Ôn thi Môn Organizational behavior | Đại học Kinh Tế Quốc Dân

lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
🔥 **Case Study 1 – Conflict and Negotiation: “Two Leaders, One Project”** Background:
BrightWave Media is launching a major marketing campaign for a prestigious cosmetics brand.
The project requires close collaboration between two key departments: **Content** and **Creative Design**.
Minh, the content team leader, is experienced in messaging and branding. Vy, the creative
lead, is known for award-winning designs and visual innovation. Although both are highly
competent, their working styles and priorities differ greatly. Conflict:
At the first joint meeting, tensions emerged. Minh insisted that a strong brand message is the
core of the campaign’s success. Vy argued that in the cosmetics industry, visual appeal is the
main factor for consumer engagement. The meeting ran over time with both sides firmly defending their views.
Vy criticized Minh’s proposed content as “too text-heavy and unsuitable for short-form videos.”
Minh, in return, claimed that Vy’s visuals “lacked strategic focus.” Afterward, communication
between the two teams broke down—members refused to revise their work based on feedback from the other side.
Project timelines started slipping. Team morale dropped, and some employees began skipping
joint meetings. The department head overseeing both teams asked Minh and Vy to resolve
the conflict independently before any formal intervention. Discussion Questions:
1. Identify the type(s) of conflict present in this situation. Justify your answer.
This case il ustrates three main types of conflict: task conflict, process conflict, and
emerging interpersonal conflict.
● The task conflict: It stems from Minh and Vy’s opposing views on what should be
prioritized in the campaign. Minh emphasizes brand messaging as the foundation of
success, while Vy argues that visual appeal is paramount (tối quan trọng) in the
cosmetics industry. Their disagreement is strategic in nature, centering on the campaign’s direction.
● Process conflict: The breakdown in communication and refusal to accept feedback
between the teams have disrupted the workflow. Both sides have become inflexible,
results are “Project timelines started slipping, Team morale dropped, and some
employees began skipping joint meetings”
● Interpersonal conflict: The language used in the meeting—such as “too text-heavy”
and “lacked strategic focus”—hints at the development of interpersonal tension. While
not overtly personal, these comments suggest diminishing respect, which can quickly
evolve into more severe relational conflict if left unaddressed. lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
2. Evaluate Minh and Vy’s approaches using **distributive vs. integrative negotiation** concepts.
Minh and Vy’s negotiation approach can be characterized as distributive rather than
integrative. Both leaders are defending their own interests as though the campaign’s success
depends solely on either content or design, rather than acknowledging the potential for
synergy (sự hiệp lực). Minh believes content is the most important part of the campaign, while
Vy focuses on visuals. This kind of negotiation is competitive—one side wins, the other loses.
They are not sharing information or trying to understand each other’s ideas. In contrast, an
integrative negotiation would involve both sides listening to each other, finding common
goals, and creating a campaign that uses both strong content and attractive visuals. Because
they are only defending their positions, they are stuck in a conflict and not making progress.
● Minh and Vy are engaging in distributive negotiation:
○ Each leader defends their own area as more important to campaign success.
○ Feedback is seen as criticism rather than input.
○ No attempt is made to understand the other’s underlying interests or find synergy.
➡ Example: Minh defends content volume; Vy dismisses it as unsuitable, without exploring
how content could be visual y adapted.
● Lack of integrative negotiation:
○ No shared problem-solving.
○ No effort to combine strong messaging with visual storytelling.
○ Communication has broken down, so trust and openness are minimal.
3. As a neutral consultant, suggest **three specific solutions** to help them move forward.
1. Align on Shared Goals Through a Facilitated Meeting (Thống nhất mục tiêu chung chiến dịch)
A neutral facilitator should organize a meeting where Minh and Vy discuss what success looks
like for the campaign. Instead of debating whether content or visuals matter more, they should
agree on common objectives—such as increasing brand awareness, improving customer
engagement, and achieving strong sales. This wil help both sides see that their work supports
the same end goal, making collaboration easier.
