Theories of Motivation in Management. This article will help you to learn about:
- Employee Motivation Theories
- Work Motivation Theories
- Motivational Theories in the Workplace
- Herzberg Motivation Theory
- Theories of Motivation in Management
- Types of Motivational Theories
- Motivational Theories in Organizational Behaviour
- Prices Theories of Motivation
- Application of motivation theories in organizations
Theories of Motivation in Management # Employee Motivation Theories:
1. Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory:
The best-known theory of motivation is probably Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. He proposed that people are motivated by a predictable five-step hierarchy of needs. According to Maslow, most individuals are not consciously aware of these needs; yet we all supposedly proceed up the hierarchy of needs, one level at a time.
Propositions:
Maslow put the following important propositions about human behaviour:
1. Man is a wanting being – Maslow says that man is a wanting animal and his needs are never fully satisfied. “He always wants and wants more. But what he wants depends upon what he already has”. His needs continue to emerge from birth to death. Although his particular need may be satisfied, needs in general cannot be.
2. A hierarchy of needs – Human needs differ in importance and can, therefore, be arranged in a series of levels—a hierarchy or pyramid. Some needs are more important than the others.
3. Emergence of needs – An individual’s needs at a particular level on the hierarchy emerge only when the lower-level needs are reasonably well-satisfied.
4. Progression of needs – Maslow says that once a person has moved from a lower level of needs to a higher level, the lower-level needs assume a less important role. According to Maslow progression of needs means “as a man moves up the ladder (pyramid of needs), personal wants and goals increase in number and variety.”
5. Deprivation and domination – Needs do not have to be 100 percent satisfied, before higher needs emerge. They only have to be satisfied enough, “satisfied”. People accept a sufficient, not necessarily a maximum or optimum, level of satisfaction. Hence, needs may become temporarily dominant again as a result or deprivation. According to Maslow, only needs that have not been satisfied exert any considerable force on what a man does.
6. Gratification and activation – Maslow says that only unsatisfied needs motivate behaviour. A satisfied need is not a motivator of behaviour. Also, as soon as the needs of one level are satisfied, the needs of higher level are emerged and become active demanding gratification. Once a certain need is satisfied, it ceases to be a motivating factor.
7. Physiological needs are the highest priority – At the lowest level of the hierarchy and at the starting point for motivation are physiological needs. These are the needs that must be satisfied on priority basis, because they are very essential to maintain life. These are more finite than the higher level needs (ego, esteem or social needs).
8. Self-fulfilment can never be achieved – At the apex of the hierarchy is the need for self-actualization, which is very difficult to satisfy. These are the individual’s needs for realizing one’s own potentialities, for self- fulfillment, for self-development.
Categories of Needs:
Maslow hypothesized that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of needs. He says that a man’s motivations occurs in terms of a predetermined order of needs.
He described five classes of needs as under:
1. Physiological Needs:
At the bottom of the hierarchy are needs based on physical drives. These include the needs for food, water, sleep, and sex. Fulfillment of these lowest-level needs enables the man to survive. Nothing else becomes more important until these needs are satisfied. As Maslow has said, “It is quite true that man lives by bread alone—when there is no bread.”
These needs have few common features:
(a) They are relatively independent of each other.
(b) They can be identified with a specific location in the body.
(c) In rich societies, these are unusual motivators.
(d) They are satisfied repeatedly within short time periods.
2. Safety Needs:
Once the physiological needs are reasonably satisfied, safety needs become significant. These needs consist of physical safety against fire, accident, murder, criminal assault or any other danger. Maslow also stressed emotional safety. It is a need for security against fear, tensions, frustrations, favourtism, unemployment, etc.
3. Social or Love Needs:
These needs relate to social processes, relationships or belongingness. Man is a social being. He wants love, affection, friendship, and association with social groups. These are the needs for human relations. When persons physiological and safety needs are satisfied, social needs become important motivators of behaviour.
4. Esteem Needs:
Next in Maslow’s hierarchy are esteem or ego needs. These are of two types- (a) self- esteem needs, and (b) esteem for others. Self-esteem implies needs for self-respect, self-confidence, achievement, competence, independence and freedom and feeling of personal worth. Esteem for others refers to need for status, power, prestige, recognition, awards etc. These needs can be satisfied through promotions, praise, job positions etc.
5. Self-Actualization Needs:
The highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy involves self-realization needs. These reflect our desires to realize our full potential. It is the need “to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.” It is related to self-concept. It gives self-fulfillment. It requires continuous self-development. It is rarely fulfilled.
After describing these five classes, Maslow separated these five needs into higher and lower levels. Physiological and safety needs were described as lower-order needs, and social, esteem, and self-actualization needs were called as higher-order needs. This difference was made to emphasize that the higher-order needs are satisfied internally, whereas lower-order needs are mainly satisfied externally.
According to this theory, people attempt to satisfy their physiological needs first. Until these needs are not satisfied, they dominate behaviour. When physiological needs are reasonably well-satisfied, the next category of safety needs become active and dominant demanding satisfaction. This process continues up to the top rung of the ladder of human needs. These needs are interdependent and overlapping.
Maslow says that a higher-order need arises only when a lower-level need is completely satisfied. Only unsatisfied needs motivate behaviour. A man gets motivation only when he is deprived of or threatened with deprivation of some need. A satisfied need ceases to be a motivator.
Evaluation of Maslow’s Theory:
Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among managers. It is helpful in analysing and understanding human behaviour.
It has the following merits:
(a) It has intuitive logic and ease of understanding.
(b) It teaches managers that “a fulfilled need does not motivate a person.”
(c) It recognizes that a person works to fulfill a variety of needs. It helps to explain why people behave differently in the same situation.
(d) The theory points out that different managerial technique may be needed to motivate different people, depending on their needs.
(e) It is not limited to work situations only. It extends to all areas of human life.
Thus, the theory points out that effective managers can anticipate each employee’s personal need profile and to provide opportunities to satisfy emerging needs.
Shortcomings:
Many researchers have pointed out some deficiencies in Maslow’s theory as follows:
(1) Maslow’s theory has no research backup. It received little empirical support.
(2) Some researchers have found that five levels of need are not always present and that the order of the levels is not always the same as postulated by Maslow.
(3) People from different cultures are likely to have different need categories and hierarchies.
(4) David Krech suggests that even needs that are “fulfilled” never really disappear.
(5) It is also pointed out that each of the five needs levels always has some motivational impact. Edward Lawler has observed “Which higher-order needs come into play after the lower ones are satisfied and in which order they come into play cannot be predicted. If anything, it seems that most people are simultaneously motivated by several of the same-level needs”. Thus, this theory fails to explain the concept of multiple motivation. In fact, human behaviour is multidetermined and multimotivated.
(6) Satisfying the self-actualizing need of growth-motivated persons can actually increase rather than decrease this need.
In the final analysis, it can be said that Maslow’s need theory is not a perfect answer in work motivation. Yet the theory, as Fred Luthans has observed, “Does make a significant contribution in terms of making management aware of the diverse needs of humans at work. The number and names of the levels are not important nor is the hierarchical concept. What is important is the fact that humans in the workplace have diverse motives.” Thus, a manager can motivate people by satisfying their needs.
2. Motivation—Hygiene Theory:
During the 1950s, Frederick Herzberg proposed a theory of employee motivation based on satisfaction. He conducted a research study by having interviews with 200 engineers and accountants working in eleven different firms in U.S.A.
Herzberg concluded that two separate factors influenced motivation. These two classes of factors were associated with employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Hence, his concept has come to be called Herzberg’s two-factor theory. These factors are called hygiene factors and motivators, (see Table 12.1)
Hygiene Factors:
These factors include working conditions, job security, salary, supervision, company policy etc. These are extrinsic to the job and environment centred. These factors are called “dissatisfiers” or hygiene factors as they are essential for the mental health of employees. These are also called maintenance factors, because they are necessary to maintain a reasonable level of satisfaction. If they exist in a work environment, they yield no dissatisfaction. But their existence does not motivate employees. These factors are not strongly motivating; however, their lack of existence would result in dissatisfaction. These are job context factors.
Motivators:
These factors are related to the content of the job. They are inherent in the job and operate primarily to build motivation. Their existence will yield feelings of satisfaction but their absence will not create strong dissatisfaction among employees. These include achievement, recognition, challenging work etc. These are called satisfiers. According to Herzberg, these job content factors are the real motivators.
