Motvation

helpful individual, and others viewed his work as being inconsistence and spotty at times. Rios is required to submit a formal performance evaluation on all of her workers, and Barlow's performance appraisal was the most challenging yet she had to face. Lack of Motivation Barlow's behavior at the TA can be simply defined as lack of motivation, and this can be further explained in depth by the use of expectancy theory. The expectancy model states, "People are motivated to work when they expect to achieve things they want from their jobs. A basic premise of the expectancy model is that employees are rational people. They think about what they have to do to be rewarded and how much the rewards mean to them before they perform their jobs." (Hellriegel, Slocum, Woodman, 2001, p.146) In addition, Hellriegel, Slocum, and Woodman also explained, individuals decide their jobs that are based on their needs, motivations and past experiences. Decisions about how much to produce, how much to work and the quality of workmanship (job-performance decisions) are solely depend on the individual's level of motivation. In another words, as it stated in the text, "the expectancy model holds that work motivation is determined by individual beliefs regarding effort-performance relationships and the desirability of various work outcomes associated with different performance levelsÐ'...Unless an individual believes that effort lead to some desired performance level, he or she will not make much of an effort. " (Hellriegel, Slocum, Woodman, 2001, p.147) In relation to Barlow, he could not find a reason to be motivated at the TA. First, through his past performance evaluation, he had been rated a score of three consecutively for the past four years. The scores were a punishment itself because he had no way to determine his performance. Regardless Barlow performed well or not, the same score will be given; this caused Barlow to become careless about his job because he saw no reward in his effort; no reason be to motivated. His attitude toward his job was manifest through his work, which was the cause of the incidents. Secondly, Barlow saw no reward from his position. He had secured his position with his expertise and his background knowledge of the TA. When the whistle-blower incident occurred, he was accused of being responsible for the incident; however, neither the TA nor anyone could prove it. Because of this, the TA felt intimated by Barlow's action, hence, granted Barlow with coercive power. Coercive power is an individual's ability to influence others' behavior by punishing their undesirable behavior as defined in Hellriegel, Slocum, Woodman (2001). In addition, Barlow had proven his expertise through his knowledge, and connection through his network. This also grant him them expert power, which is defined as one's ability to influence other's behavior because of competencies, talent, and specialized knowledge in Hellriegel, Slocum, Woodman (2001). Because the powers that he already obtained, Barlow seek no interest in power as a reward; therefore, Barlow was low on motivation. TA vs. Barlow Barlow's lack of motivation had caused the TA to conflict with its goal as well. One of the main goals the TA was to improve its relation with the field offices. This goal was being under met because its accounting department was operating inefficiently. The inefficiency was due to Barlow's attitude toward his work, which was reflected upon his work. A problem exists when the Toll AuthorityÐ''s objective was not accomplished. TA had a goal to operate a smooth efficient operation. To achieve this goal, TA had to improve its relations with the field offices,