2. Run a Joint Creative Workshop (workshop hợp tác sáng tạo) lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
The two teams should participate in a short creative workshop or “design sprint,” where they
brainstorm and build campaign ideas together. In this setting, content and visuals are
developed at the same time, with immediate feedback from both sides. For example, Minh’s
team could suggest a key message, and Vy’s team could instantly explore how to express it
visual y. This hands-on, real-time process encourages cooperation and helps both teams
understand each other’s strengths.
3. Appoint a Project Coordinator to Oversee Integration
To prevent further miscommunication, a neutral project coordinator should be assigned to
manage the collaboration between the two teams. This person should understand both content
and design well enough to connect ideas and manage feedback. They would help make
decisions, keep track of deadlines, and make sure that both teams are contributing equal y to
the final product. Having a central point of coordination can reduce confusion and create a smoother workflow.
4. Should the department head have intervened earlier? Why or why not?
The department head should have intervened earlier to prevent the situation from deteriorating
(xấu đi). While encouraging Minh and Vy to resolve their differences independently can
promote leadership accountability and problem-solving skil s, the signs of breakdown—missed
deadlines, low morale, and skipped meetings—indicated that the conflict had already begun
to disrupt team functioning. Early intervention, even in the form of facilitation or neutral
mediation, could have helped de-escalate (giảm leo thang) tensions and guide both leaders
toward a more integrative approach. Waiting until communication collapsed allowed the
conflict to become entrenched and harder to resolve. While autonomy is important, leaders
also need timely support, especially when their disagreement begins to affect overall project
outcomes. Therefore, a proactive approach by the department head would have been more
effective in maintaining project continuity and team morale. ---
🤝 **Case Study 2 – Teamwork: “The Invisible Contributor”** Background:
MBA students in Delta Business School are required to complete a team-based strategic
analysis for their final grade. Team A consists of five randomly assigned members: Dũng, An, Lan, Mai, and Hùng.
At the start, the team agreed on regular virtual meetings and clear task divisions. However,
Hùng—a returning international student—rarely attended meetings, responded to messages
late, and only submitted work right before deadlines. He was passive during discussions, often
saying, “I’m busy, just go ahead without me.” lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420 Problem:
Despite these issues, the team scored highly for their final presentation. The professor praised
their depth of analysis. Afterward, An proposed informing the professor to **adjust Hùng’s
individual score**, citing his lack of contribution.
Lan hesitated: “Do we really have proof? Maybe he had family issues.” Mai argued: “If we let
this slide, others might do the same in the future.” Discussion Questions:
1. What are the **team norm and role-related problems** in this case?
The main team norm problem in this case is the lack of accountability. Although the
group initially agreed on regular meetings and clear task division, they failed to enforce these
norms consistently when Hùng did not participate. Al owing Hùng to skip meetings and deliver
work at the last minute without consequences weakened the team’s expectations around
responsibility and engagement. Role-related issues also emerged, as Hùng did not fulfil his
implied role as an active contributor. In effective teams, each member is expected to take
ownership of tasks and communicate regularly. Hùng’s repeated absence and passive
attitude—evidenced by phrases like “just go ahead without me”—left the rest of the group to
compensate (làm bù), creating role imbalance and potential resentment (oán giận). The team
tolerated (dung thứ) this behavior to complete the task, but it compromised (thỏa hiệp) fairness and cohesion in the long run.
2. Using **Tuckman’s stages of group development**, identify what stage this team is in. What
steps can they take to move forward?
Based on Tuckman’s model, Team A appears to be stuck between the norming and
performing stages. The team successfully coordinated and delivered a strong final product,
which indicates a certain level of collaboration and performance. However, unresolved conflict
about fairness and contribution signals that they have not fully stabilized their group norms or
addressed interpersonal tensions. True performing teams hold each other accountable and
communicate openly about chal enges. To move forward, the team needs to revisit and
reinforce (tăng cường, gia cố) its norms—especially regarding participation and responsibility.
They should also create a space for honest feedback, allowing members to discuss concerns
like Hùng’s behavior in a constructive way. By doing so, they can shift from superficial harmony
to deeper trust and long-term effectiveness.