These maintenance and motivational factors are described in the following Table 12.1:
Features and Implications of Herzberg’s Theory:
Herzberg’s theory led to the following conclusions:
1. Not all needs are motivational. Different sets of needs play different roles in the overall process of motivation and satisfaction in organisations.
2. A satisfied employee is motivated from within to work harder and that a dissatisfied employee is not self- motivated.
3. Job satisfaction is not a unidimensional concept. Thus, to eliminate factors that create job dissatisfaction can bring about peace, but cannot necessarily motivate.
4. The factors leading to job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those that lead to job satisfaction.
5. The opposite of “satisfaction” is “no satisfaction”, and the opposite of “dissatisfaction” is “no dissatisfaction.”
6. The work itself is the key to satisfaction and motivation. Herzberg concluded that “enriched jobs” were the key to self-motivation. Hence, managers must give considerable attention to upgrading job content.
Herzberg’s theory has two stages in the process of motivating employees. First, managers must ensure that the hygiene factors are not deficient. By providing hygiene factors at an appropriate level, managers do not stimulate motivation but merely ensure that employees are “not dissatisfied”.
Employees whom managers attempt to “satisfy” through hygiene factors alone will usually do just enough to get by. Hence, managers should proceed to stage two – giving employees the opportunity to experience motivation through job enrichment that is through motivators such as challenging work, responsibility etc. Herzberg argues that jobs should be redesigned to provide higher levels of the motivational factors.
Critical Appraisal of Herzberg’s Theory:
Herzberg’s framework of motivation has received a great deal of notice and acceptance among managers. It is helpful in understanding the effect of job characteristics on motivation and performance. It casts a new light on the content of work motivation.
Herzberg’s theory is important in the following way:
(a) It points out by concentrating only on the hygienic factors, managers cannot motivate its employees. To motivate people, this theory says, attention should be directed to the motivators that is changing jobs to remove the boredom, routineness, and lack of challenge. Only a challenging job which has the opportunity for achievement, recognition and growth will motivate employees.
(b) Herzberg is the first to say that “hygienic factors are absolutely necessary to maintain the human resources of an organisation.”
(c) The theory suggests that the key to improving motivation lies in the concept of job enrichment.
(d) It emphasizes that satisfaction and dissatisfaction do not represent the two extremes of the same continuum.
(e) It extends the Maslow need hierarchy concept and makes it more applicable to work motivation.
(f) It has common-sense appeal to some managers.
In spite of the seemingly value and importance, Herzberg’s theory has also been criticized by behavioural scientists on a number of points:
(1) This theory is not universally applicable. It applies best to managerial, professional, and upper-level employees only.
(2) Researchers question Herzberg’s methods of investigation. These tended to prejudice his results. The theory is method-bound.
(3) The conclusions of this theory are based on a small sample which is not representative of human nature.
(4) It reduces the motivational importance of maintenance factors (i.e. pay, working conditions, interpersonal relations etc.). House and Wigdor argued that even if Herzberg is correct in noting that hygiene factors seldom produce satisfaction or motivation, this does not mean they never can do so.
(5) The distinction between maintenance and motivational factors is not rigid and definite. There may be an appearance of two factors but in reality there is only one.
(6) It over-simplifies the relationship between satisfaction and motivation as well as between the sources of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. House and Wigdor argue that one factor can cause job satisfaction for one person and job dissatisfaction for another. On the other hand, motivation is a process while satisfaction is an outcome that occurs after actual motivated behaviour has been exhibited.
(7) It is not really a theory of motivation, because it stresses the importance and provides an explanation of satisfaction rather than motivation.
(8) It fail to account for differences in individuals. It basically assumes that all employees will react similarly to motivational factors. In fact, some people will indeed be motivated by a challenging job, but others are highly motivated by money.
(9) It ignores situational variables.
(10) It is not held in high esteem by researchers in the field.
Overall, Luthans concludes, “Herzberg added much to the better understanding of job content factors and satisfaction, but like his predecessors, fell short of the content of work motivation.”
Theories of Motivation in Management # Work Motivation Theories:
There are various theories that have been propounded to understand what motivates people to work.
Some of the important theories are explained as under:
(i) Monistic or Economic Theory of Motivation
(ii) Hierarchy of Needs Theory
(iii) Theory of Douglas McGregor
(iv) Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
(v) Equity Theory of Motivation
(i) Monistic or Economic Theory of Motivation:
Monistic theory of motivation is based upon the assumption that individuals are highly responsive to money reward. People feel highly motivated when rewarded with more money. People repeat their behaviour if it leads to reward.
The theory assumes that:
a. Motivation is more effective and direct when based upon individual incentives.
b. The incentive is more effective where reward immediately follows the efforts.
c. More the efforts, more the rewards. Thus, efforts are having direct relation with reward.
(ii) Hierarchy of Needs Theory:
In 1943, an American psychologist Abraham Harold Maslow put forward his theory of human motivation. His theory is based on the Hierarchy of Human Needs. According to Maslow, human behaviour is related to his needs.
It is adjusted as per the nature of needs to be satisfied. In hierarchy of needs theory, Maslow has identified five types / sets of human needs arranged in a hierarchy of their importance and priority.
Maslow’s need hierarchy theory covers the following aspects:
a. There is always an urge to fulfil these needs.
b. Needs are in the form of a structure called as hierarchy.
c. Lower level needs have to be partially satisfied before the higher level needs emerge.
d. As soon as one need is satisfied, another need emerges.
e. A need that is satisfied is not a motivator.
According to Maslow, there are five general categories of needs given in an order:
At the base of the hierarchy are the physiological needs, which include basic needs like food, shelter, clothing, rest and recreation. These basic human needs have priority over all other needs. These needs cannot be postponed for long. Unless these basic physiological needs are satisfied, other needs do not motivate an employee.
After satisfying the physiological needs, the next needs felt are safety and security needs. Security needs are the needs for a safe and secure environment. In the workplace, these are the needs for job safety, job security, and fringe benefits.
III. Belongingness Needs or Social Needs:
Social needs relate to the desire to have social interaction, friendship, affection, belongingness with groups, acceptance, affection, and support from others and so on. Such needs become motivators when physiological and safety needs have been fairly satisfied.
Ego or esteem needs deal with the desire to receive attention and appreciation from others. In a work environment, this is the need for status and recognition for one’s contributions to the work group and the organisation.
Esteem needs are of two types:
a. Internal esteem needs / self-esteem (self-respect, confidence, competence, achievement and freedom)
b. External esteem needs / esteem of others (recognition, power, status, attention and admiration).
V. Self-Actualization Needs:
Self-actualization needs include the needs for self-fulfilment and competency. At work, this translates into needs for personal growth, development, and self-respect. This is the highest among the needs in the hierarchy of needs suggested by Maslow.
Criticism of Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory:
Maslow’s need hierarchy theory is criticized on the following grounds:
a. There is lack of direct cause and effect relationship between need and behaviour.
b. Needs are not the sole determinants of motivation.
c. The theory gives an over-simplified version of needs and motivation.
d. The hierarchy of needs cannot be fixed or constant.
e. Satisfaction of a need may or not may not stop its motivating ability.
Hence it can be concluded from Maslow’s theory that human beings generally try hard to satisfy their basic needs or lower order needs first before looking for satisfaction of higher order needs.
(iii) Theory of Douglas McGregor:
In 1960, Douglas McGregor formulated Theory X and Theory Y suggesting two aspects of human behaviour at work. In other words, two different views of individuals (employees)- one of which is negative, called as Theory X and the other is positive, so called as Theory Y.
I. Theory X’:
The important assumptions underlying this theory are as follows:
a. Average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid if they can.
b. Because of this human characteristic of disliking work, people must be controlled, directed and even threatened to put their efforts for achieving an organisational goals.
c. He avoids accepting responsibility.
d. An average person lacks ambition and prefers to be led by someone else.
e. He is self-centered and indifferent to organisations goals.
f. Man resists to change of any type and want security above all.
Conclusion of Theory X:
An Organization with theory X type of management will have close supervision. As per McGregor, all assumptions about human nature are negative in their approach. So, a manager has to persuade, punish or reward such workers in order to achieve goals of an organization. Employees will have little or no influence over business policy. Autocratic type of leadership is required to lead such kind of people.
