MGMT 591 Final Project Part 3

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

MGMT 591

Citation preview

Social Security AdministrationOffice of Disability Adjudication and Review

Leadership and Organizational BehaviorFinal Project

MGMT591: Leadership and Organizational BehaviorProfessor; Michael Carr

Introduction2Background of the SSA (Social Security Administration)2Overview of Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR)2My Role as a Senior Case Technician for the ODAR3Problem Statement4Literature Review7Analysis11Solutions12Reflection14Conclusion15References17

Introduction

Background of the Social Security Administration

The Social Security Administration was created as a result of the passing of the Social Security Act, which was signed by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935 (Historical Background, 2012). It is the main income security agency of the United Sates (Social Security, 2012). It aims to promote the economic security of the nations people through compassionate and vigilant leadership in shaping and managing Americas Social Security programs (Osterweil et al., 2007, p. 14). It has the mission of alleviating poverty and economic insecurity (Osterweil et al., 2007). In particular, the SSA administers the Federal retirement, survivors, and disability insurance programs, as well as the program of supplemental security income (SSI) for the aged, blind and disabled, and performs certain functions with respect to the black lung benefits program. (Social Security, 2012)

Overview of Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR)

I currently work for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in Orland Park, Illinois, as a Senior Case Technician. This office employs 80 people and is one of the key SSA offices that is responsible for processing disability claims (Bertoni, 2010). It is specifically in charge of conducting hearings for previously denied disability claims. It serves as the final level of administrative review under the Administrative Procedure Act for disability claims (Bertoni, 2010, p. 7).

My Role as a Senior Case Technician for the ODAR

At ODAR, I work as a Senior Case Technician. I am responsible for providing technical and legal support to the Administrative Law-Judges and other professional and technical officials that are responsible for processing and making decisions on cases with regards to claimants entitlement of benefits. I am responsible for developing and processing hearing cases from when theyre filed in the office until they are completed. In addition, I am responsible for independently conducting various types of case development actions. My responsibilities also include the processing of complex cases where I analyze and interpret the issues with regards to the guidelines, procedures, policies, precedents, rulings, regulations, and the provisions of the law. These are performed with the goal of examining medical and legal documentary evidence and other supporting documents for the determination of how a case is to proceed. The results of the work I do is determinant on whether Social Security claimants will receive the benefits theyre entitled to under the Social Security.I have worked for this office for over two years, and the main issues I have witnessed are related to poor performance due to the lack of employee motivation. The reward system that is in place now is perceived to be unfair and biased.

Problem Statement

This paper seeks answers to the question of how employees performance in the workplace can be improved. The employees poor performance and decreased productivity levels are growing problems within the agency, which I believe negatively affect not only the agency and the employees, but mainly the claimants. In my opinion, about 35% of the employees are performing at a minimum or even less than the minimum level required. Employees often spend too much time chit-chatting with each other and also take longer breaks than the allotted time. In addition, they spend too much time surfing the Internet and shopping in the nearby mall even during office hours.The claimants are the ones who suffer the most from this poor performance. Since our office is responsible for reviewing the cases of claimants who have been initially denied their claims and have decided to appeal, it is the job of the ODAR employees to prepare these claimants cases so that the judges can make a decision and so that the attorneys can review their claimants cases online. The ODAR employees are required to complete and prepare at least 30 cases per month in addition to other responsibilities. Unfortunately, many of these cases are incorrectly prepared, which causes a problem for the Senior Case Technician who is assigned to the judge, as he or she is responsible for correcting those cases and for obtaining the medical evidence, school records, and, in some instances, the records from correctional institutions for the non-represented claimants. In addition, the employees who are responsible for preparing those cases do not review their work as they are often busy doing things unrelated to work. They also often neglect to review and exhibit the additional documents that are related to a case, which in turn prevents attorneys from accessing submitted documents online.The employees inefficient use of their time and their lack of diligence with their work often cause the incorrect preparation of the cases, which in turn results in claimants having to wait longer for the judges final decision. Missing evidences or records and other information for particular cases need to be obtained by the Senior Case Technician who may not be aware of such facts until approximately a month prior to the hearing. This causes delays. The same problem occurs with some attorneys. If an attorney is unaware of the fact that a case is ready for review, he or she will usually not request evidence until he or she receives notice of the hearing, which is about 20 days prior to the hearing. However, by this time, the negligent attorneys would be unable to submit all of the outstanding evidence because it usually takes 30 to 60 days for the medical facilities, schools, or correctional institutions to provide the requested evidence. Some attorneys supply the evidence themselves prior to the hearing but some are just as irresponsible as some of the ODAR employees. In addition, an attorneys compensation is paid upon a granted favorable decision. Certain attorneys refuse to pay for a claimants records when theres a possibility for their services to not be compensated due to an unfavorable decision. In these cases, the same attorneys usually claim that theyre unable to retrieve the evidence themselves despite their efforts; therefore, they request ODAR to obtain and pay for the records if the claimant cannot pay for such themselves. Despite management asking the ODAR employees to keep track of such instances in order to enable an investigation of the irregularities, some of the ODAR employees fail to do so as they often slack around. In addition, certain employees are allowed to slack around because of their connections. Also, the influence that some of the employees have enables them to get promoted to higher positions even when they perform poorly and inefficiently. With that being said, employee morale decreases, which also leads to decreased productivity and an unpleasant atmosphere among the employees and the members of the management team. Although the agency has a collaborative and friendly culture where employees can easily approach their managers and leaders at any time, the employees seem to be unmotivated to perform well at their jobs. The SSA provides its employees with great benefits such as multiple health insurance programs, flexible time, and sick, annual, and family leaves, which are immediately available upon unscheduled time off. In addition, SSA provides its employees with subsidized public transportation, student loans, forgiveness programs, continuous training courses, job security, and many others. Despite all these benefits, the employees are still not motivated to perform. These benefits and privileges are often abused. To add to the problem, management does not seem to be doing anything to correct such behaviors and to implement some form of corrective action in order to make sure that everybody is performing their tasks as expected. This indifference on the part of management can be attributed to the strong employee union. However, this lack of authority and control over the employees performance not only leads to delays in the processing of the claimants benefits, but they also lead to financial losses on the part of the SSA, which are essentially the tax payers money. In addition, the unfair treatment and unequal opportunities provided by management to the employees lead to their disgruntlement. Literature Review

