Managing Moral Motivations

Firms confront three problems: (1) shirking (sub-optimal provision of effort), (2) smooth transfer of knowledge, and (3) eliciting new knowledge. The motivations possessed by firm members are four: (a) instrumental rationality (i.e., self-interest), (b) moral motivations and integrity, (c) intrinsic motivations, and (d) fairness motivations. The trick for the firm is to manage motivations in a way that solves its particular problems. The purpose of this paper is to provide the foundations for moral motivations and moral integrity, and to discuss the kinds of problems that they can and cannot solve, particularly in context of the complex motivational mix.

The Problem with Utility: Towards a Non-Consequentialist / Utility Theory Synthesis

I develop the argument that our current decision-making framework, utility theory, when used by itself, is 1) descriptively incomplete, 2) theoretically flawed, and 2) ethically questionable. In response, I offer an exploratory framework that incorporates both consequentialist and non-consequentialist motivations. Adding a commitment function provides a synthesis which remedies the problems associated with the sole use of utility theory. Finally, I show how philosophers Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross, and Martin Buber provide an ethical basis for the framework.

Shirking and Motivation in Firms: Survey Evidence on Worker Attitudes

In an extensive national survey, 82.7% of the respondents report that they are very likely to keep an agreement to work hard if they agreed to, even if it was almost impossible for their employer to monitor them. Based on mean responses, the rank order of motivations in descending importance is: moral, intrinsic, peer-pressure, and positive incentives. Respondents also report that fairness considerations are important and that they are especially likely to keep agreements to do a good job with honest employers. Logit analysis indicates that increases in moral and intrinsic motivations increase the likelihood of keeping agreements to provide effort. The evidence suggests that we need to re-examine a foundational assumption underlying the theory of the firm.

What Happens in the Links? Framing Judgment in Context

Scholars of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales have focused much of their research on the interpretation of individual tales in the collection. The meaning behind these tales is clearly important to the work as a whole, as the Tales discuss grand themes that run throughout human life. The choice of themes and arguments in each pilgrim’s tale can also reflect back on the pilgrim’s own motivations and ideas. However, in searching for some greater meaning for Chaucer’s collection, it is important not to leave out the framework within which the tales exist. The links that join the tales to one another, arguably the portions of the piece that are the most original to Chaucer, do not always receive the same kind of attention that is focused on the most popular tales. In a work that is so complex, with its layered narration and interactions between tale and teller, the tales cannot possibly stand on their own, containing all of the meaning behind the work. The links have the potential to be particularly revealing in terms of how the audience should read the entire story of Chaucer’s Canterbury pilgrimage, because they ground the tales in specific circumstances.