II. Theory Y:
According to McGregor, Theory X was based on negative assumptions. So he suggested a different theory of managing people which was named as Theory Y.
The important assumptions of Theory Y, described by McGregor are:
a. People do not dislike work; work is a natural part of their lives.
b. People are internally motivated to reach objectives to which they are committed.
c. An employee is capable of assuming responsibility and accepting challenge and change.
d. People have the capacity to be innovative in solving organizational problems.
e. This theory further suggests that employees may not require threat, external control and coercion to work, but they can use self-direction and self-control if they are dedicated and sincere to achieve the organizational objectives.
Conclusion of Theory Y:
Theory Y is dynamic and flexible as an average employee is a sociable and smart person. An average person likes work, capable of assuming responsibility and accepting challenge and change, ambitious, and achievement-oriented.
Managers practicing theory Y attempt to get maximum output from their employees with minimum amount of supervision and control. Here, individual goals are coordinated with organizational goals. He is competent to exercise self-direction and self-control.
Thus, we can say that Theory X presents a pessimistic view of employees’ nature and behaviour at work, while Theory Y presents an optimistic view of the employees’ nature and behaviour at work.
Theory X:
1. Theory ‘X’ is pessimistic, rigid and conservative
2. People are not self-motivated.
3. Manager has to control, supervise, threat or punish employees to achieve organisational goals. People prefer to be directed.
4. Centralization of authority, autocratic system of leadership is required.
5. People do not like work and try to avoid it.
6. People are not ambitious and dislike responsibility.
Theory Y:
1. Theory ‘Y’ is optimistic, flexible and progressive.
2. People are self-motivated.
3. People can be self-directed and creative at work and need no close supervision and control.
4. Decentralization of authority, democratic system of leadership is required.
5. People do not dislike work. Work is a natural part of their lives.
6. People are ambitious and accept responsibility.
Criticism:
The critics point out that – Although McGregor suggests the key to motivation is ‘job’, however in reality not everyone looks for motivation from the ‘job’ he / she does. There can be many more factors for motivation. A manager may also switch between the two approaches based on the requirements of the situation.
(iv) Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory:
(A) Traditional:
Traditionally, job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were viewed as opposite ends of a single continuum, when certain things are present on job like good pay, opportunity for growth, healthy working environment, etc. the employee will be satisfied. When they are absent, he is dissatisfied. The absence of dissatisfaction is satisfaction.
(B) Herzberg’s Viewpoint:
Frederick Herzberg’s theory of motivation is also called ‘Two Factor Theory’, and ‘Hygiene / Maintenance Theory of Motivation’. Herzberg conducted a widely reported motivational study on 200 accountants and engineers employed by firms in Pittsburgh area of the United States.
He asked these people to describe two important incidents at their jobs:
When did you feel particularly good about your job? When did you feel exceptionally bad about your job?
1. The analysis of interview revealed that good feelings were associated with job satisfaction whereas bad feelings with job dissatisfaction.
2. Herzberg called the job satisfiers as motivators and job dis-satisfiers as hygiene or maintenance factors. Taken together, the motivators and hygiene factors have become known as Herzberg’s two factor theory of motivation.
(A) Motivational Factors or Satisfiers:
Motivators are job content factors and are inherent in the job. These factors have a positive influence on morale, satisfaction, efficiency and high productivity.
Some of these factors are:
(a) Job itself
(b) Recognition
(c) Responsibility
(d) Achievement
(e) Growth & advancement.
Employees find these factors inherently rewarding. When motivation factors are present in job, they could cause satisfaction and motivation; when they are not present, the people feel no satisfaction or no motivation.
They are also called as satisfiers. Motivating factors motivate subordinates to take more interest in the work. Such factors raise efficiency and productivity of employees. As per Frederick Herzberg, motivating factors are essential in order to provide job satisfaction and to maintain a high level of job performance.
Hygiene factors also called as maintenance factors, dissatisfiers or extrinsic factors because they only help in maintaining the existing level of performance on the job. They are called as dissatisfiers because their absence dissatisfy the workers and lead to decline in their performance of workers from that of the existing level. They are called extrinsic because they are related to the work environment (job context) and not to the job content.
Some of the hygiene factors are:
(a) Wages.
(b) Salary.
(c) Types of employee benefits.
(d) Company policies that govern the working environment.
(e) Inter-personal relations with peers, supervisors, subordinate.
(f) Working conditions and job security.
Criticism:
Herzberg theory is criticized on the following reasons:
1. He gave much stress on satisfaction rather than performance.
2. This theory was based on data from a small sample of 200 accountants and engineers. It is insufficient size of sample and representation.
3. The theory ignores manual workers and is only applicable to knowledge workers.
4. The theory doesn’t give any clear difference in motivators and maintenance factors.
5. Herzberg theory of motivation is not free from bias; motivation seekers are motivated basically by the nature of the task whereas maintenance seekers are motivated by the nature of the environment.
(v) Equity Theory of Motivation:
J. S. Adams formulated Equity theory of motivation in 1965 in USA. Adams’s theory is based on the basic assumption that members of an organisation expect justice, fairness and balance in the treatment they get from employers. As per J. C. Adams, individuals’ motivation level is concerned with his perception of fairness, equity, justice practiced by the management.
This theory of motivation is based on two assumptions about human behaviour:
1. Individuals make contributions (inputs) for which they expect certain outcomes (rewards). Inputs include employees training, experience, skill etc. Outcomes include wages, promotion, status, recognition etc.
2. Individuals decide whether or not a particular exchange is satisfactory, by comparing their inputs and outcomes to those of others in the form of a ratio.
Major Components of Equity Theory:
1. Person- These are the people who perceives themselves in relation to other people.
2. Other- These are the people that are the basis of the comparisons made.
3. Inputs- Inputs are what an individual perceives as what he has put into the job.
4. Outcomes- Outcomes are rewards he gets from the organisation.
Other highlights of the theory are:
1. Motivation depends on the equity between inputs and outcomes.
2. An individual also compares equity he gets with that of another person in (the same or) another organisations doing a similar job. He expects equity between these two also.
3. An individual who feels that the outcomes he receives are fair in comparison to his inputs will be satisfied and motivated.
4. For such a comparison with others he calculates the equity in following way –
According to Adams, Equity is perceived when the ratio is equal. In other words, equity exists when an individual concludes that his/her own outcomes/input ratio is equal to that of other people. And if the ratio is unequal, then it will create a negative tension in an employee’s mind and thus he will be motivated to reduce his tension.
Criticism:
Adams theory is criticized on the following reasons:
1. It provides narrow explanation of motivation.
2. The theory is insufficient in explaining the process by which an individual will choose a comparison with others.
3. Equity theories explain the relationship of employee’s motivation with perception and feeling of the employee and thus ignores the other factors influencing human behavior.
Theories of Motivation in Management # Motivational Theories in the Workplace
Motivation the forces either internal or external to a person that arouse enthusiasm and resistance to pursue a certain course of action. According to Baron et al. (2008)- “Although motivation is a broad and complex concept, organizational scientists have agreed on its basic characteristics. Drawing from various social sciences, we define motivation as the set of processes that arouse, direct and maintain human behavior toward attaining some goal.”
There are many different motivation theories such as:
i. Attribution theory
ii. Equity theory
iii. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
iv. Incentive theory (psychology)
v. Model of emotional labor in organizations
vi. Frederick Herzberg two-factor theory.
From the very beginning, when the human organizations were established, various thinkers have tried to find out the answer to what motivates people to work. Different approaches applied by them have resulted in a number of theories concerning motivation.
These all theories are broadly classified into three categories:
1. Theories based on human needs (theories by Maslow, Herzberg and McClelland);
2. Theories based on human nature (theories by McGregor, Urwick and Argyris); and
3. Theories based on expectancy of human beings (theories by Vroom and Porter and Lawler).
These are discussed, in brief, in that order.
1. Theories Based on Human Needs:
(i) Maslow’s Theory:
Abraham Maslow (Hierarchy of Needs) – Abraham Maslow was an American psychologist best known for his theory of the hierarchy of needs.
The following important proposition has been advanced by Abraham Harold Maslow (April 1, 1908 – June 8, 1970) about human behaviour in analysing his model:
(a) Man is Wanting Animal:
Wants of a man are innumerable and never ending. So, as soon as one of his wants is satisfied, another appears in its place. This is a motivation which keeps men engaged on the work.
