Concept of Motivation & its Theories

Environment has a major influence on our perception of secondary needs. The promotion of a colleague may kindle one's desire to accomplish something by solving it. A congenial social group may increase one's needs for affiliation; and, of course, being alone more than one wants to be can give a strong motivation for wanting to be with people.

In the second place, the need-want-satisfaction chain does not always operate as simply as portrayed. Needs do cause behavior, but needs also may result from behavior. Satisfying one need may lead to a desire to satisfy more needs. For example, a person's need for accomplishment may be made keener by the satisfaction gained from achieving a desired goal or it may be dulled by failure. The one-way nature of the chain has also been challenged by the work of some biological scientists who have found that needs are not always the cause of human behavior but may be a result of it. In other words, behavior is often what people do and not why they do it.

NEED-WANT-SATISFACTION CHAIN

Difference between motivation and satisfaction

Motivation refers to the drive and effort to satisfy a want or goal. Satisfaction refers to the contentment experienced when a want is satisfied. In other words, motivation implies a drive toward an outcome, and satisfaction is the outcome already experienced.

From the management point of view, then, a person might have high job satisfaction but a low level of motivation for the job, or the reverse might be true. Understandably, the probability exists that highly motivated persons with low job satisfaction will look for other positions. Likewise, people who find their positions rewarding but are being paid considerably less than they desire or think they deserve will probably search for other jobs.

Differences between Motivation and Satisfaction

Theories of Motivation

The Hierarchy Of Needs Theory

One of the most widely mentioned theories of motivation is the hierarchy of needs theory put forth by psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow saw human needs in the form of a hierarchy, ascending from the lowest to the highest, and he concluded that when one set of needs is satisfied, this kind of need ceases to be a motivator.

The Needs Hierarchy

The basic human needs placed by Maslow in an ascending order of importance are these:-

. Physiological needs: These are the basic needs for sustaining human life itself, such as food water, warmth, shelter, and sleep. Maslow took the position that until these needs are satisfied to the degree necessary to maintain life, other needs will not motivate people.

2. Security, or safety, needs: These are the needs to be free of physical danger and of the fear of losing a job, property, food, or shelter.

3. Affiliation, or acceptance, needs: Since people are social beings, they need to belong, to be accepted by others.

4. Esteem needs: According to Maslow, once people begin to satisfy their need to belong, they tend to want to be held in esteem both by themselves and by others. This kind of need produces such satisfactions as power, prestige, status and self-confidence.

5. Need for self-actualization: Maslow regards this as the highest need in his hierarchy. It is the desire to become what one is capable of becoming-to maximize one's potential and to accomplish something.

MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

The Motivation-Hygiene approach to Motivation

Maslow's need approach has been considerably modified by Frederick Herzberg and his associates. Their research purports to find a two-factor theory of motivation. In one group of needs are such things as company policy and administration, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, status, job security, and personal life. These were found by Herzberg and his associates to be only dissatisfiers and not motivators. In other words, if they exist in a work environment in high quantity and quality, they yield no dissatisfaction. Their existence does not motivate in the sense of yielding satisfaction; their lack of existence would, however, result in dissatisfaction. Herzberg called them maintenance, hygiene, or job context factors.

In the second group, Herzberg listed certain satisfiers-and therefore motivators-all related to job content. They include achievement, recognition, challenging work, advancement, and growth in the job. Their existence will yield feelings of satisfaction or no satisfaction. As the figure below indicates, the satisfiers and dissatisfiers identified by Herzberg are similar to the factors suggested by Maslow.

The first group of factors (the dissatisfiers) will not motivate people in an organization; yet they must be present, or dissatisfaction will arise. The second group, or the job content factors, Herzberg found to be the real motivators because they have the potential of yielding a sense of satisfaction. Clearly, if this theory of motivation is sound managers must give considerable attention to upgrading job content.