Motivation pertains to the forces that determine or influence the level, persistence, and direction of effort that a person exerts at work (Schermerhorn, Osborn, Uhl-Bien & Hunt, 2012). Direction refers to the persons choice from a given set of alternatives, level refers to the amount of effort exerted, and persistence refers to the duration by which a person sticks to a particular action (Schermerhorn et al., 2012). There are many theories that suggest the factors that motivate people. While none of them on their own offer a complete understanding of what motivates people, they all offer some insight on the various things that promotes motivation, which can be used for increasing the level of job performance. In particular, these motivation theories include the Hierarchy of Needs Theory, the ERG Theory, the Acquired Needs Theory, the Two Factors Theory, the Equity Theory, the Expectancy Theory, and the Goal Setting Theory of Motivation (Schermerhorn et al., 2012).A common element in many of these theories of motivation is the use of rewards as a motivating factor. For example, in the Hierarchy of Needs Theory, the fulfillment of the higher order needs for esteem and self-actualization can be considered intrinsic rewards just as the fulfillment of the Growth Needs is in the ERG theory and the fulfillment of the need for achievement and the need for power in the Acquired Needs theory are also considered intrinsic rewards.In the Two Factor Theory, rewards and recognition are considered as promoting job satisfaction, which in turn results in employee motivation. On the other hand, according to the Equity Theory, people are motivated to eliminate a perceived inequity in the rewards that they receive compared to those that are received by others. Also, the Expectancy Theory implies that employees are motivated to work because they expect to be rewarded for the work that they do where the rewards they expect to receive are commensurate to the level of performance that they show.It is then obvious that rewards, both intrinsic and extrinsic, serve as important motivating factors within the workplace. Thomas (2009) suggests that the four intrinsic rewards that motivate employees are commitment to a meaningful purpose, the capability to choose the best way for fulfilling that purpose, the ability to competently perform work activities, and the assurance that progress is being made towards the achievement of the purpose. In the same regard, Chaneta (2011) asserted that routine and less challenging work tasks could result in reduced motivation among employees and that companies should strive to make the work more satisfying through the addition of more meaningful tasks to the workers job. This leads to feelings of self-fulfillment and self-esteem, in turn leading to long-term satisfaction and a high level of performance. Also, a study conducted by Pinto (2011) showed that extrinsic rewards, which include wage levels, do not have a significant influence on the satisfaction and motivation of the recipients who were already highly motivated at their jobs. The study showed that the only group where motivation had a significant dependency on real wages was the group of recipients who were paid the lowest wages (Pinto, 2011). Likewise, the findings of Benabou & Tirole (2003) suggested that extrinsic rewards can adversely impact an employees perception of their work task or of their own abilities. Benabou and Triole (2003) concluded that extrinsic rewards served as weak reinforces in the short term, but can become negative enforcers in the long term. On the other hand, Zingheim & Schuster (2001) assert that companies should go beyond providing employees with perquisites and benefits. Instead, they suggest that companies must emphasize workforce results, performance, metrics, expectations communications, active career tracks and win-win reward solution (Zingheim & Schuster, 2001, p. 30) that allow both the company and the employees to benefit. However, while pay-for-performance is successfully employed in the private sector, Weibel, Rost & Osterloh (2010) claims that it has moderate success in the public sector because it reduces the intrinsic motivation among highly motivated employees and public funding is limited. It may lead to the selection of the wrong types of employees, and the measurement of multitasked activities can be difficult, considering that the public sector delivers complex products and services, examples of which are good education and good health. On the other hand, the researchers claim that a pay-for-performance reward system can potentially improve performance in the public sector for employees who are involved in less interesting tasks or those tasks dont require a high investment in policy expertise (Weibel, Rost & Osterloh, 2010). In other words, lower level employees of public administration are more likely to find their job less interesting than managers in the public service and therefore, might be valid candidates for pay for performance (Weibel, Rost & Osterloh, 2010, p. 405). As their tasks are not as extrinsically rewarding as those of the managers and other superiors, pay-for-performance can significantly improve their extrinsic motivation for these tasks without the risk of destroying a significant amount of their intrinsic motivation. In addition, these employees tasks are easier to measure compared to the complex tasks that the managers have.The Hawthorne studies, which were conducted by Mayo and his colleagues (Latham, 2006), showed that employee motivation, satisfaction, and productivity were interrelated. (Latham, 2006) suggested that motivation and employee performance were related in that high levels of productivity resulted from positive attitudes. Furthermore, in a study conducted by Campbell (2007), it was found that goal setting, extrinsic motivations, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction increased job performance.