(b) A Satisfied Need is No More a Motivator:
As soon as a need is satisfied, it loses its capacity to induce the man to work and only unsatisfied needs or fresh needs can motivate people to work.
(c) Needs Have Hierarchy of Importance:
Maslow is of the opinion that needs are satisfied in an order. As soon as the lower level needs are satisfied, those on the next higher level emerge and demand is created.
Maslow’s Need Hierarchy:
Maslow has suggested the following hierarchy of needs which an individual attempts to satisfy in an order:
(a) Basic physiological needs;
(b) Safely and security needs;
(c) Belongingness, social or love needs;
(d) Esteem and status needs; and
(e) Self-actualisation or self-realisation or self-fulfillment needs.
Starting at the bottom and working upwards, the various needs can be understood as follows:
(a) Basic Physiological Needs:
The physiological needs concern the needs of human body such as food, shelter, clothing, sex etc. They are basic to preserve human life and are more or less universal. These needs are at the lowest level in the hierarchy of needs.
(b) Safety and Security Needs:
These needs come second in the hierarchy order and are concerned with the physical and financial security. These include job security, physical security, security of income, old age provision, security from risks, etc.
(c) Belongingness, Social or Love Needs:
Man, being a social animal is always interested to live in a society or group which loves him, most. He wants to give or receive love. These needs refer to the needs of conversation, sociability, exchange of feelings and grievances, recognition and belongingness.
(d) Esteem and Status Needs:
Next in the hierarchy are esteem or egoistic needs. These needs may be- (i) self-esteem or (ii) public esteem.
Self-esteem means esteem in the eyes of self, i.e., a feeling that he is doing something worthwhile. Public esteem means esteem or image in the eyes of public such as praise, admiration, public appreciation, etc.
(e) Self-Actualisation or Self-Realisation Needs:
These are individual needs for realising his own potentialities, opportunity for creativity and for continuous development of the individual power and skill. In other words, these are what a person considers to be his mission in life.
The hierarchy of needs as given by A.H. Maslow and discussed above may be shown by the following diagram:
Lower Order and Higher Order Needs:
Maslow has further classified the five needs into two categories- (i) Lower order needs and (ii) Higher order needs.
(i) Lower Order Needs:
The first two needs (Basic Physiological and Safety and Security needs) in the order are labelled by Maslow as lower- level needs. These needs are finite. These needs are to be satisfied in priority to others because they are needs of the first kind. A man cannot survive without them and a man will be ready to do anything to satisfy these needs.
A hungry man can do whatever he can to get the bread. As soon as, he satisfies his basic needs, his second need of security and safety get priority. It is so why a man collects grain for future use or tries to save money for his old age.
(ii) Higher-Order Needs:
The rest three needs in the hierarchy (Belongingness social or love needs, esteem and status needs and self- actualisation needs) are categorised as higher-order needs. In other words, they are secondary needs. They relate to the personality or the society and are external needs. Higher-order needs are infinite or unlimited but they are satisfied only after lower level needs are satisfied.
All the three needs under this category should also be satisfied, in order of priority. Lower-level needs dominate higher-order needs but higher-order need can in no case dominate lower-level needs. These needs are likely to be dominant factors in motivating people at higher level in the management.
Critical Appraisal of the Model:
The model is very simple and helps in understanding the human behaviour of people at work but it has certain limitations.
The criticisms of the theory include the following:
1. The needs may or may not follow a definite hierarchical order. So to say, there may be overlapping in need hierarchy. For example, even if safely needs is not satisfied, the social need may emerge.
2. The need priority model may not apply at all times in all places in all circumstances in the sequence given by Maslow.
3. Researches show that man’s behaviour at any time is mostly guided by multiplicity of behaviour. Hence, Maslow’s preposition that one need is satisfied at one time is also of doubtful validity.
4. In case of some people, the level of motivation may be permanently lower. For example, a person suffering from chronic unemployment may remain satisfied for the rest of his life if only he/she can get enough food.
5. There are many determinants of behaviour other than needs.
6. Motivations are not a result of single need.
7. One need does not lead all people to the same behaviour.
8. Hierarchical order is not rigid.
Extent of Application in Organizations:
Maslow’s need priority order applies to people in general and in organizations, but it all depends upon social environment in which they live. Maslow’s Model seems to apply to Managers and professionals in the U.S.A. and the U.K. and other developed countries but in Japan and other continental countries, the model does not apply even to managers.
The model does apply even to under developed countries like India where economic conditions of workers do not seem to be satisfactory because they prefer to satisfy their physiological and security needs.
(ii) Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory:
The psychologist Frederick Irving Herzberg (1923-2000) extended the work of Maslow and proposed a new motivation theory popularly known as Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene (Two-Factor) Theory. Herzberg conducted a widely reported motivational study on 200 accountants and engineers employed by firms in and around western Pennsylvania.
He asked these people to describe two important incidents at their jobs- (1) When did you feel particularly good about your job and (2) when did you feel exceptionally bad about your job. He used the critical incident method of obtaining data.
The responses when analysed were found quite interesting and fairly consistent. The replies respondents gave when they felt good about their jobs were significantly different from the replies given when they felt bad. Reported good feelings were generally associated with job satisfaction whereas bad feelings with job dissatisfaction.
Herzberg labeled the job satisfiers motivators and he called job dissatisfies hygiene or maintenance factors. Taken together, the motivators and hygiene factors have become known as Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation.
Frederick Herzberg- (Hygiene and Motivation Factors):
Frederick Herzberg proposed that satisfaction and dis-satisfaction at work resulted from Hygiene and Motivation factors.
According to Herzberg, the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction. The underlying reason, he says, is that removal of dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. He believes in the existence of a dual continuum. The opposite ‘satisfaction’ is ‘no satisfaction’ and the opposite of ‘dissatisfaction’ is ‘no dissatisfaction’?
However, Herzberg’s model is labeled with the following criticism:
1. People generally tend to take credit themselves when things go well. They blame failure on the external environment.
2. The theory basically explains job satisfaction not motivation.
3. Even job satisfaction is not measured on an overall basis. It is not unlikely that a person may dislike part of his/her job, still thinks the job acceptable.
4. This theory neglects situational variable to motive an individual.
Regardless of criticisms, Herzberg’s ‘two-factor motivation theory’ has been widely read and a few managers seem unfamiliar with his recommendations. The main use of his recommendations lies in planning and controlling of employees’ work.
Distinction between Maslow’s and Herzberg’s Theories:
Both Maslow and Herzberg theories focus on motivational factors. However, both differ from each other in their approaches. Maslow’s motivation theory is based on the hierarchy of needs. According to this theory, only unsatisfied needs motivate individuals. Once a need is satisfied, it ceases to be a motivating factor.
But, Herzberg’s motivation theory is based on motivational and hygiene or maintenance factors. According to Herzberg, hygiene or maintenance factors prevent job dissatisfaction but do not provide motivation to workers. In his view, Maslow’s lower order needs like physiological, safety and social needs act as hygiene or maintenance factors.
Comparison of Herzberg and Maslow Models:
Both the models are dealing with the same problem. Maslow talks in term of human needs whereas Herzberg talks of goals which satisfy those needs. Maslow describes various factors which impel a person to behave as he does whereas Herzberg tells us what makes a man satisfied or dissatisfied with his job, which depends very much on factors available on or off the job. Both models represent the two sides of the same coin.
Maslow is helpful in identifying needs or motives and Herzberg provides us with insights into goals and incentives that tend to satisfy these needs. If we know the high strength needs (Maslow Theory) of individual which we want to influence, then we should be able to determine what goals (Herzberg) we could provide in the situation to motivate those individuals.
On the other hand, if we know the goals of the people, the want to satisfy, we can very well predict their high priority needs. Hersey and Blanchard have combined these two things (needs and goals). Physiological, safety, social and part of the esteem and status needs under Maslow Model are all hygiene factors under Herzberg model.
The esteem needs are divided because there is a different between status and recognition. Status may be classified with physiological, safety and social needs as a hygiene factor while recognition is classified with esteem as motivational factors.
(iii) McClelland’s Need Theory:
Another well-known need-based theory of motivation as opposed to hierarchy of needs or satisfaction- dissatisfaction is the theory developed by McClelland and his associates. David C. McClelland (May 20, 1917 – March 1998) developed his theory based on Henry Murray’s developed long list of motives and manifest needs used in his early studies of personality.