The Herzberg research has not gone unchallenged. Some researchers questioned Herzberg's methods, saying that his investigation methods tended to prejudice his results. For example, the well-known tendency of people to attribute good results to their own efforts and to blame others for poor results is thought to have prejudiced Herzberg's findings. Other researchers, not following his methods, have arrived at conclusions that do not support Herzberg's theory.

COMPARISON OF MASLOW'S AND HERZBERG'S THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

The Expectancy Theory of Motivation

The Expectancy Theory of motivation was given by the psychologist Victor H. Vroom. The expectancy theory of motivation has become a commonly accepted theory for explaining how individuals make decisions regarding various behavioral alternatives. Expectancy theory offers the following propositions:

A. When deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the greatest motivation forces (MF).

B. The motivational force for a behavior, action, or task is a function of three distinct perceptions: Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valance. The motivational force is the product of the three perceptions:

MF = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence

. Expectancy- Probability (E-->P): The expectancy is the belief that one's effort (E) will result is attainment of desired performance (P) goals. This belief, or perception, is generally based on an individual's past experience, self confidence (often termed self efficacy), and the perceived difficulty of the performance standard or goal.

a. Examples include:

i. If I spend most of tonight studying will it improve my grade on tomorrow's math exam?

ii. If I work harder than everyone else in the plant will I produce more?

iii. If I practice my foul shot more will my foul shooting improve in the game?

iv. If I make more sales calls will I make any more sales?

b. Variables affecting the individual's Expectancy perception:

i. Self Efficacy- efficacy is a person's belief about his or her ability to perform a particular behavior successfully. Does the individual believe that he or she has the require skills and competencies required to perform well and the required goals?

ii. Goal Difficulty- Goals that are set too high or performance expectations that are made too difficult, lead to low expectancy perceptions. When individuals perceive that the goals are beyond their ability to achieve, motivation is low because of low Expectancy.

iii. Perceived Control over Performance- for Expectancy to be high, individuals must believe that some degree of control over the expected outcome. When individuals perceive that the outcome is beyond their ability to influence, Expectancy, and thus motivation, is low. For example, many profit-sharing plans do not motivate individuals to increase their effort because these employees do not think that they have direct control over the profits of their large companies.

2. Instrumentality- Probability (P-->R): The instrumentality is the belief that if one does meet performance expectations, he or she will receive a greater reward. This reward may come in the form of a pay increase, promotion, recognition or sense of accomplishment. It is important to note that when it is perceived that valued rewards follow all levels of performance, then instrumentality is low. For example, if a professor is known to give everyone in the class an "A" regardless of performance level, then instrumentality is low.

a. Examples include:

i. If a get a better grade on tomorrow's math test will I get an "A" in math?

ii. If I produce more than anyone else in the plant, will I get a bigger raise? A faster promotion?

iii. If my foul shooting improves will I have a shot a team MVP?

iv. If I make more sales will I get a bonus? A greater commission?

v. If I make more sales will I believe that I am the best sales person or be recognized by others as the best sales person?

b. Variables affecting the individual's instrumentality perception:

i. Trust- When individuals trust their leaders, they're more likely to believe their promises that good performance will be rewarded.

ii. Control- When workers do not trust the leaders of their organizations, they often attempt to control the reward system through a contract or some other type of control mechanism. When individuals believe they have some kind of control over how, when, and why rewards are distributed, Instrumentality tends to increase.

iii. Policies- The degree to which pay and reward systems are formalized in written policies has an impact on the individuals' Instrumentality perceptions. Formalized policies linking rewards to performance tend to increase Instrumentality.

3. Valance- V(R): The valance refers the value the individual personally places on the rewards. This is a function of his or her needs, goals, values and Sources of Motivation.

a. Examples include:

i. How much I really want an "A" in math?

ii. Do I want a bigger raise? Is it worth the extra effort? Do I want a promotion?

iii. How important to me is it to be team MVP?

iv. Do I need a sales bonus? Is the extra time I spend making extra sales calls worth the extra commission?

v. Is it important to me that I am the best salesperson?

b. Variables affecting the individual's Valance for outcomes:

i. Values

ii. Needs

iii. Goals

iv. Preferences

v. Sources of Motivation

c. Potential Valued Outcomes may include:

i. Pay increases and bonuses

ii. Promotions

iii. Time off

iv. New and interesting assignments

v. Recognition

vi. Intrinsic satisfaction from validating one's skills and abilities

vii. Intrinsic satisfaction from knowing that your efforts had a positive influence in helping someone.

