Question One
In very pragmatic terms, Dick Solomon’s approach to the waitress reflects Expectancy Theory, certainly in regard to how he is setting the parameters by which she may be guided. The theory is largely about choice processes made by understanding determinants, and Dick neatly presents a simple set of these. The bills are, in essence, the agents representing outcome, and the waitress is then presented with a succession of choices. It is important to note that her actual levels of expectancy are within her framework of choice; more exactly, she may at any moment determine that the process is demeaning to her, as she may attempt to comply and then choose to refrain. This power within the waitress interestingly eclipses Dick’s own, and this is why his strategy is flawed. He may only “expect” the result he desires, which is perfect service, if she is willing to participate because her own expectations are fixed on the reward. Dick is relying on the desirability of the cash as generating the necessary response, which ignores the waitress’s potential to disregard the motivation.
More relevant here is Goal Setting Theory, one amply validated by the limitation of the money as the chief motivating agent for the waitress. Dick is literally setting out stages of goals which, if the waitress behaves with the typical incentive of wanting to earn more, will work perfectly to motivate her. As it happens, the process works and the waitress seeks to comply. What is interesting, however, is that what works to make the theory successful also has the potential to undermine it. As the goal for the waitress is focused on only the increase in cash, Dick essentially ignores the other elements of the experience that would make it a desirable one. Not only does he antagonize and upset his date by these actions, he also robs the waitress of any other incentive to serve them well. Put another way, and while the strict goal setting mechanism here works, it may only work to a degree.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Motivation: Dick Learns about Tipping".
Question Two
If Dick’s object is to motivate the waitress into providing excellent service, Equity Theory is likely to serve his needs well. This may seem at odds with the inherently mercenary nature of the circumstance; tipped well or not, the waitress is there because she is paid to serve, as Dick must pay to occupy the table and eat. Human interactions are, however, typically defined by these commercial exchanges, and the economic element does nothing to invalidate Equity Theory in this instance. First of all, the equity component would exist in the tacit understanding between Dick and the waitress that, as per custom, her good service will gain for her a good tip. This is an arrangement of justice, so to speak, which should motivate both participants fully. A balance is in place, it is understood, and Dick’s behaving properly would all the more reinforce the existence of the equity to the waitress.
While it is evident that this theory relies too much on supposition to satisfy Dick, it is equally likely that minimal reflection on his part, particularly once his ritual is engaged in, would indicate the value of it to him. More exactly, by behaving in terms of Equity Theory, he would not generate the anxiety in the waitress likely to result in mistakes. In trusting to the understood balance of the situation, he would relieve himself of the burden of relentlessly monitoring the progress. His objective is to relax and enjoy a meal, a goal less prone to be realized through an incessant exercise of control. Were he genuinely relaxed, conversely, it is probable that the waitress would feel less stress and perform her work more to his liking. Lastly, and by no means insignificantly, Dick’s failure to comprehend the value of Equity Theory here translates into upsetting his companion. Equity Theory is very much about a reliance on perceptions regarding expectations of fairness. If this is initially unacceptable to Dick as an insufficient guarantee of service, he should consider the “bigger picture” and understand how, in certain situations, tacit understanding generates the most desirable results for all.
Question Three
With regard to Harry and Tommy panhandling outside of the fast food restaurant, it seems that Equity Theory fully supports their actions. Given that the two are not in any way constricted by societal norms, they perceive only a basic situation: people who extend cups and ask for money get money. This is a process that validates itself, and validates the equity of its own mechanics; the money would not be given if those providing it were not able to contribute, or if those people had reasons for feeling such actions to be unfair. Then, Harry and Tommy certainly consider it “equitable” that they gain money. If others are giving it, it is reasonable to assume that they have an excess not possessed by Harry and Tommy. In their eyes, Equity Theory is in play chiefly because the activity could not occur otherwise.
Similarly, and even more plainly, Reinforcement Theory could be said to be the primary motivation of the men. In a sense, this theory is removed from Equity because it is concerned only with external actions and reactions. The former generates the latter, and a process inherently dependable is set up. Harry and Tommy hold out cups and call for money, and change is thrown into the cups. The actions are successful so the behavior is fully reinforced. As they express to Dick later, in fact, they have no reason to not so proceed, because the compliance of the others virtually demands that they continue in asking. Reinforcement Theory is somewhat Pavlovian; it is based on reward, which is validation. That it is not concerned with internal issues renders it all the more explicable to beings whose behavior can only be guided by actions and results.