3. If you were An, how would you address this fairly while maintaining team harmony?
If I were An, I would raise the issue in a respectful and balanced way, aiming to ensure fairness
without causing division. First, I would bring the matter up in a private team meeting, not to
attack Hùng, but to reflect on each member’s contribution and how the team felt about the
process. I would invite everyone, including Hùng, to share their perspectives. If it becomes
clear that Hùng consistently underperformed and the team agrees this affected group
dynamics, I would then suggest submitting a joint reflection report to the professor. Instead of lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
directly asking to reduce Hùng’s grade, we could simply explain how roles were distributed
and who handled what. This approach promotes transparency while leaving the final decision
to the professor. It also signals to the group that fairness matters, but so does professionalism
and communication. By addressing the issue constructively, the team can uphold both accountability and cohesion.
In addition, I would consider speaking to Hùng privately to understand if he had personal
difficulties that affected his participation. If there were valid reasons, this could be brought back
to the group to create empathy and avoid premature judgment. At the same time, I would kindly
explain the consequences of his limited involvement and encourage him to take more
responsibility in future group work. Final y, I would propose that the team establish stronger
working norms going forward—such as regular check-ins, clearer accountability, and even
anonymous peer evaluations—to prevent similar issues and strengthen the team’s foundation.
By taking these steps, I would aim to address the current problem constructively while also
helping the team grow in maturity and effectiveness. ---
👁⚡ Case Study 3 – Perception & Conflict: “The Misjudged Candidate” Background:
LoopX Tech is expanding its analytics team and has opened a new data analyst role. Lan, a
recruiter with over 5 years of experience in the HR department, shortlisted candidates based
on resumes and test scores. Among the top candidates was Hòa, who held a degree from a
top-tier university and had strong technical results.
During the video interview, however, Hòa appeared withdrawn. He spoke briefly, didn’t smile,
and avoided eye contact. Lan marked him down for “poor communication skil s” and “low
energy,” concluding he was not a cultural fit. Based on her recommendation, Hòa was removed from the shortlist. The Conflict:
A few days later, during a cross-department meeting, Lan casually mentioned her decision. To
her surprise, Nam—the head of the analytics team—objected strongly. He had worked with
Hòa at another company and praised him as “quiet but extremely dependable, highly focused, and a great team player.”
Nam chal enged Lan’s assessment:
“You’re judging based on surface-level behavior. In data work, depth and discipline
matter more than small talk.” lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420 Lan defended herself:
“But communication and team fit are crucial. If he can’t even make eye contact in
an interview, how wil he collaborate?”
This disagreement led to a tense discussion. Nam accused HR of having a “bias toward
extroverts,” while Lan felt undermined in her professional judgment. Neither was wil ing to
compromise. The decision was escalated to the HR Director, who now has to mediate the
situation and decide whether to reinstate Hòa in the process. Underlying Issues:
● Perceptual bias from Lan: over-reliance on non-verbal cues, potential stereotyping of introverted behavior.
● Role-based conflict: HR emphasizing cultural fit vs. Analytics focusing on
performance and technical depth.
● Communication breakdown: No structured method for cross-departmental feedback on candidates. Discussion Questions:
1. What types of perceptual bias are influencing Lan’s judgment? How might these lead
to misattribution of Hòa’s behavior?
Fundamental Attribution Error: Lan attributes Hòa’s withdrawn behavior (hành vi khép kín)
to his personality (internal cause), rather than considering situational factors (external cause),
such as interview anxiety, cultural background, or being introverted by nature.
Stereotyping: Lan seems to have a mental prototype of what a “good communicator” or “team
fit” looks like—possibly someone expressive, cheerful, and socially fluent—thus perceiving
Hòa’s quiet demeanor (thái độ điềm tĩnh) as a negative trait.
Halo/Horns Effect: Since Hòa showed minimal non-verbal expressiveness, Lan allowed this
one characteristic (lack of smiling/eye contact) to overshadow his strong qualifications and
performance in the technical test.