McClelland’s need theory is closely associated with learning theory, because he believed that needs are learned or acquired by the kinds of events people experienced in their environment and culture. He found that people who acquire a particular need behave differently from those who do not have.
His theory focuses on Murray’s three needs- achievement, power and affiliation. In the literature, these three needs are abbreviated “n Ach”, “n Pow” and “n Aff” respectively.
They are defined as follows:
a. Need for Achievement:
This is the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standard and to strive to succeed. In other words, need for achievement is a behaviour directed toward competition with a standard of excellence. McClelland, an American psychological theorist, found that people with a high need for achievement perform better than those with a moderate or low need for achievement and noted regional/national differences in achievement motivation.
Through his research, McClelland identified the following three characteristics of high-need achievers:
i. High-need achievers have a strong desire to assume personal responsibility for performing a task or finding a solution to a problem.
ii. High-need achievers tend to set moderately difficult goals and take calculated risks.
iii. High-need achievers have a strong desire for performance feedback.
b. Need for Power:
The need for power is concerned with making an impact on others, the desire to influence others, the urge to change people and the desire to make a difference in life. People with high need for power are people who like to be in control of people and events. This results is ultimate satisfaction to man.
People who have a high need for power are characterized by:
i. A desire to influence and direct somebody else.
ii. A desire to exercise control over others.
iii. A concern for maintaining leader-follower relations.
c. Need for Affiliation:
The need for affiliation is defined as a desire to establish and maintain friendly and warm relations with other people. The need for affiliation, in many ways, is similar to Maslow’s social needs.
The people with high need for affiliation have these characteristics:
i. They have a strong desire for acceptance and approval from others.
ii. They tend to conform to the wishes of those people whose friendship and companionship they value.
iii. They value the feelings of others.
2. Theories Based on Human Nature:
(i) McGregor’s Participation Theory:
Douglas McGregor formulated two distinct views of human being based on participation of workers. The first basically negative, labeled Theory X and the other basically positive, labeled Theory Y.
Theory X is based on the following assumptions:
1. People are by nature indolent. That is, they like to work as little as possible.
2. People lack ambition, dislike responsibility and prefer to be directed by others.
3. People are inherently self-centered and indifferent to organizational needs and goals.
4. People are generally gullible and not very sharp and bright.
On the contrary, theory Y assumes that:
1. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational goals.
2. They want to assume responsibility.
3. They want their organization to succeed.
4. People are capable of directing their own behaviour.
5. They have need for achievement.
What McGregor tried to dramatise through his theory X and theory Y is to outline the extremes to draw the fencing within which the organizational man is usually seen to behave. The fact remains that no organizational man would actually belong either to theory X or theory Y. In reality, he/she shares the traits of both.
What actually happens is that man swings from one set of properties to the other with changes in his mood and motives in changing environment.
Comparison of Theories X and Y:
Both theories have certain assumptions about human nature. In fact, they are reverse sides of a coin, one representing head and the other representing tail. Thus, these assumptions seem to be mutually exclusive.
The difference between two sets of assumptions can be visualised as follows:
1. Theory X assumes human beings to be inherently distasteful towards work. Theory Y assumes that for human beings work is as natural as play.
2. Theory X emphasises that people do not have ambitions and try to avoid responsibilities in jobs. The assumptions under theory Y are just the reverse.
3. According to theory X; most people have little capacity for creativity while according to theory Y, the capacity for creativity is widely distributed in the population.
4. In theory X, motivating factors are the lower needs. In theory Y, higher order needs are more important for motivation, though unsatisfied lower needs are also important.
5. In theory X, people lack self-motivation and require to be externally controlled and closely supervised to get maximum output from them. In theory Y, people are self-directed and creative and prefer self-control.
6. Theory X emphasises scalar chain system and centralisation of authority in the organisation while theory Y emphasises decentralisation and greater participation in the decision-making process.
7. Theory X emphasises autocratic leadership; theory Y emphasises democratic and supportive leadership styles.
Much after the propositions of theories X and Y by McGregor, the three theorists-Lyndall Fowner Urwick (March 3, 1891 – Dec. 1983), Rangnekar and William G. Ouchi (born in 1943) propounded the third theory labelled as Z theory.
The two propositions in Urwick’s theory are that:
(1) Each individual should know the organizational goals precisely and the amount of contribution through his efforts towards these goals.
(2) Each individual should also know that the realisation of organizational goals is going to satisfy his/her needs positively.
Professor Ouchi spent years researching Japanese companies and examining American companies using the Theory Z management styles. By the 1980’s, Japan was known for the highest productivity anywhere in the world, while America had fallen drastically. Ouchi wrote a book called Theory Z How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge (1981), in this book; Ouchi shows how American corporations can meet the Japanese challenges with a highly effective management style that promises to transform business in the 1980’s.
The secret to Japanese success, according to Ouchi, is not technology, but a special way of managing people. “This is a managing style that focuses on a strong company philosophy, a distinct corporate culture, long-range staff development and consensus decision-making”. Ouchi shows that the results show lower turn-over, increased job commitment and dramatically higher productivity.
William Ouchi doesn’t say that the Japanese culture for business is necessarily the best strategy for the American companies but he takes Japanese business techniques and adapts them to the American corporate environment. Much like McGregor’s theories, Ouchi’s Theory Z makes certain assumptions about workers.
Some of the assumptions about workers under this theory include the idea that workers tend to want to build happy and intimate working relationships with those that they work for and with, as well as the people that work for them. Also, Theory Z workers have a high need to be supported by the company and highly value a working environment in which such things as family, cultures and traditions and social institutions are regarded as equally important as the work itself.
These types of workers have a very well developed sense of order, discipline, a moral obligation to work hard and a sense of cohesion with their fellow workers. Finally, Theory Z workers, it is assumed, can be trusted to do their jobs to their utmost ability, so long as management can be trusted to support them and look out for their wellbeing.
One of the most important pieces of this theory is that management must have a high degree of confidence in its workers in order for this type of participative management to work. This theory assumes that workers will be participating in the decisions of the company to a great degree.
Ouchi explains that the employees must be very knowledgeable about the various issues of the company, as well as possessing the competence to make those decisions. He also points out; however, that management sometimes has a tendency to underestimate the ability of the workers to effectively contribute to the decision making process.
But for this reason, Theory Z stresses the need for the workers to become generalists, rather than specialists and to increase their knowledge of the company and its processes through job rotations and constant training. Actually, promotions tend to be slower in this type of setting, as workers are given a much longer opportunity to receive training and more time to learn the ins and outs of the company’s operations.
The desire, under this theory, is to develop a work force, which has more of a loyalty towards staying with the company for an entire career and be more permanent than in other types of settings. It is expected that once an employee does rise to a position of high level management, they will know a great deal more about the company and how it operates and will be able to use Theory Z management theories effectively on the newer employees.
Further abstraction from the list above:
1. Individual needs depend on the prior experience of the individual.
2. Only the most fundamental needs are common to all people and cultures.
3. All actions are in an attempt to fulfill needs (selfishly or unselfishly) rather than motivated by some intrinsic property of humans.
This leads me to a seemingly strongly individualistic stance on motivation. However, although not stated explicitly it should be remembered that any of these statements could be made about the need to give charitably, share with one’s community, achieve nirvana, etc. and so can and should be considered in a multi-cultural context as well as a purely western individualistic way.
Performance-Related Pay (PRP):
Performance related pay assumes that people will be more motivated if they are paid more for success or desired behaviours. Although this is instinctively intuitive for most people, the actuality is that PRP doesn’t work and that paying people for their performance can actually de-motivate people- Why performance related pay doesn’t work
An aside for those reading to understand how to motivate people at work:
Many people come to motivation in an organizational context from the perspective of ‘the staff are not motivated enough’. However in looking for tools to apply to others they show their fundamental belief that other people are defective in some way and need to be changed, i.e. the people are evil philosophy.
People are intrinsically and extrinsically motivated either way (i.e., good or evil theories), within the typical organizational context it is safe to assume that people are motivated to do a job to a required standard and get resources and recognition in exchange.
The role of the person questioning why their staff are not motivated should be to ask what aberration of the system of work is making people act in this unnatural (i.e., de-motivated) way and not to ask what is wrong with the people whilst assuming that their systems are perfect.
Fundamentally, you can’t change other people and so you have to change yourself and organizations instead. Giving up trying to change others is the most powerful leadership move anyone can make.
