Theories of Motivation

Expectancy Theory

It was put forth by Vroom (1964). It can be described as follows: “Whenever an individual chooses between alternatives which involve uncertain outcomes, it seems clear that his Behavior is affected not only by his preferences among the outcomes but also by the degree to which he believes these outcomes to be possible. An expectancy is defined as a momentary belief concerning the likelihood that a particular act will be followed by a particular outcome. The strength of expectations may be traced on past experiences. The theory proposes that, motivation is likely only when a clearly perceived and usable relationship exists between performance and outcome, and the outcome is seen as a means of satisfying needs. This explains why extrinsic motivation (e.g.: bonus) work only if the link between efforts and rewards is clear and the value of the reward is worth the effort. It also explains why intrinsic motivation can be more purposeful than extrinsic motivation.

Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory is one such most widely accepted theory of motivation currently in use. This has the strength of a tendency to act in a certain manner, which depends upon the strength of an attractiveness of that outcome to the individual. In other words, theory says that, an employee will be motivated to exert high level of effort when he believes that efforts will lead to a good performance appraisal. And this will lead to organizational rewards in many ways, which in turn will satisfy the personal goals of the employees. The employee’s expectation is in the form of promotion, an increment in salary or a certificate or incentive. etc. The theory, therefore, concentrates on three types of relationships.

• Efforts performance relationship: The individual presides the probability that exerting a particular amount of efforts leads to performance.
• Performance reward relationship: The individual’s degree of belief that performing at a particular level will lead to reaching a desired outcome.
• Rewards personal goals relationship : This is the degree to which the organizational rewards satisfy an individual goals or need and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the individuals

Expectancy theory explains or rather helps to explain why some workers are not motivated on their jobs and restrict themselves to minimum and necessary work. To summaries, the key to expectancy theory is understanding of the individual goals as well as the linkage between his efforts and performance and the performance and rewards and lastly between the rewards and individual goals satisfaction. However, the theory definitely recognizes that, there is no particular principle for explaining everyone’s motivation. As far as the effectiveness of this theory is concerned, it has been validated with high degree of priority probably because every individual’s goal satisfaction cannot be understood, realized clearly. Perhaps there are no recognized methods that may surface the truth. More so the organization’s policy also may not suit this theory, particularly where seniority comes as a rule.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

This theory is one of the most famous hypothesizing that within every human being there exists 5 needs in a hierarchical structure. These needs are:

• Physiological: This includes hunger, sex, shelter, thrust and a few bodily needs.
• Safety : This includes protection from physical and emotional harm as well as security
• Social: This includes acceptance, belongings, affection as well as friendship.
• Esteem: This includes the internal esteem factors such as autonomy, achievement and self-respect. Similarly the external esteem factors include status, recognition and attention to physiological need.
• Self-actualization: This means drive to become what one is capable of becoming. This, therefore, includes self-fulfillment, growth and achievement of one’s potentiality.

Maslow’s theory separated these 5 needs in two categories, namely lower order needs that are satisfied externally which include physiological and safety needs and the high order needs which are satisfied internally incorporating social, esteem and self-actualization needs. Though Maslow’s theory received reorganization vary widely from, managers, there is a criticism that the organizations did not either follow or support the need structures as proposed by Maslow. Perhaps this might be due to stringent organizational policies in the past or the reorganization by the organizations about the importance of this theory. His theory, based on needs, suggested a need hierarchy that apply to people. He says that an individual’s needs involve physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and self actualization.

The theory states that when a lower need is satisfied, the higher level need becomes dominant and the individual’s attention is turned to satisfying higher level. He used to say that, Man is a wanting animal and only unsatisfied needs can motivate Behaviors and the dominant need is the prime motivator of Behavior. The main implication of Maslow’s Theory is that higher order needs for esteem and self fulfillment provide greater impetus to motivation. They grow in strength when they are satisfied, while the lower needs decline in strength on satisfaction. Therefore, It is imperative that organization understand the needs of people at various levels and appropriately provide motivational inputs suitable to their requirements.

Herzberg’s Two Factor Model

Herzberg, in 1957, suggested a two-factor model based on the study of accountants and engineers. His observations were as below: Employee’s wants can be divided into two groups. The one group that includes salary, working conditions etc, which, if not satisfied, creates dissatisfaction, though do not lead to explicit motivation. On the other hand, there are factors such as rewards, advancement career progression etc, which give positive satisfaction. His theory has been heavily criticized by many. His model provides an overall picture of the factors that generally satisfy the employee and those which positively motivate the employees.

Herzberg’s two-factor theory

This is also known as motivation-hygiene theory. Herzberg was a psychologist and he believed that, an individual’s relation to work is basic and ones attitude towards work can determine success or failure. He got the response for his questionnaire answered by several employees. His intention was to identify what the employee’s want from their job. He also expected from them the situation in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. This resulted into certain characteristics constantly related to job satisfaction and others to job desertification. Factors that lead to extreme dissatisfaction, in order of merit in terms of frequency where organizational policies and administration, type of supervision and the relation with supervisor, work environment, salary followed by comparatively low factors like status, personal relationship, etc. Alternatively, the factors relating to high satisfaction included similarly in order of importance achievements, recognition, work involvement, responsibility as well as advancement and growth. 69% of factors contributing to dissatisfaction were hygienic in nature. And 19% hygienic factors contributing to job satisfaction were hygienic in nature, the remaining factors in both the categories were respectively 31% and 81% and were motivator factors.