Misattribution: Lan assumes that because Hòa didn't show enthusiasm outwardly, he must
lack motivation or collaboration skil s. This is a misattribution based on limited observation.
2. Identify the type of conflict (task, relationship, or process) between Lan and Nam.
How could it have been avoided?
The conflict between Lan and Nam is primarily a task conflict, as it centers on a disagreement
about how to assess candidate suitability—Lan prioritizes communication and cultural fit, while
Nam emphasizes technical competence and past reliability. However, the discussion lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
escalated into relationship conflict when both parties took the disagreement personally. Lan
felt her professional judgment was undermined, whereas Nam perceived HR as biased against
introverted candidates. This shift from an issue-focused debate to a more emotional exchange
suggests poor conflict management. The situation could have been avoided through clearer
cross-functional collaboration in the recruitment process. For example, implementing a
structured rubric (tiêu chí) that balances both technical and interpersonal competencies would
allow for more consistent decision-making. Furthermore, if hiring panels included
representatives from relevant departments, candidates like Hòa could be evaluated more
holistically (toàn diện). A shared understanding of role-specific priorities would help reduce
misunderstandings and foster more productive dialogue (đối thoại) between HR and line managers.
3. As the HR Director, how would you mediate the conflict and propose a better system
for evaluating candidates in technical roles?
As the HR Director, the first step in mediation would be to acknowledge the validity of both
perspectives. Lan’s focus on cultural fit reflects HR’s responsibility for long-term integration
and team harmony, while Nam’s insistence on technical and performance-based evaluation
aligns with departmental effectiveness. To mediate constructively, I would facilitate a meeting
where both parties can share their expectations and agree on role-specific evaluation criteria.
This disagreement signals a deeper systemic issue: the lack of a standardized, collaborative
hiring process. To improve, I would propose a structured recruitment framework that includes
behavioral and technical rubrics, ensures department involvement in interviews, and
incorporates bias-reduction strategies such as standardized questions and blind scoring.
Training HR and hiring managers on implicit bias and personality diversity would further
improve decision quality. Ultimately, by creating a transparent and inclusive process, we can
avoid subjective assessments (đánh giá chủ quan) and reduce unnecessary conflict across departments.
4. Should Hòa be given another chance? Why or why not?
Yes, Hòa should be given another opportunity in the hiring process. His rejection was based
largely on subjective impressions during a single interview, rather than objective indicators
such as his academic background, test results, and past performance. The fact that a
department head, Nam, who has previously worked with Hòa, strongly endorses (xác nhận)
him as a dependable and effective team player further supports his candidacy (a fact of being
a candidate in an election). In this case, the hiring process lacked fairness and balance, as it
did not allow Hòa’s technical competence or work style to be fully considered. Providing him
a second-round interview—possibly with Nam or another analytics team member present—
would allow for a more accurate, role-specific assessment. This also demonstrates the
company’s commitment to fair evaluation and diversity in work styles. Overlooking Hòa based
on a narrow perception could mean missing out on talent simply because he does not conform
to expected behavioral norms in interviews. --- lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
🚀 Case Study 4 – Motivation (Expanded): “Not Just About the Bonus” Background:
An has worked at MediTech for two years as a sales representative. She is known for being
hardworking, emotional y intelligent with clients, and proactive in handling difficult accounts.
Last quarter, she surpassed her sales target by 140%, outperforming the entire department.
Her manager, Bình, sent a quick email: “Great job on Q2 results. As per policy, you’l receive
a 5 mil ion VND bonus.” There was no in-person acknowledgment, team announcement, or additional feedback. The Problem:
At first, An didn’t say anything. But her behavior subtly changed. She arrived at work later,
stopped volunteering for hospital visits in remote areas, and declined mentoring a junior sales
rep. When asked by a colleague, she admitted: “I was expecting more than just money. Not
even a word in the team meeting. Does no one care how much effort I put in?”