Analysis

The problem my colleagues and I experience at the ODAR shows how the Equity theory (Schermerhorn et al., 2012) applies in getting employees to be motivated or unmotivated. In particular, the Equity theory states that people are motivated to perform well in order to reduce the inequity in the rewards they receive compared to the rewards received by others where the type or amount of work done is perceived to be the same. This theory states that employees who perceive that they are rewarded less than their coworkers for doing a similar type of work tend to have a decreased level of performance. Those who perceive that they are getting rewarded more than others for doing the same type of work tend to have an increased level of performance. In the case of the ODAR employees, employee morale and productivity decrease because of the employees perception that those who perform poorly are the ones getting promoted while those who perform well are being overlooked when it comes to promotions, that is, the employees who work less are rewarded more.The Expectancy theory states that employees are motivated to work based on their belief that good performance will be rewarded. At ODAR, this can be applied to employees who believe that they wont be rewarded for good performance anyway, so they no longer bother doing more than what is required. In addition, they believe that they would receive the same benefits as the others regardless of their performance so they only give the minimum effort needed. The Two-factor theory can be applied to hygienic factors such as organizational policy and the quality of supervision cause dissatisfaction, which in turn causes a decreased level of performance.The employees perceptions about inequity, expectations, and the organizational policies can be addressed through the implementation of a performance-based management system, which is a tool used for measuring and rewarding performance (Campbell, 2012). Performance management, in particular, refers to a process that involves an organization using its employees as part of the team to improve organizational effectiveness in establishing and comparing the vision, goals, mission, and strategy (Campbell, 2012, p. 4).In addition, as implied by the studies of Thomas (2009) and Chaneta (2011), intrinsic rewards play a more significant role in motivating employees. However, since the ODAR employees who perform well are not being recognized for their good work, their needs for intrinsic rewards such as self-esteem and self-actualization are not fulfilled, which leads to decreased motivation. Although the ODAR employees enjoy a comprehensive benefit package, the studies of Pinto (2011) and Benabou & Tirole (2003) showed that extrinsic rewards such as these benefits can undermine intrinsic motivation, which again leads to decreased motivation. However, as suggested by Weibel, Rost & Osterloh (2010), employees in the public sector whose tasks are not very intrinsically rewarding may benefit from extrinsic rewards to enhance their motivation. As it is the employees are not rewarded for their good performance, they get neither intrinsically nor extrinsically rewarded.