In Urwick’s view, the above two make people ready to behave positively to accomplish both organizational and individual goals.
However, Ouchi’s theory Z has attracted the lot of attention of management practitioners as well as researchers. It must be noted that Z does not stand for anything, but is merely the last alphabet in the English language.
Theory Z is based on the following four postulates:
1. Strong Bond between Organization and Employees.
2. Employee Participation and Involvement.
3. No Formal Organization Structure.
4. Human Resource Development.
Ouchi’s theory Z represents the adoption of Japanese management practices (group decision making, social cohesion, job security, holistic concern for employees, etc.,) by the American companies. In India Maruti-Suzuki, Hero-Honda, etc., apply the postulates of theory Z.
Chris Argyris (born July 16, 1923, an US Business theorist) has developed his motivations theory based on proposition how management practices affect the individual behaviour and growth. In his view, the seven changes taking place in an individual’s personality make him/her a mature one.
Argyris views that immaturity exists in individuals mainly because of organizational setting and management practices such as task specialisation, chain of command, unity of direction and span of management. In order to make individuals grow mature, he proposes gradual shift from the existing pyramidal organization structure to humanistic system; from existing management system to the more flexible and participative management.
He states that such situation will satisfy not only their physiological and safety needs, but also will motivate them to make ready to make more use of their potential in accomplishing organizational goals.
3. Theories Based on Expectancy of Human Beings:
(i) Vroom’s Expectancy Theory:
One of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation is offered by Victor Vroom in his Expectancy Theory. It is a cognitive process theory of motivation. The theory is founded on the basic notions that people will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when they believe there are relationships between the efforts, they put forth, the performance they achieve and the outcomes/ rewards they receive.
Thus, the key constructs in the expectancy theory of motivation are:
1. Valence- Valence, according to Vroom, means the value or strength one places on a particular outcome or reward.
2. Expectancy- It relates efforts to performance.
3. Instrumentality- By instrumentality, Vroom means, the belief that performance is related to rewards.
Thus, Vroom’s Motivation can also be expressed in the form of an equation as follows:
Motivation = Valence x Expectancy x Instrumentality
Being the model multiplicative in nature, all the three variables must have high positive values to imply motivated performance choices. If any one of the variables approaches to zero level, the possibility of the so motivated performance also touches zero level.
The expectancy theory of motivation is suggested by Victor Vroom. Unlike Maslow and Herzberg, Vroom does not concentrate on needs, but rather focuses on outcomes.
Whereas Maslow and Herzberg look at the relationship between internal needs and the resulting effort expended to fulfill them, Vroom separates effort (which arises from motivation), performance and outcomes.
Vroom, hypothesizes that in order for a person to be motivated that effort, performance and motivation must be linked. He proposes three variables to account for this, which he calls Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality.
Expectancy is the belief that increased effort will lead to increased performance i.e. if one works harder than this will be better.
This is affected by such things as:
1. Having the right resources available (e.g., raw materials, time).
2. Having the right skills to do the job.
3. Having the necessary support to get the job done (e.g., supervisor support, or correct information on the job).
Instrumentality is the belief that if you perform well that a valued outcome will be received, i.e., if one does a good job, there is something in it for me.
This is affected by such things as:
1. Clear understanding of the relationship between performance and outcomes, e.g., the rules of the reward ‘game’.
2. Trust in the people who will take the decisions on who gets what outcome.
3. Transparency of the process that decides who gets what outcome.
Valence is the importance that the individual places upon the expected outcome. For example, if one’s mainly motivated by money, he might not value offers of additional time off.
Having examined these links, the idea is that the individual then changes their level of effort according to the value they place on the outcomes they receive from the process and on their perception of the strength of the links between effort and outcome.
So, if he perceives that any one of these is true:
1. Ones increased effort will not increase his performance.
2. Ones increased performance will not increase his rewards.
3. One does not value the rewards on offer.
…then Vroom’s expectancy theory suggests that this individual will not be motivated. This means that even if an organization achieves two out of three, that employees would still not be motivated, all three are required for positive motivation.
Here there is also a useful link to the Equity theory of motivation- namely that people will also compare outcomes for themselves with others. Equity theory suggests that people will alter the level of effort they put in to make it fair compared to others according to their perceptions.
Crucially, Expectancy theory works on perceptions – so even if an employer thinks they have provided everything appropriate for motivation and even if this works with most people in that organisation it does not mean that someone won’t perceive that it does not work for them.
At first glance this theory would seem most applicable to a traditional-attitude work situation where how motivated the employee is depends on whether they want the reward on offer for doing a good job and whether they believe more effort will lead to that reward.
However, it could equally apply to any situation where someone does something because they expect a certain outcome. For example, one recycle paper because he thinks it’s important to conserve resources and take a stand on environmental issues (valence). He thinks that the more effort he puts into recycling the more paper he will recycle (expectancy); and he thinks that the more paper he recycles then less resources will be used (instrumentality).
Thus, this theory of motivation is not about self-interest in rewards but about the associations people make towards expected outcomes and the contribution they feel they can make towards those outcomes.
Other theories, in my opinion, do not allow for the same degree of individuality between people. This model takes into account individual perceptions and thus personal histories, allowing a richness of response not obvious in Maslow or McClelland, who assume that people are essentially all the same.
Expectancy theory could also be overlaid over another theory (e.g., Maslow). Maslow could be used to describe which outcomes people are motivated by and Vroom to describe whether they will act based upon their experience and expectations.
However, Vroom’s expectancy theory has its critics.
The important ones are:
1. Critics like Porter and Lawer labeled it as a theory of cognitive hedonism which proposes that individual cognitively chooses the course of action that leads to the greatest degree of pleasure or the smallest degree of pain.
2. The assumption that people are rational and calculating makes the theory idealistic.
3. The expectancy theory does not describe individual and situational differences.
But the valence or value people place on various rewards varies. For example, one employee prefers salary to benefits, whereas another person prefers to just the reverse. The valence for the same reward varies from situation to situation.
In spite of all these critics, the greatest point in the expectancy theory is that it explains why a significant segment of workforce exerts low levels of efforts in carrying out job responsibilities.
The most widely accepted explanations of motivation have been propounded by Victor Vroom. His theory is commonly known as expectancy theory. The theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a specific way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual to make this simple, expectancy theory says that an employee can be motivated to perform better when there is a belief that the better performance will lead to good performance appraisal and that this shall result into realization of personal goal in form of some reward.
Therefore an employee is-
Motivation = Valence × Expectancy
The theory focuses on three things:
1. Efforts and performance relationship
2. Performance and reward relationship
3. Rewards and personal goal relationship.
This leads us to a conclusion that:
Valance × Expectancy
(ii) The Porter and Lawler Model:
Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler developed a more complete version of motivation depending upon expectancy theory.
Actual performance in a job is primarily determined by the effort spent. But it is also affected by the person’s ability to do the job and also by individual’s perception of what the required task is. So performance is the responsible factor that leads to intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards. These rewards, along with the equity of individual leads to satisfaction. Hence, satisfaction of the individual depends upon the fairness of the reward.
The demographics of the work force are changing! There are a number of different characteristics contributing to diversity. Among these are age, gender, ethnicity and education. Currently, the work force is getting older due to the baby boom generation. Additionally, women are now accounting for almost half of the work force. The racial mix of the country is changing rapidly, as the percentage of the white population continues to decline.
Finally, the level of education within the United States is increasing. However, while the face of the workforce is changing, many of our attitudes and beliefs have remained obstinate. When an organization continues to embrace negative implicit attitudes about race, age, gender, or other characteristics, discrimination in the workplace becomes an issue.
This discrimination in the workplace has multiple implications, including its effect on employee motivation. To better understand how discrimination and motivation relate, let’s examine a contemporary and a process theory of motivation.
The contemporary equity theory of motivation argues that a major input into job performance and satisfaction is the degree of equity (or inequity) that people perceive in their work situation. As a result, motivation is heavily impacted by things like cognitive dissonance and the exchange theory.
The theory is cognitively based because it focuses on the thought processes and perceptions of the employee. Inequity occurs when an employee perceives his/her outcomes to inputs and the ratio of a coworker’s outcomes to inputs to be unequal and can be schematically represented as follows-
Person’s outcomes/Person’s inputs < Other outcome’s/Other’s inputs = Inequality
If the person’s ratio is not perceived to be equal to the comparative person’s ration, he/she will strive to restore equity. The strife is considered employee motivation and the greater the perceived inequity, the more motivated an employee becomes. It is important to note that equality or inequality is based on perception and is subjective.