Bình, unaware of this, felt puzzled. “She got the same bonus everyone else gets for hitting
targets. What else is she expecting?” HR noticed the dip in her engagement and flagged her as a potential turnover risk. Bigger Implications:
Two weeks later, An received a job offer from a rival company that promised both recognition
and leadership opportunities. She was now seriously considering leaving. Discussion Questions:
1. Analyze An’s motivation using theories such as Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory,
Maslow’s hierarchy, or Expectancy Theory. What drives her beyond monetary reward?
Expectancy Theory, developed by Victor Vroom, provides a clear lens through which to
understand An’s shift in motivation. The theory posits that motivation is driven by the belief
that effort leads to performance (expectancy), performance leads to outcomes
(instrumentality), and those outcomes are personally valued (valence). In An’s case, she
exerted exceptional effort (đã nỗ lực hết sức), surpassing her sales target by 140%, which
shows a strong belief in the effort-performance link. However, a breakdown occurred at the lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
next stage: although she received a bonus, the outcome felt routine (bình thường) and
impersonal. There was no team acknowledgment, no meaningful feedback, and no sign that
her above-and-beyond efforts (nỗ lực vượt trội) were uniquely appreciated (đánh giá cao một
cách đặc biệt). This disconnect weakened the perceived instrumentality—the belief that
outstanding performance yields distinctive, valued rewards. Most importantly, the valence of
the reward was low for her. While the monetary bonus had material value, it lacked the
emotional and professional significance she sought. What An truly valued was recognition,
affirmation of her personal impact, and signals of growth potential. The absence of these
elements rendered (tạo ra) the reward insufficient in her eyes. Thus, even though the
organization believed it had “rewarded” her, Expectancy Theory reveals why An felt
undervalued and unmotivated: the outcomes did not match the level of effort or her personal
expectations of meaning and appreciation.
2. What motivational misunderstanding did Bình make? How could he apply intrinsic vs.
extrinsic motivators more effectively?
Bình’s key misunderstanding lies in over-relying on extrinsic motivators, specifically the
bonus, and underestimating the power of intrinsic motivators such as recognition, growth,
and purpose. While Bình followed company policy by issuing the bonus, he neglected the
emotional and psychological dimensions of motivation. His impersonal email, lack of public
acknowledgment, and failure to connect personally with An’s achievement signaled that her
extra effort was not truly noticed or valued. This gap reflects a common managerial error:
assuming that rewards alone wil suffice (đủ) to sustain engagement. In contrast, applying
intrinsic motivation effectively would have involved publicly recognizing An in a team
meeting, offering meaningful feedback on her client strategies, or giving her a stretch
assignment (nhiệm vụ khó khăn) such as leading a sales initiative or mentoring program.
These actions would affirm her competence and show that her contributions matter beyond lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
the numbers. Managers like Bình must realize that high performers often seek autonomy (tự
chủ), mastery (thành thạo), and purpose—not just bonuses.
3. If you were in HR, how would you redesign the employee recognition system to retain high-performing staff?
As an HR professional, the first step in redesigning the recognition system would be to make
it more personalized, timely, and multidimensional. Recognition should go beyond monetary
rewards and reflect both formal and informal appreciation practices. A formal approach might
include implementing a tiered recognition system (hệ thống xếp hạng ghi nhận): for example,
standard bonuses for hitting targets, and additional symbolic rewards for top 5% performers—
such as “Top Sales Achiever” awards, leadership development invitations, or visibility in
company-wide communications. Informally, managers should be trained to offer public praise,
handwritten notes, or one-on-one appreciation sessions, as these create emotional
connection and reinforce intrinsic motivation. Recognition should also be peer-enabled,
allowing colleagues to nominate each other for effort and teamwork. Importantly, the system
must be transparent and consistent, so that employees understand how and why recognition
is earned. By building a culture where contributions are acknowledged both privately and
publicly, HR can foster loyalty, increase morale, and retain top talent like An.