IV. Expectancy and Instrumentality are attitudes, or more specifically, they are cognitions. As such, they represent an individual's perception of the likelihood that effort will lead to performance and performance will lead to the desired outcomes. These perceptions represent the individual's subjective reality, and may or may not bear close resemblance to actual probabilities. These perceptions are tempered by the individual's experiences (learning theory), observations of others (social learning theory), and self-perceptions.

V. Expectancy Theory can be used to define what is termed a strong situation. Strong situations act to have base is a strong influence on the behavior of individuals, often overriding their personalities, personal preferences, and other dispositional variables.

B. Consequences: There are highly valued positive or negative outcomes perceived to be associated with behavior in the situation. This is the same as Valance in Expectancy Theory

C. Likelihood: There is a high perceived probability that these consequences will follow behavior (e.g., "I am certain that if I swear at my boss, she will fire me"). This is the same as Instrumentality in Expectancy Theory.

D. Specificity: Required behavior is well defined and understood by the individual (e.g., "Wear a black tuxedo" is more specific than "dress appropriately"). This is a part of what determines Expectancy in Expectancy Theory.

Equity Theory

John Stacey Adams, workplace and behavioral psychologist, put forward his Equity Theory on job motivation in 1963. There are similarities with Charles Handy's extension and interpretation of previous simpler theories of Maslow, Herzberg and other pioneers of workplace psychology, in that the theory acknowledges that subtle and variable factors affect each individual's assessment and perception of their relationship with their work, and thereby their employer. Awareness and cognizance feature more strongly than in earlier models, as does the influence of colleagues and friends, etc, in forming cognizance, and in this particular model, 'a sense of what is fair and reasonable'.

Adams' Equity Theory

We each seek a fair balance between what we put into our job and what we get out of it. Adams calls these inputs and outputs. We form perceptions of what constitutes a fair balance or trade of inputs and outputs by comparing our own situation with other 'referents' (reference points or examples) in the market place. We are also influenced by colleagues, friends, partners in establishing these benchmarks and our own responses to them in relation to our own ratio of inputs to outputs.

Inputs are typically: effort, loyalty, hard work, commitment, skill, ability, adaptability, flexibility, tolerance, determination, heart and soul, enthusiasm, trust in our boss and superiors, support of colleagues and subordinates, personal sacrifice, etc.

People need to feel that there is a fair balance between inputs and outputs.

Outputs are typically all financial rewards - pay, salary, expenses, perks, benefits, pension arrangements, bonus and commission - plus intangibles - recognition, reputation, praise and thanks, interest, responsibility, stimulus, travel, training, development, sense of achievement and advancement, promotion, etc.

If we feel are that inputs are fairly and adequately rewarded by outputs (the fairness benchmark being subjectively perceived from market norms and other comparables references) then we are happy in our work and motivated to continue inputting at the same level.

If we feel that our inputs out-weigh the outputs then we become demotivated in relation to our job and employer. People respond to this feeling in different ways: generally the extent of demotivation is proportional to the perceived disparity between inputs and expected outputs. Some people reduce effort and application and become inwardly

disgruntled, or outwardly difficult, recalcitrant or even disruptive. Other people seek to improve the outputs by making claims or demands for more reward, or seeking an alternative job.