Solutions

Three of the solutions I would propose are the inclusion of a 360-degree evaluation in the employees performance appraisal, the inclusion of penalties for undesired behavior in the agencys code of conduct, as well as providing the managers with the authority to monitor such behaviors. The implementation of a pay-for-performance rewards system, which will be based on performance metrics and which will become the basis for career advancement.The advantage of including a 360-degree evaluation in the employees performance will be reduce, if not eliminate, the bias hat supervisors and judges have when evaluating their favorite employees. With a 360-degree evaluation, the employees colleagues will have a chance to provide feedback on the employees performance, which will hopefully lead to a more objective appraisal of the employees performance. On the other hand, its disadvantage is that it may be too costly to implement as it would require the agency to purchase a software application that the employees can use to perform the 360-degree evaluation.The monitoring and penalizing of the employees undesired behavior (e.g. chit-chatting or taking extra-long breaks) would mean that the managers and the employees should observe and monitor their colleagues behavior and report any undesired behavior. The advantage of this is that it may reduce the instances of these behaviors. However, the disadvantage is the result in the managers micro-managing, which will eventually lead to employee dissatisfaction. It might also cause friction among the employees and between the employees and the managers. In addition, penalties can only curtail the bad behaviors but will not necessarily increase the employees motivation.Finally, a pay-for-performance rewards system will involve performance metrics where the employees performance appraisal will be based on those metrics. These metrics, will be the basis for determining whether the employee is qualified for a job promotion. The advantage of a pay-for-performance rewards system is that since ODAR employees dont have a very intrinsically rewarding job, their motivation may be increased by providing them with extrinsic rewards, as suggested by Weibel, Rost & Osterloh (2010) and by providing them with clearly defined opportunities for advancing in their careers, which would also promote intrinsic motivation. Since ODAR employees essentially perform routine tasks, it would be easy to create performance metrics. Examples would be the number of cases completed in a month and the number of errors made in those cases. On the other hand, its disadvantage is that a pay-for-performance rewards system might be costly to implement and may require additional work for the managers and the other superiors. However, this would be my most preferred solution as this will prevent the poor performers from getting rewarded and will allow the good performers to be duly recognized.Reflection

Writing this paper enabled me to get a better understanding of why my coworkers behave as they do and why they slack around. People do not have the same levels of motivation, such that while I continue to be motivated to perform well at my job, the rewards system that the agency employs has probably greatly demotivated my colleagues. As a matter of fact, even I am beginning to question whether theres any use for me to continue performing well when I know that in the end, I might not be accordingly recognized and rewarded for it.This has also made me realize that an organizations culture does have an impact on organizational behavior, particularly on the employees behavior. Since the culture of the agency I work for rewards poor performance, it is then no wonder that most of my coworkers perform poorly. It has come to the point where poor performance or slacking around is perceived as normal behavior within the agency and not as an issue to be concerned about. Although I have been trying hard to make my voice heard with regards to the performance issues through conversations with my superiors, I have come to realize that positive change can only occur if it is initiated and supported by upper management and cascaded to the lower levels of the organization rather than the other way around.

Conclusion

It was discussed in this paper how poor performance is a prevalent issue at the SSA, particularly at the ODAR. It was discussed that these performance issues were rooted in the lack of motivation among the employees. As the Equity theory of motivation states, the ODAR employees are demotivated because of their perception that others are getting rewarded more for the same or even a lower level of performance. Similarly, as the Expectancy theory proposed, ODAR employees also felt that they won't get the reward they expect even if they work hard, so they feel that it would be futile to perform well. Also, as the Two-factor theory indicated, hygienic factors such as the organizational policy and the quality of supervision led to employee dissatisfaction. In particular, there was a perception that organizational policies were being disregarded in favor of personal relations when it comes to job promotions. Because the employees' good performances are not being recognized, their intrinsic needs are not met and although the ODAR employees have a good benefit package, these extrinsic rewards only serve to undermine the employees' intrinsic motivation.Three solutions were proposed to solve the performance issues among ODAR employees. These are the inclusion of a 360-degree evaluation in the employees' performance appraisal, the monitoring and penalizing of the employees' undesired behavior, and the implementation of a pay-for-performance rewards system. The pay-for-performance rewards system would be the best solution of the three.This paper ends with a reflection that the ineffective and quite anomalous rewards system employed by the SSA, particularly by ODAR, causes the lack of motivation among the employees because of the employees' perception that poor performance is the norm and that poor performers are rewarded. In addition, I came to a realization of just how important the support of senior management is when it comes to organizational change and organizational behavior. When a senior management truly supports and advocates for such initiatives than changes will be carried out successfully.

References

Benabou, R. & Tirole, J. (2003, July). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Review of Economic Studies, 70 (3), 489-520.Bertoni, D. (2010). Social Security disability: Additional performance measures and better costestimates could help improve SSA's efforts to eliminate its hearings backlog. Washington, DC: DIANE Publishing.Chaneta, I. (2011). Spurring workers performance at work-place through job design. Journal of Comprehensive Research, 8, 22-32.Historical background and development of Social Security. (2012, May 16). Retrieved from http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.htmlOsterweil, L., Millet, L. I., Winston, J. D. & National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Social Security Administration's E-Government Strategy and Planning for the Future.(2007). Social Security Administration electronic service provision: A strategicassessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Pinto, E. P. (2011, September). The influence of wage on motivation and satisfaction. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 10 (9), 81-92.Social Security. (2012). SSA organizational manual: Subchapter S: Social Security Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ssa.gov/org/orgoc.htm.Thomas, K. W. (2009, December). The four intrinsic rewards that drive employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal, 73 (6), 1-6.Weibel, A., Rost, K. & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sectorBenefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (2), 387-412.Zingheim, P. K. & Schuster, J. R. (2001). Creating a powerful customized workplace reward brand. Compensation Benefits Review, 33 (6), 30-33.

2