🚧 Case Study 1: “The Promotion That Backfired” Background:
Thảo, một chuyên viên tài chính giỏi, được thăng chức làm quản lý nhóm sau ba năm làm
việc tại một công ty đa quốc gia. Cô từng là người chủ động, tỉ mỉ, luôn hoàn thành công việc
trước thời hạn. Tuy nhiên, sau khi nhận chức, cô bắt đầu tỏ ra lúng túng, ít giao tiếp với nhóm,
và không đưa ra được định hướng rõ ràng. Hiệu suất nhóm giảm, và nhiều thành viên cảm
thấy bị bỏ rơi. Khi được hỏi, Thảo nói: “Tôi chỉ thích làm chuyên môn, tôi không nghĩ quản lý
người khác lại mệt đến vậy.” The Problem:
Công ty cho rằng thăng chức là phần thưởng xứng đáng. Nhưng với Thảo, vai trò mới khiến
cô mất đi sự thoải mái, kiểm soát và sự công nhận về chuyên môn – những thứ từng thúc đẩy cô. lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420 Discussion Focus:
● Sử dụng Self-Determination Theory hoặc Job Characteristics Model để phân tích lý do Thảo mất động lực.
● Liệu mọi sự thăng chức đều nên được xem là hình thức khen thưởng?
● Nếu bạn là trưởng phòng nhân sự, bạn sẽ làm gì để hỗ trợ Thảo và tránh lặp lại tình
trạng này với nhân viên khác?
✅ 1. Before the promotion: Why was Thảo motivated?
● Thảo felt competent in her specialist role. She had clear tasks, mastered her work,
and received recognition for her technical skil s.
● She likely had a sense of autonomy – controlling how she completed her tasks.
● Possibly had good relatedness – connection with peers in a non-managerial setting.
✅ So: her intrinsic motivation was high – she enjoyed the work, felt capable, and was respected for it.
❌ 2. After the promotion: What changed?
● As a manager, she lost her core task identity – now she manages people instead of
solving financial problems herself.
● Her competence dropped: she doesn’t feel confident as a leader, struggles with communication and direction.
● Autonomy may also have decreased – more meetings, more policies to enforce, less flexibility.
● Relatedness might have weakened – she’s no longer “one of the team” but not yet comfortable as a leader.
✅ So: SDT explains her drop in motivation – her psychological needs are no longer satisfied.
❗ 3. Why was the promotion a mismatch?
● The company viewed promotion = reward, assuming everyone wants to move “up”. lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
● But Thảo’s motivation came from doing, not managing. The new role didn’t match her motivational profile.
● Her internal motivation wasn’t about status or authority, but about mastery and technical success.
🧠 4. What could HR or her manager do?
● They should first recognize that not all high performers want leadership roles.
● Provide training and coaching to rebuild her sense of competence in leadership.
● Give her hybrid responsibilities: part management, part technical tasks.
● Offer alternative growth paths – like “technical specialist” or “expert” tracks with
status and recognition but no people management.
As an HR manager, the first step would be to engage Thảo in an open, supportive conversation
to understand her chal enges and preferences. Rather than assuming the role can be “fixed”
by sheer persistence, I would explore whether her skil set and motivation are better suited to
a hybrid role—perhaps combining technical responsibilities with limited leadership duties. If
Thảo expresses discomfort with management altogether, I would advocate for a lateral move
back into a senior specialist role, ensuring that this shift is framed as a strategic redeployment,
not a demotion. More broadly, to avoid similar cases in the future, HR should implement a pre-
promotion assessment process that includes career counseling, leadership aptitude
evaluation, and open discussions about long-term goals. Employees should be presented with
different paths for growth—including expert roles, project-based leadership, or mentoring roles
that do not require full people management. Lastly, providing management training
programs for newly promoted staff can smooth transitions and help employees build the
confidence and skil s needed to succeed. Thảo’s experience serves as a reminder that career
development should be a collaborative, individualized process—not a one-size-fits-all reward mechanism. -------
🚚 Case Study 2: “No Bonus, No Point?” Background:
Minh là tài xế vận tải trong một công ty logistics. Công việc của anh là giao hàng đúng thời
hạn và không làm hư hại hàng hóa. Công ty có chính sách thưởng theo quý cho những người
không vi phạm quy định và có số chuyến cao. Tuy nhiên, năm nay do chi phí cắt giảm, công
ty tạm ngưng thưởng. Mặc dù Minh vẫn được giữ việc, anh bắt đầu đi làm muộn, phàn nàn
nhiều, và một lần suýt gây tai nạn. Khi được hỏi, Minh nói: “Tôi làm tốt để có thưởng. Không
có thì tôi cũng chẳng cần cố gắng thêm.” The Problem: lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
Minh từng là nhân viên gương mẫu nhưng giờ không còn động lực. Việc phụ thuộc hoàn toàn
vào phần thưởng vật chất đang phản tác dụng. Discussion Focus:
● Phân tích tình huống theo Expectancy Theory và các nguy cơ khi lạm dụng extrinsic motivation.
