The following passage examines two primary types of motivation theories: content theories and process theories. It specifically evaluates two process theories related to motivation – Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and John Stacy Adams’ Equity Theory. To conduct this research, textbooks, writings, and internet journals were studied and analyzed. The ultimate goal is not to determine the effectiveness of these motivation approaches, but rather to assess their efficacy in various circumstances.
Motivation is the internal drive that activates and guides behavior, derived from the Latin word “movere,” meaning to move. Understanding why and how human behavior is initiated and directed is crucial in comprehending motivation. Managers need a comprehensive understanding of motivation theories to effectively lead individuals towards achieving an organization’s goals.
The theories that emerged recognized the flaws in Taylor’s “scientific management” approach, which relied heavily on monetary incentives and a radical division of labor. These theories also took into account the growing awareness of the working conditions in the industrialized West, leading to the birth of the human relations movement. The Hawthorne Study played a significant role in this movement.
Within the realm of industrial psychology, two strands of work motivation theory emerged and became known as “Content” theories and “Process” theories (Rollinson 1998). The Content Theory of Motivation posits that it is internal or intrinsic factors that drive and guide human behavior. Prominent examples of content theories include Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Alderfer’s ERG theory, Herzeberg’s motivator-hygiene theory (also known as Herzeberg’s dual factors theory), and McClelland’s learned needs or three-needs theory.
Among the various content theories, Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs is the most well-known. Maslow’s theory establishes five levels of basic needs, which are categorized as physiological needs, safety and security needs, needs for love, needs for self-esteem, and needs for self-actualization (Maslow 1954). Similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the ERG theory also encompasses existence, relatedness, and growth needs.
Through dual factors theory, Herzeberg (1993) discusses factors at work that lead to job satisfaction. McClelland’s three-needs theory utilizes the Thematic Aptitude Test (TAT) to assess individuals based on their power, achievement, and affiliation needs. According to McClelland (1967), individuals with a high need for power exert influence on others’ behavior. Victor Vroom has provided the most widely accepted explanations of motivation.
According to the theory of expectancy, an individual’s behavior is influenced by their anticipation of the result and their personal preference for that result. In simple terms, if an employee thinks that better performance will result in a positive evaluation and the achievement of personal objectives as a reward, they will be motivated to improve (Vroom, 1964). Motivation can be measured by multiplying Valence with Expectancy.
The relationship between efforts and performance, performance and rewards, and rewards and personal goals are discussed in Diagram 1 – Equity Theory. According to Vroom (1964), workers are motivated to achieve second level rewards by considering high productivity as a pathway to attaining their personal goals. Conversely, viewing low productivity as a means to achieving personal goals results in lower performance. Porter and Lawler expanded on Vroom’s theory by incorporating expectancy theory, stating that actual job performance is primarily determined by effort but also influenced by ability and perception of the task. Performance leads to intrinsic and extrinsic rewards which, along with individual equity, contribute to satisfaction. Therefore, this theory suggests that efforts, performance, rewards, and personal goals all play a role in motivation and satisfaction.
Individuals are motivated to act when they believe their actions will bring about the desired outcome. Merely putting in effort is insufficient; one must also possess the necessary ability and skill. Job satisfaction stems from effective job performance, not the other way around. Thus, job design greatly influences worker motivation. However, organizations cannot directly control intrinsic traits like an individual’s “locus of control” or other personality characteristics.
Personality traits have a significant impact on an individual’s career or employer choice as they affect motivation. Organizations should consider factors such as job roles, departmental differences, and hierarchical levels when aiming to improve performance. Furthermore, individuals often compare themselves to others in order to assess fairness and reasonableness in certain situations.
The standards we adhere to are influenced by our interactions with various individuals such as friends, colleagues, family members, and other sources of information and opinions. The level of motivation we experience is dependent on how well the rewards we receive align with the effort we exert. When our efforts are not sufficiently compensated through factors like salary, bonus, or special treatment, it can lead to bitterness and disruptive behavior. As a consequence, productivity and output quality may decline while absenteeism rates increase and more employees choose to leave their jobs. Whether individuals compare themselves to others or evaluate their personal achievements, perceiving a lack of recognition for their hard work or performance as unfairness is prevalent. These negative sentiments of dissatisfaction compel individuals to address this disparity which ultimately has an adverse effect on their future performance within the organization.
It is possible for the reverse situation to occur where the reward is overly generous compared to the input (the “fat cat” scenario), and guilt feelings may be experienced. Surprisingly, there is little literature on the impact of motivation in the “fat cat” scenario. Lastly, in terms of considering various motivation theories, there is the goal-setting theory (Locke, 1968), which focuses on the individual rather than the organization.
If individuals do not perceive fair rewards, they may either decrease their work output or resign from the company. Conversely, if individuals believe they are receiving higher rewards, they may be driven to exert more effort.
References
- Adams, J. S. 1965, “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. Eds),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. 2. Carrell, M. R. , and Dittrich, J. E. (1978).
- Equity Theory: The Recent Literature, Methodological Considerations, and New Directions. The Academy of Management Review. 3;2: 202-210.
- Deci, E. L. The effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal o] Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 18, 105-115.
- Herzberg, F Mausner,B & Snyderman, BB 1993,_The Motivation To Work_, Transaction Publishers, NY Huseman, R. C. , Hatfield, J. D. & Miles, E. W. 1987).
- A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct. The Academy of Management Review. 12;2: 222-234.
- Landy, F. , Becker, W. S. (1987), “Motivation theory reconsidered”, in Cummins, L. L. , Staw, B. L. (Eds),Research in Organisational Behaviour, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT Locke, E , 1968
- “Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Volume 3, Issue 2, May 1968, Pages 157-189
- Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York, NY {text:bookmark-start} Mayo, E. 1933),
- The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilisation, Macmillan, New York, NY, . McClelland, D. C. (1967),
- The Achieving Society, Free Press, New York, NY, Porter, L. W. , Lawler, E. E. (1968),
- Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Irwin, Homewood, IL. , {text:bookmark-start} Rollinson,D ,Edwards, D, Broadfield, A (1998)
- Organisational behaviour and analysis : an integrated approach, Addison Wesley, England Skinner, B. F. 1953.
- Science and human _behaviour. New York: Macmillan Taylor, F. 1911. Scientific management. New York: Harper. Vroom, V. (1964),
- Work and Motivation, John Wiley, New York, NY {text:bookmark-end}