EQUITY THEORY

McClelland's Theory of Needs

The one single motivating factor which has received the most attention in terms of research, is the need for achievement (n-ach). As a result, we know more about n-ach than any other motivational factor. Much of this knowledge is due the work of David McClelland of Harvard. To illustrate what he means by the need for achievement, McClelland cites the following example:

"Several years ago, a careful study was made of 450 workers who had been thrown out of work by a plant shutdown in Erie, Pennsylvania. Most of the unemployed workers stayed at home for a while and then checked with the employment service to see if their old jobs or similar ones were available. But a small minority among them behaved differently; the day they were laid off, they started job hunting. They checked both national and local employment offices; they studied the Help Wanted sections of the papers; they checked through their union, their church and various fraternal organisations; they looked into training courses to learn a new skill; they even left town to look for work, while the majority when questioned said they would not under any circumstances move away to obtain a job. Obviously the members of the active minority were differently motivated".

Individuals with a high n-ach have a number of distinctive characteristics which separate them from their peers. First of all, they like situations where they can take personal responsibility for finding solutions to problems. This allows them to gain personal satisfaction from their achievements. They do not like situations where success or failure results from chance. The important thing is that the outcome be the result of their own skill and effort.

A second characteristic of high n-ach people is that they like to set moderately high goals for themselves. These goals are neither so low that they can be achieved with little challenge, nor so high that they are impossible. High n-ach individuals prefer goals that require all-out effort and the exercise of all their abilities. Once again, the achievement of this type of objective results in greater personal satisfaction. This phenomenon can be observed in very young children. A child may be given a game of ring toss, told that he or she scores whenever a ring lands over the peg and then left alone to play the game. McClelland comments:

"Obviously children who stand next to the peg can score a ringer every time; but if they stand a long distance away, they will hardly ever get a ringer. The curious fact is that children with a high concern for achievement quite consistently stand at moderate distances from the peg where they are apt to get achievement satisfaction ... The ones with low n-Achievement, on the other hand, distribute their choices of where to stand quite randomly over the entire distance. In other words, people with high n-Achievement prefer a situation where there is a challenge, where there is some real risk of not succeeding, but not so great a risk that they might not overcome it by their own efforts".

A third distinctive characteristic of high achievers is that they want concrete feedback on their performance. Only certain types of jobs provide this kind of feedback, however, and so some kinds of jobs are unattractive to high achievers. For instance, teachers receive only imprecise, hazy feedback as to the effectiveness of their efforts while production managers have a daily output chart to look at with either joy or disappointment.

There are some additional minor characteristics possessed by high achievers. They tend to enjoy travel, are willing to give up a bird in the hand for two in the bush and prefer experts to friends as working partners. The image is clear; the high achiever is a personality type suited admirably to certain jobs and not others. It would be wrong to treat all individuals as high achievers and attempt to motivate them by offering them challenging jobs, rapid and objective feedback on performance and personal responsibility for success or failure.

The need for affiliation and the need for power

McClelland has also identified two other types of need, the need for affiliation (n-affil) and the need for power (n-pow). His testing procedure is concerned with the application of what is known as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), a series of pictures which are presented to a subject, one at a time. The individual is asked to tell a story about each picture. The underlying assumption of the TAT procedure is that it will reveal the dominant thoughts and attitudes of subjects. For instance, an individual with high n-ach will formulate stories concerned with getting things done, challenging situations, feelings of satisfaction at having done a good job and so on. The individual with a high need for affiliation (n-affil) will reflect sensitivity to the feelings of others, a desire for friendly relationships and a reference to situations which involve human interactions. High n-power subjects will relate stories reflecting the process of influencing others, controlling and manipulating others.

The need for affiliation

The need for affiliation is similar to Maslow's need to belong. It can be a dominant motivating force affecting behavior and may manifest itself in many different ways. The novelist John O'Hara was supposedly obsessed with the fact that, not having a college degree, he was excluded from membership of certain clubs and societies. At the other end of the spectrum, James Coyne, a former Governor of the Bank of Canada, was described as the most unclubbable man in the country, as he held an aversion to joining groups. In its most straightforward form, a need for affiliation manifests itself in a desire to be liked by others, to be part of a group, to enter into warm, personal relationships. High n-affil people value relationships over accomplishments, and friendship over power.