This case reflects a breakdown in the motivational chain explained by Expectancy Theory,
which includes three key links: expectancy (effort wil lead to performance), instrumentality
(performance wil lead to reward), and valence (the reward is meaningful to the individual).
Minh has consistently taken on difficult deliveries, volunteered for extra shifts, and fil ed in for
sick coworkers—his high effort reflects strong expectancy. However, when the company
paused financial bonuses due to budget constraints and failed to acknowledge his efforts in
any other way, the link between performance and meaningful reward was broken—a clear
issue with instrumentality. Moreover, the valence of the reward was lost as Minh expected not
only a financial bonus, but also emotional and social recognition. Without either, he felt invisible and demotivated.
This case also highlights the danger of relying too heavily on extrinsic motivators like
cash rewards. When financial incentives are the only form of acknowledgment, employees
begin to tie their motivation strictly to money. As a result, when the money disappears, their
sense of purpose and commitment may disappear too, leading to emotional withdrawal
and team conflict. Minh’s silence and reduced engagement reflect this decline in intrinsic
motivation. In a budget-limited environment, this overdependence on extrinsic motivation
creates long-term risk—organizations need to cultivate deeper sources of commitment and
meaning beyond financial rewards.
● Liệu có thể thay đổi cách thưởng để duy trì động lực mà không cần tiền mặt?
Yes, it is absolutely possible to sustain motivation without relying on cash, especially in
chal enging financial times. Organizations can shift toward non-monetary recognition and
intrinsic rewards. In Minh’s case, a sincere thank-you message, public recognition during
team meetings, or even a personalized note from the manager could have gone a long way.
These small gestures make people feel seen and valued, reinforcing the emotional
significance of their contributions.
Additionally, offering non-financial privileges—such as schedule flexibility, preferred routes,
or time-off vouchers—can increase both instrumentality and valence without direct financial
cost. Another powerful tool is peer recognition, where colleagues nominate each other for
monthly appreciation, which not only improves morale but strengthens team bonds. By
embedding these practices into the company culture, the organization can reinforce that
recognition doesn’t always come in the form of cash—it also comes through respect, visibility, and trust.
● Nếu bạn là quản lý, bạn sẽ làm gì để Minh và các tài xế khác duy trì động lực khi tài chính công ty khó khăn? lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
If I were Minh’s manager, I would first address the communication gap. I would meet with the
team and explain the financial situation transparently, while also affirming that their efforts
are stil deeply valued. For Minh specifically, I would privately thank him for his extra shifts,
and publicly highlight his reliability and contributions during a team meeting. Even in difficult
times, people need to feel that their work matters.
Next, I would implement a structured recognition program that includes both manager-led
and peer-to-peer praise. For example, a simple “Driver of the Week” initiative or a rotating wall
of appreciation could help maintain morale without spending money. I would also consider
empowering Minh with a role that acknowledges his reliability, such as mentoring new hires
or coordinating delivery schedules. Giving him a leadership-related responsibility would
provide purpose and recognition, which are key drivers of intrinsic motivation.
Final y, I’d regularly check in with the team to understand their needs, listen to concerns, and
co-create reward alternatives that feel meaningful to them. Even in times of financial limitation,
human connection, trust, and recognition remain powerful motivators.
