail to “play along,” they risk losing their positions, their fees, and the prestige and
power inherent in board membership. Is high compensation of U.S. executives a problem? If so, does the blame
for the problem lie with CEOs or with the shareholders and boards that knowingly allow the practice? Are
American CEO’s greedy? Are these CEO’s acting unethically? What do you think?
Source: Towers, Perrin, Worldwide Total Rewards 1998 (April 1998), p. 21; J. Greenfield, “Study Finds Inequities in CEO Pay, Worker Pay,
Profits,” The Working Stiff Journal, October 1999; L. Lavelle, “Executive Pay,” Business Week, April 16, 2001, pp. 76–80; and R. C.
Longworth, “CEO Pay 531 Times That of Workers; Study: Gap Grows Despite Downturn,” Chicago Tribune, August 28, 2001.
Teaching notes
160
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
CASE INCIDENT -- The 401(k) Blues
For Ted Sims, it was a double whammy. First, Sims had 60 percent of his 401(k) retirement account in his
employer’s stock, Lucent Technologies. Between 1996 and 1999, Lucent stock rose 10-fold to $80 a share,
boosting his retirement nest egg to about $70,000. Then the stock’s price collapsed. In the fall of 2001, his Lucent
“nest egg” was worth around $31,000. If that were not bad enough news, Sims lost his job in one of the many job
cuts Lucent made following the meltdown in the telecommunications industry in 2000.
Ted Sims is not alone in his suffering. He has plenty of sympathy from former Enron employees like Marie
Thibaut. She spent 15 years as an administrative assistant at Enron in Houston. She dutifully put 15 percent of
her salary into a 401(k) plan, investing the entire amount in the company’s stock. When the company collapsed in
the winter of 2000, so did the 61-year-old divorcee’s retirement plans. The value of her Enron stock, which had
been worth close to $500,000, dropped to just $22,000.
Having a majority of one’s retirement savings in an employer’s stock is no longer unusual. Procter &
Gamble, Coca-Cola, Dell Computer, and McDonald’s are all firms at which more than 70 percent of employees’
401(k) assets are held in company stock. The price of these companies’ shares fell between 21 percent and 56
percent from April 2000 to April 2001.
Thirty years ago, this issue was irrelevant. Then, most employers offered defined benefit pension plans.
So, for instance, an employee retired from AT&T at age 65, with 30 years of service, making $55,000 a year, and
the company provided him with a guaranteed annual pension of around $24,000 for the rest of his life. This
changed in the early-1980s, with the creation of 401(k) programs—retirement savings plans that are funded by
employee contributions and (often) matching contributions from the employer. Most employers dropped their
pension plans and replaced with them 401(k) programs. The major benefits of these programs, in addition to
allowing funds to grow tax-free until they are withdrawn, was that they could be carried from employer to employer
should a participant change jobs and they allowed the employee some discretion in how the funds were invested.
Today, approximately 80 percent of eligible American workers participate in 401(k)s.
While financial planners routinely advise against putting more than 10 percent of one’s portfolio in one
stock, millions of employees routinely invest a much larger portion of their 401(k) assets in their employer’s stock.
Currently, for instance, 41 percent of 401(k) assets are invested in the stock of participants’ employers. Why this
lack of diversification? There seem to be at least four reasons. First, many employers give matching contributions
only in company stock. Second, companies often set age or tenure requirements that employees must meet
before they can sell company stock from matching contributions. Third, many employees believe that because
they work at a company, they are in a better position to predict its stock performance. And fourth, employees often
feel that investing in their employer’s stock is a way of showing company loyalty.
As long as a company’s stock was appreciating rapidly, putting “all your eggs in one basket” proved to be
an effective strategy, but in times of economic uncertainty, when major corporations like IBM, Polaroid, Eastman
Kodak, and Gillette can have their stock prices drop by 50 percent or more, employees who have a
disproportionate amount of their 401(k) assets in their employer’s stock risk absorbing large declines in their
retirement funds. One 52-year-old AT&T employee summed up his experience this way: “I put my retirement
money in AT&T stock because I knew the company and its record of dependability. They did not call it Ma Bell for
nothing. Now I have watched my retirement assets decline by more than 65 percent. I had planned on retiring
early—at age 55. It’s looking more like at least 62 now.”
Questions:
1. Consider the effects of having 40 percent or more of an employee’s retirement funds in the company’s stock
on his or her work motivation.
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages for companies having the bulk of their employees’ 401(k) funds
tied up in the company’s stock?
3. What ethical implications, if any, are there in a company matching an employee’s retirement contribution with
company stock?
Source: This case is based on P. J. Lim, “The 401(k) Blues Have Some Investors Rethinking Strategy,” U.S. News &World Report, April 2,
2001, pp. 52–54; “Don’t Bank 401(k) on Employer’s Stock,” USA Today.com, August 4, 2000; and J. Kahn, “When 401(k)s are KO’d,” Fortune,
January 7, 2002, p. 104.
161
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
www.goto.com
www.google.com
www.excite.com
www.lycos.com
www.hotbot.com
www.looksmart.com
1. Paying up is hard to do! Should the organization choose a skill based pay plan or pay-for-
performance? Start by comparing the two then making a recommendation as to why one would
be preferable over the other. Go to http://www.hrzone.com/topics/skill_based_pay.html to learn
more about skilled based plans. Go to http://www.p-management.com/articles/9910.htm to
learn how St. Elizabeth Hospital in Boston implemented a pay-for-performance plan. If you
were to make a recommendation as to strategy would be the most effective, which would you
choose? Why? (Hint: it will have to be linked to a motivational theory). Write a one page
reaction paper discussing your views.
2. From quality circles to TQM, getting employees involved is not a simple venture. The website
http://www.govexec.com/reinvent/articles/0797fqg2.htm discusses this issue and why America
did not have the same success as Japan with the concept. Once you’ve read this page click on
one of the related stories (e.g. Death of TQM). Write a short summary of both pages—key
points only—that can be used during a discussion of TQM.
3. What do workers really think when a concept like participative management is introduced at the
workplace? Go to: http://www.joanlloyd.com/articles/open.asp?art=376.htm to read the
response “Joan at Work” gave to an engineer who just wants to do a good job. Do you agree
with her assessment of why workers act as they do? What should management do to ease the
transition from the “old” way to the “new” way? Write a short (one page) paper offering your
ideas and bring to class.
4. What do worker’s want? Money? Probably, but other things too. Go to About.com to read an
assessment of what workers want at:
http://humanresources.about.com/library/weekly/aa083002a.htm
Write your own assessment of what motivational theories are at play in this article—just a
paragraph or two. Bring your assessment and the article to class for a group discussion.
5. Now that employees are participating, the next step is ownership, or ESOPs. Read about how
that can happen at http://www.nceo.org/library/growth.html . Do you think this is a good idea
for employees? Why or Why not. Write a short journal entry on the topic.
6. Self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-respect and self-actualization. Learn more about these terms
and how employers can foster these concepts in their employees at:
http://humanresources.about.com/library/weekly/aa081301a.htm
Write a journal entry or short paper about when you experienced an environment that
encouraged you to develop your potential. For example, it could be when you were involved in
an arts program, writing clinic, a club, a sports team, a class, etc. What motivated you when
you felt discouraged (or where simply tired and did not want to go that day)? Who was the
162
Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Seven
“coach” who encouraged you, and how important of a role did that person have in your
success? What did you learn about yourself in the process? Do these skills transfer to other
areas of your life?
163