The need for power

In studying the motivational profiles of North American managers, McClelland noticed that many of those who reach the top of organisations and are rated as highly effective in their positions, demonstrate a concern for influencing people. This is, in McClelland's terms, a need for power. This need is not simply seen as the raw desire to control others or simply to exert authority. McClelland makes the point that:

"... this need must be disciplined and controlled so that it is directed toward the benefit of the institution as a whole and not toward the manager's personal aggrandisement. Moreover, the top manager's need for power ought to be greater than his or her need for being liked by people."

Power motivation refers not to autocratic, tyrannical behavior but to a need to have some impact, to be influential and effective in achieving organisational goals.

Results

McClelland examined the motivational needs of a large group of managers whose units demonstrated varying degrees of morale. The most important factor, in predicting whether a manager's subordinates would exhibit high morale, turned out to be how their need for power related to their need for affiliation. Teams which exhibited higher morale were those in which the manager's need or power exceeded their desire to be liked. McClelland puts forward the following explanation:

"Sociologists have long argued that, for a bureaucracy to function effectively, those who manage it must be universalistic in applying rules. That is, if they make exceptions for the particular needs of individuals, the whole system will break down. The manager with a high need to be liked is precisely the one who wants to stay on good terms with everybody and therefore is the one most likely to make exceptions in terms of in terms of particular needs. ...Sociological theory and our data both argue ... that the person whose need for affiliation is high does not make a good manager."

Organisation man?

Power-motivated managers, like achievement orientated managers and the affiliators, demonstrate distinct characteristics:

. They are highly organisation-minded. They feel responsible for building organisations to which they belong. They believe strongly in centralised authority.

2. They like to work. This is different from the high achiever who likes to minimise work by becoming more efficient. While the high achiever minimises effort and maximises output, the power-motivated manager enjoys work for its own sake.

3. They are willing to sacrifice some of their own self-interest for the good of the organisation.

4. They have a strong sense of justice, feeling that hard work and sacrifice should be rewarded.

The picture of McClelland's power-motivated manager is reminiscent of the organisation man caricatured by William Whyte. The message seems to be that if one is dedicated to the institution, committed to the work ethic and unflagging in energy and devotion, success will follow. However, the increasing popularity of switching jobs as a method of rapid advancement and the rapidity of change in organisations somewhat contradicts this type of thinking.

CONCLUSIONS

The standpoint taken is that people work better when they are highly motivated and there is a direct relationship between quality of performance and levels of motivation; the volume and quality of work declines when motivation is lower or when demotivation is present. The need to motivate and be motivated is continuous and constant. Some specific conclusions may be drawn:-

. Motivation comes partly from within the individual and partly from the particular situation. It is therefore constant and subject to continuous adaptation.

2. Value, esteem and respect are basic human requirements extending to all places of work and all occupations(and, indeed, to every walk of life). The key features of this are the integrity of relationships, levels of knowledge and understanding, general prevailing attitudes (whether positive or negative) and the nature of rewards, including pay.

3. All people have expectations based on their understanding of particular situations, and they will be drawn to, or driven from these in anticipation of rewards and outcomes.

4. People respond positively to equality and fairness of treatment, and negatively when these are not present.

5. People respond positively to variety, development and opportunities when they know or perceive it to be in their interests to do so. They are less likely to respond to genuine opportunities if they do not understand or perceive them as such.

6. People respond positively when they know the attitudes, behavior, values and ways of working required; and negatively or less favourably when these are not apparent or not strong.

7. People need constant attention to their individual wants and needs and will seek this from many sources, including work. If the work is demotivating, they will seek it elsewhere.

8. The key to positive motivation is the establishment of a high level of mutual trust, commitment and responsibility. The main obligation here lies with the organization. Individuals may be expected to respond positively when these are present. They may not be expected individuals when the organization is itself uncommitted to this, or where it takes an expedient, confrontational and adversarial view of its staff.