💼 Case Study 3: “Invisible Contributions” Background:
Lan làm trong phòng chăm sóc khách hàng của một công ty bảo hiểm. Mặc dù không tiếp
xúc trực tiếp với khách hàng lớn, cô là người hỗ trợ nội bộ cực kỳ hiệu quả – luôn giúp đồng
nghiệp giải quyết hồ sơ nhanh chóng, sẵn sàng làm thêm vào cuối tuần. Tuy nhiên, vì công ty
chỉ công nhận những người đạt “chỉ số hài lòng khách hàng cao” (CSAT), Lan chưa bao giờ
được vinh danh hay khen thưởng. Gần đây, cô xin nghỉ việc với lý do: “Tôi thấy mình như người vô hình.” The Problem:
Hệ thống ghi nhận của công ty chỉ dựa vào số liệu định lượng, bỏ qua giá trị của sự hỗ trợ
và đóng góp nội bộ – yếu tố có thể quan trọng không kém trong việc giữ chân nhân sự. Discussion Focus:
● Áp dụng Equity Theory và Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory để phân tích sự giảm động lực của Lan.
Lan’s decision to leave reflects a growing sense of inequity in her workplace. According to
Equity Theory, employees evaluate fairness by comparing their inputs (effort, time, skil s) with
the outcomes (recognition, rewards) they receive—especially relative to others. Lan
consistently supported her team, worked overtime, and ensured smooth operations, yet
received no formal acknowledgment. Meanwhile, her colleagues who directly engage with
customers and score high on CSAT are publicly rewarded. From Lan’s perspective, the input-
output ratio is unfair, and the lack of recognition sends a message that her behind-the-
scenes work is invisible or undervalued.
From the lens of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, Lan’s case reveals a deficiency in
motivators—specifically, recognition and a sense of achievement. While her “hygiene factors”
(salary, working conditions) may be adequate, they only prevent dissatisfaction; they don’t lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420
generate motivation. Without intrinsic rewards like appreciation, growth, or visibility, Lan feels
emotionally detached. Her statement, “I feel invisible,” underscores the psychological cost of
being overlooked in a system that only values visible, quantifiable performance. Over time,
this lack of acknowledgment undermines her motivation and job satisfaction, leading to withdrawa
● Tại sao recognition nên được cá nhân hóa và đa chiều?
Recognition should be personalized because different employees are motivated by different
things—some by public praise, others by private thank-you messages, opportunities for
growth, or more flexibility. When recognition is one-size-fits-all or narrowly tied to KPIs like
CSAT, it alienates those whose contributions are not easily measured but are essential to
team success. Multidimensional recognition ensures that both frontline performance and
back-end support are valued, creating a more inclusive culture.
Moreover, personalized recognition acknowledges the human side of work. Lan didn’t want
a trophy; she wanted to be seen and valued for her effort. By recognizing only what’s visible
on spreadsheets, companies risk creating a culture where silent contributors feel overlooked.
In contrast, a multidimensional approach—peer nominations, manager shoutouts, or
storytelling in team meetings—can highlight different types of impact, increasing engagement and fairness.
● Nếu bạn là trưởng phòng nhân sự, bạn sẽ thiết kế lại hệ thống đánh giá/khen thưởng
như thế nào để tránh mất những người như Lan?
If I were the HR leader, I would redesign the recognition system to include qualitative
contributions, not just quantitative metrics. First, I would establish a dual-track recognition
model: one for customer-facing achievements (like CSAT), and another for internal impact
and team support. Managers and peers would be encouraged to nominate team members
who go above and beyond behind the scenes—creating a more balanced appreciation system.
Second, I would introduce 360-degree feedback into performance evaluations, allowing
coworkers to acknowledge internal contributions that may go unnoticed by upper
management. I would also hold monthly reflection sessions, where teams highlight stories
of mutual support and col aboration, fostering a culture of appreciation.
Lastly, I would ensure that managers are trained to notice invisible work. Tools like “unsung
hero” awards or rotating internal recognitions (e.g., “Team Backbone of the Month”) help
normalize the value of support roles. This shift would not only retain employees like Lan, but
also improve morale across the board by signaling that all contributions—visible or not— matter. lOMoAR cPSD| 58675420