Discrimination is unequal treatment of individuals and the equity theory of motivation would suggest that when we feel unequal, we become motivated to balance those ratios. This balancing can be accomplished by changing outcomes or inputs, cognitively distorting outcome’s or inputs, leaving the field and finally to act on or change the person whose ratio is greater than our own.
The process theory called the Porter-Lawler Model suggests that levels of motivation are based more on the value that individuals place on the reward. The components that effect motivation then, are called valence (what’s important to you) and expectancy (can I do it).
Porter and Lawler suggest that perceived inequality in this model plays a pivotal role in job satisfaction. Our motivation or effort leads to performance. Our performance is followed by intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. The perceived equity of those rewards leads to satisfaction.
Discrimination in this model becomes relevant after performance. Our perceptions of equal or unequal rewards may cause us to be unsatisfied with the job and less motivated to perform in the future. This is because the model is cyclical. If we are unsatisfied, we feel less motivated and less instrumental.
As a result, effort and performance decrease. It becomes particularly critical then, for an organization to evaluate its rewards system. An employee’s perception of inequality could be disastrous to a company!
The Equity Theory and Porter-Lawler Model are only two motivational theories that demonstrate the importance of avoiding discriminatory practices in the workplace. It is imperative that employees receive equal treatment on the job.
Though discrimination today is subtle, it continues to be problematic. If we continue to act preferentially, employee motivation will be adversely affected and eventually performance will cease. By participating in such practices, we are steadily building the foundation for disaster.
(iii) Clayton Alderfer’s ERG Theory:
Alderfer has tried to rebuild the hierarchy of needs of Maslow into another model named ERG, i.e., Existence – Relatedness – Growth. According to him there are 3 groups of core needs. The existence group is concerned mainly with providing basic material existence. The second group is the individuals need to maintain interpersonal relationship with other members in the group. The final group is the intrinsic desire to grow and develop personally.
The major conclusions of this theory are:
1. In an individual, more than one need may be operative at the same time.
2. If a higher need goes unsatisfied than the desire to satisfy a lower need intensifies.
3. It also contains the frustration-regression dimension.
4. Equity Theory- As per the equity theory of J. Stacey Adams, people are motivated by their beliefs about the reward structure as being fair or unfair, relative to the inputs. People have a tendency to use subjective judgement to balance the outcomes and inputs in the relationship for comparisons between different individuals.
5. If people feel that they are not equally rewarded they either reduce the quantity or quality of work or migrate to some other organization. However, if people perceive that they are rewarded higher, they may be motivated to work harder.
6. Reinforcement Theory- B.F. Skinner, who propounded the reinforcement theory, holds that by designing the environment properly, individuals can be motivated. Instead of considering internal factors like impressions, feelings, attitudes and other cognitive behavior, individuals are directed by what happens in the environment external to them.
Skinner states that work environment should be made suitable to the individuals and that punishment actually leads to frustration and de-motivation. Hence, the only way to motivate is to keep on making positive changes in the external environment of the organization.
7. Goal Setting Theory of Edwin Locke- Instead of giving vague tasks to people, specific and pronounced objectives, help in achieving them faster. As the clarity is high, a goal orientation also avoids any misunderstandings in the work of the employees. The goal setting theory states that when the goals to be achieved are set at a higher standard than in that case employees are motivated to perform better and put in maximum effort. It revolves around the concept of “Self- efficacy”, i.e., individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a hard task.
8. Cognitive Evaluation Theory- As per this theory a shift from external rewards to internal rewards results into motivation. It believes that even after the stoppage of external stimulus, internal stimulus survives. It relates to the pay structure in the organization. Instead of treating external factors like pay, incentives, promotion etc. and internal factors like interests, drives, responsibility etc., separately, they should be treated as contemporary to each other.
The cognition is to be such that even when external motivators are not there the internal motivation continues. However, practically extrinsic rewards are given much more weightage.
Process Theories of Motivation:
1. Needs-Goal Theory:
Motivation begins with an individual feeling a need. This need is then transformed into behavior directed at supporting, or allowing, the performance of goal behavior to reduce that felt need. Theoretically, goal supportive behavior and goal behavior itself continue until the felt need has been significantly reduced.
2. Vroom Expectancy Theory:
Like the needs- goal theory, motivation strength is determined by the perceived value of the result of performing a behavior and the perceived probability that the behavior performed will cause the result to materialize. As both of these factors increase, so does motivation strength, or the desire to perform the behavior. People tend to perform the behaviors that maximize their rewards over the long term.
3. Equity Theory:
Equity theory looks at an individual’s perceived fairness of an employment situation and finds that perceived inequalities can lead to changes in behavior. When individuals believe that they have been treated unfairly in comparison with their coworkers, they will react in one of four ways-
(a) Changing their work inputs to better match the rewards they are receiving.
(b) Ask for a raise or take legal action.
(c) Change their own perception of the situation.
(d) Quit.
4. Porter-Lawler Theory:
The Porter-Lawler Theory accepts the premises that felt needs cause human behavior and that the effort expended to accomplish a task is determined by the perceived value of rewards that will result from finishing the task and the probability that those rewards will Morale is internal feeling and it is inspired by the environment. Motivation comes from enthusiasm, zeal, confidence in individuals or groups that they will be able to cope with the tasks assigned to them.
Porter and Lawler Model of Motivation:
Lyman Porter and Edward Lawler came up with a comprehensive theory of motivation, combining the various aspects. Porter and Lawler’s model is a more complete model of motivation. This model has been practically applied also in their study of managers. This is a multivariate model which explains the relationship that exists between job attitudes and job performance.
This model is based on four basic assumptions about human behaviour:
(i) It is a multivariate model. According to this model, individual behaviour is determined by a combination of factors in the individual and in the environment.
(ii) Individuals are assumed to be rational human beings who make conscious decisions about their behaviour in the organisations.
(iii) Individuals have different needs, desires and goals.
(iv) On the basis of their expectations, individuals decide between alternative behaviours and such decided behaviour will read to a desired outcome.
In fact, Porter and Lawler’s theory is an improvement over Vroom’s expectancy theory. They say that motivation does not equal satisfaction or performance. The model suggested by them encounters some of the simplistic traditional assumptions made about the positive relationship between satisfaction and performance. They proposed a multi-variate model to explain the complex relationship that exists between satisfaction and performance.
What is the main point in Porter and Lawler’s model is that effort or motivation does not lead directly to performance. It is, in fact, medicated by abilities and traits and by role perceptions. Ultimately, performance leads to satisfaction.
The Various Elements of Porter and Lawler Model:
1. Effort,
2. Performance and
3. Satisfaction.
Let us briefly discuss the main elements of the model:
1. Effort:
Effort refers to the amount of energy an employee exerts on a given task. How much effort an employee will put in a task is determined by two factors- (i) value of reward and (ii) perception of effort-reward probability.
2. Performance:
One’s effort leads to his/her performance. Both may be equal or may not be. However, the amount of performance is determined by the amount of labour and the ability and role perception of the employee.
Thus, if an employee possesses less ability and/or makes wrong role perception, his/her performance may be low in spite of his great efforts.
3. Satisfaction:
Performance leads to satisfaction. The level of satisfaction depends upon the amount of rewards achieved. If the amount of actual rewards meet or exceed perceived equitable rewards, the employee will feel satisfied. On the contrary, if actual rewards fall short of perceived ones, he/she will be dissatisfied.
Rewards may be of two kinds – intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Examples of intrinsic rewards are such as a sense of accomplishment and self-actualisation. Extrinsic rewards may include working conditions and status. A fair degree of research supports that the intrinsic rewards are much more likely to produce attitudes about satisfaction that are related to performance.
There is no denying of the fact that the motivation model proposed by Porter and Lawler is quite complex than other models of motivation. In fact, motivation itself is not a simple cause effect relationship rather it is a complex phenomenon.
Porter and Lawler have attempted to measure variables such as the values of possible rewards, the perception of effort-rewards probabilities and role perceptions in deriving satisfaction. They recommended that the managers should carefully reassess their reward system and structure. The effort- performance-reward-satisfaction should be made integral to the entire system of managing men in organizations.