Herzberg argued that the response strongly indicated that opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction because removing dissatisfaction characterizing does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Therefore, his conclusion was that, job satisfaction factors are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. And therefore elimination of factors for job dissatisfaction by managers may not necessarily help or create motivation. And therefore conditions around the job such as supervision quality, pay, company policies, physical working condition, relations with other and jobs security are called hygiene factors.

In the present context, many of these factors have depleted to a great extent. Similarly, the other side of the two factor theory also is becoming mild and therefore this theory may not carry as much vantage as it did during the twentieth century. The critiscism on this theory perhaps as indicated below may also be one of the factors for curtailing its importance at present. It is as indicated below.

• Herzberg procedure is limited by his methodology because people generally take credit themselves when things go well and blame failure on extrinsic environment.
• No quantitative satisfaction asserting an employee may dislike a part of his job yet he thinks it is acceptable.
• The theory ignores situational factors and is said to be not in line with the early research.
• His theory does not give high profile of reliability because special efforts are to be made by the researchers in interpretation of the responses.
• Herzberg assumed a relationship between satisfaction and productivity but he looked only at satisfaction and not productivity in research methodology he adopted.

Attribution Theory

It is concerned with how we explain our performance after we have invested considerable effort and motivation in a particular task. Four types of explanations may be used to account for either success or failure – ability, effort, task, difficulty or luck. e.g.: if success or failure is explained in terms of efforts, then high motivation may follow. On the other hand, if failure to achieve the level of performance is explained in terms of task difficulty or bad luck, the results may be a loss of motivation. Incorrect attribution may be the result of inadequate feedback, communication, appraisal and guidance. Attribution errors can create many problems in work situation.

This has the relevance to application of perception concept to organizational Behavior. Our perceptions of people differ from those of inanimate objects such as machines, buildings, etc. because we are able to make inferences about the actions of people unlike about inanimate objects. It is imperative that, non-living objects are subjected to laws of natures and they do not have beliefs, motives or intentions but people do have. The attribution theory proposes to develop explanation of the ways in which we judge people differently depending upon what meaning we attribute to a given Behavior. The theory suggests that, on observing an individual’s Behavior, we try to determine whether it was internally or externally caused. That determination largely depends upon:

• Consensus
• Consistency
• Distinctiveness

Internally cause Behaviors are those that are under the persona control of the individual. Externally caused Behaviors are seen as resulting from outside cause. When everyone is faced with a similar situation and responds in the same way, it means the Behavior shows consensus. Consistency of a person lies in the response which is the same way over different times. The more consistent the Behavior as well as the more is the consensus, the more is the observer inclined to attribute both to the internal causes. Distinctiveness means whether an individual displays different Behaviors in different situations. Depending upon whether the Behavior is usual or unusual, the observer gives the Behavior an external or internal attribution.

The attribution theory incorporated what are known as errors as biases that distort attributions. The tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal factors when making judgments about the Behavior of others results in causing fundamental attribution errors. Similarly, the tendency for individual to attribute their own success to internal factors while casting the blame for failures on external factors results in self-serving bias. This theory was developed in the developing countries of the West and therefore they may not be perhaps accepted in the other parts of the world due to the traditions with which the people are governed in the remaining atmosphere. This theory can perhaps be connected to perceptions. The factors that influence perceptions are of three categories, namely:

• Factors in the perceiver: These are attitudes, expectations, experience, interest and motives.
• Factors in the target: They are proximity, motion, novelty, similarity, size, etc.
• Factors situationally: Social setting, time and work setting.

All these interlinked have to contribute to the attribution theory positively.

Equity Theory

It is concerned with the perceptions people have about how they are being treated as compared with others. To be dealt with equitably is to be treated fairly in comparison with another group of people or a relevant other person. This theory attempts to say that, people will be better motivated if they are treated equitably and dernotivated if they are treated inequitably. There are two forms of equity. Distributive equity is concerned with the fairness with which people will feel they are rewarded in accordance with their contributions and in comparison with others. On the other hand, procedural equity is concerned with the perception employees have about the fairness with which organization procedures in areas such as performance appraisal promotion and discipline are being operated.

In 1990, identified five factors that contributed to perception of procedural fairness were identified. They are:

• Adequate consideration of an employee’s view point
• Suppression of personal bias towards the employee
• Applying criteria consistently across employee.
• Providing early feedback to employees concerning the outcome of decisions.
• Providing employees with an adequate explanation of the decision made.

Requirements for job satisfaction may include high pay, equitable payment system, opportunities for promotion, considerate and participative management, social interaction at work, interesting and varied tasks and a high degree of control over work place and work methods. The degree of satisfaction obtained by individuals however, depends largely on their own needs and expectations and the environment in which they work. No positive strong connection between satisfaction and performance is yet established. A satisfactory worker is not necessarily a high producer and vice versa.