Theories of Motivation in Management # Theories of Motivation:
All of the theories depend on the individual’s perception of what is a valued motivator. What will be perceived as a motivator depends on the individual’s needs.
The theories of motivation are broadly classified into two as content, and process:
1. Content Theories of Motivation:
These theories attempt to identify what things motivate people. Some of these theories are:
(i) Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs,
(ii) McClelland’s theory of achievement, power, and affiliation needs,
(iii) Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation.
(iv) McGregor’s X and Y theory of motivation
(i) Maslow’s Theory of Hierarchy of Needs:
Abraham Maslow was an American behavioural psychologist who worked both in academia and industry. He published a number of human relations books until the early 1970s, but it was his first book, ‘Motivation and Personality’ published in 1943, that set out his idea of the hierarchy of human needs.
Maslow assumes that what motivates people is unmet needs. People may be seeking to meet more than one category of needs at a time. Maslow argued that the factors that drive or motivate people to act lie on an ascending scale.
Once a group or order of needs is satisfied, the individual will not be motivated by more of the same, but will seek to satisfy higher order needs. What’s more, a higher order need will not be a motivator if lower order needs remain unmet. Maslow defined five orders of needs, listed in ascending importance. First three are the lower order needs and last two are the higher order needs.
(a) Physiological needs (the most basic need), are the ones required for survival, i.e., the basic survival requirements of warmth, shelter and food
(b) Security needs, involve keeping oneself free from harm. i.e., protection from danger of threat
(c) Social needs are the desire for love, friendship, and companionship, i.e. relations with others, expressed as friendship, companionship or love
(d) Esteem needs, are the need for self-esteem and the respect of others, sense of personal worth, respect, and autonomy
(e) Self-actualisation needs (the highest-level need) describe the desire to live up to one’s full potential. In these needs there is a sense of achieving your full potential.
Thus, for example, we won’t be concerned about working relationships or professional achievement if we are truly concerned for our own security. By the same token, a manager won’t motivate someone by talking about personal ambition and achievement if that person feels she/he is about to lose his/her job.
Of course, Maslow’s ideas were applied to the complete range of human experience, whereas for most of us, physiological and security needs are usually met to a large extent. But recent history has shown that when individuals are homeless, hungry and under threat, all social systems and self-respect break down.
Despite this, Maslow’s hierarchy still applies to modern commercial life, and managers would do well to think in these terms when trying to motivate staff.
There have been a number of variations on Maslow over the years. Some split physiological needs down into energy (food, warmth) and protection (shelter). Others have added power – the need for influence over the actions of others, either person-to-person, or group-to-group.
(ii) McClelland’s Theory of Achievement, Power, and Affiliation Needs:
This motivation theory is based on the assumption that through life experiences, people develop various needs.
The three needs include:
(a) The need for achievement – The desire to do something better than it has been done before.
(b) The need for power – The desire to control, influences, or be responsible for other people.
(c) The need for affiliation – The desire to maintain close and friendly personal relationships.
People have all of these needs to some extent. The relative strength of the needs influences what will motivate a person.
(iii) Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation:
Frederick Herzberg studied and practised clinical psychology in Pittsburgh, where he researched the work-related motivations of thousands of employees. His findings were published in ‘The Motivation to Work’ in 1959.
He concluded that there were two types of motivation:
(a) Hygiene Factors – that can de – motivate if they are not present – such as supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, and salary. Hygiene factors affect the level of dissatisfaction, but are rarely quoted as creators of job satisfaction.
(b) Motivation Factors – that will motivate if they are present – such as achievement, advancement, recognition, and responsibility. Dissatisfaction isn’t normally blamed on motivation factors, but they are cited as the cause of job satisfaction.
So, once you’ve satisfied the Hygiene factors, providing more of them won’t generate much more motivation, but lack of the motivation factors won’t of themselves demotivate. There are clear relationships to Maslow here, but Herzberg’s ideas really shaped modern thinking about reward and recognition in major companies.
Employees’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction stem from different sources. Dissatisfaction results from the absence of what Herzberg calls hygiene factors like – salary, relationship with others, etc. Satisfaction results from the presence of motivating factors like – opportunities, etc. The supervisor has control of many of the motivating factors, including recognition, responsibility, advancement, and personal growth.
(iv) McGregor’s X and Y Theory of Motivation:
Douglas McGregor published ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ in 1960, in which he suggested that traditional management methods (which he called Theory X) might not be the only way to get people motivated. Instead, we could take a different approach (based on Theory Y) and achieve the same if not more.
Theory X is the traditional view of direction and control, based on these assumptions:
a. The average person inherently dislikes work and will avoid it if at all possible.
b. As a result, most people have to be coerced, controlled, and threatened if they are to put in enough effort to achieve the organisational goals.
c. In fact the average person prefers to be directed, avoids responsibility, isn’t ambitious and simply seeks security.
Theory Y is based on the integration of individual and organisational goals, assumes:
a. The physical and mental effort of work is as natural as play or rest, so the average person doesn’t inherently dislike work.
b. We are capable of self-direction and self-control, so those factors don’t necessarily have to come from elsewhere.
c. Our commitment to an objective is a function of the rewards for its achievement.
d. The average person learns not only to accept but to seek responsibility.
e. Most people have a capacity for imagination, ingenuity and creativity.
f. The intellectual potential of most people is underused in modern industrial life.
Theory Y is not a soft option. In fact, it can take as much management effort as Theory X, but the effects of a Theory Y approach will last longer. The Theory X manager is a dying breed (although it has to be said he’s not yet extinct), and Theory Y lies behind most modern approaches to motivation. Nowadays, the terminology is used as a polite way of referring to the old command-and-control approach to management-the trouble is the diehard Theory X manager won’t pick up the subtle criticism.
2. Process Theories of Motivation:
Process theories look at the process of motivation rather than specific motivators. The way to explain motivation is to look at it as a process.
Two major process theories are:
(i) Vroom’s expectancy – valence theory of motivation.
(ii) Skinner’s reinforcement theory
(i) Vroom’s Expectancy – Valence Theory of Motivation:
Victor Vroom assumes that people act as they do to satisfy needs they feel. He sets out to explain what determines the intensity of people’s motivation.
He explains that motivation depends on two things:
(a) Valence – the value a person places on the outcome of a particular behaviour.
(b) Expectancy – the perceived probability that the behaviour will lead to the outcome.
The strength of motivation equals the perceived value of the outcome times the perceived probability of the behaviour resulting in the outcome. In other words, people are most motivated to seek results they value highly and think they can achieve. This theory is based on employees’ perceptions of rewards and whether they are able to achieve those rewards.
a. It is important to note that employees may place different values on rewards and their ability to achieve the outcome than does the supervisor.
b. Supervisors need to determine from the employees what is rewarding and what is possible to achieve.
(ii) Skinner’s Reinforcement Theory of Motivation:
B. F. Skinner says that people behave as they do because of the kind of consequences they experience as a result of their behavior. Broadly speaking, people keep doing things that lead to consequences they like, and avoid doing things that have undesirable consequences. For example, praise feels good, so people tend to do things that get them praised. Supervisors can encourage or discourage a particular kind of behaviour by the way they respond to the behaviour.
Consequences can be thought of as:
(a) Reinforcement:
i. The desired consequence for behaviour.
ii. This term is used to indicate positive consequences for desired behaviour.
iii. This is also used to indicate the outcome for ceasing negative behaviour.
(b) Punishment:
i. An unpleasant consequence of behaviour a supervisor wants to end.
ii. This is sometimes described as negative reinforcement
Supervisors must consider individual differences in designing rewards. What motivates one person may not motivate another. Likewise, not all rewards are under the control of the supervisor. Organisational policy, labour contracts, and laws may dictate what an employee may receive. Some supervisors and other managers assume that the main thing employees want out of a job is money.
Based on the content theories of motivation, it makes sense to say that money motivates people when it meets their needs. When a person has high financial demands and relatively low income, money may be a motivator. If an individual is financially comfortable, non-financial rewards, such as a sense of accomplishment, are increasingly important.
Human behaviour in organisation is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals, and groups act in organisations. It does this by taking a system approach. That is, it interprets people-organisation relationships in terms of the whole person, whole group, whole organisation, and whole social system.
It encompasses a wide range of topics, such as human behaviour, change, leadership, teams, etc. Its purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, organisational objectives, and social objectives.