How can a manager use process theories of motivation to better motivate a work group? Mention at least two specific theories in your answer.

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

The responsibility of managers is to achieve aims and objectives of their organization. However, these goals will be achieved through the efforts of other people, employees. One management role is concerned with changing their workers’ behavior, co-coordinating them and making things happen. Today, management no longer means giving orders. On the contrast, what a manager has to do is planning, controlling, coordinating and motivating. Managers try to motivate people in the organization to perform at high levels. This means making them work hard, effectively and to make positive contributions to the organization’s mission. In return, people want to have relevant salary, good working conditions, promotion, or praise, sense of achievement, etc. As a role of studying these factors, which influence the behavior of people in the workplace, motivation theory can be really useful for Human Resource Management. Compared with money, the only motivator of workforce over 1000 years ago, motivation theories have become much more diversified and complicated not only in managing mission but also in competing strategies. This essay will focus on how process theories of motivation can help to lead employees to behave in the way managers want them to do.

As mentioned above, Process theory is one of many motivation theories which study how people choose among behavioral alternatives, what makes them come to work regularly and get them to make an effort to work. Although this term comes up with a number of different models written by Vroom, Porter and Lawler, Adams, Locke, Heider and Kelley, etc, there are two theories, namely Expectancy and Equity, tending to be the most specific ones which will be dealt with in this essay.

“Expectancy theory suggests that people are motivated by how much they want something and the likelihood they perceive of getting it.” (Griffin and Moorhead, 2001, p.143) is an explanation of the first theory that will be dealt with in this essay. It is simpler to imagine in a real case: “Anne Henderson was one of the first women engineering students at Midshires. On completion of her Masters degree she was offered a post as a research assistant where she could have developed her Masters research and worked towards her doctorate. However, she decided to join Wallace-Price, a blue-chip engineering consultancy.” (Meudell and Callen, 1996, pp.77-78). She chose the second offer with the expectation of gaining some commercial experiences, a financial support to study master in USA and a long-lasting job. And in order to achieve her business goal of £2 million of work for Wallace-Price, she worked 90 hours per week during 40 weeks abroad (Meudell and Callen, 1996, pp.77-78). She made a lot of efforts and performed well. What the company gave her were an annual salary of £80000, a company’s house in London, a car, first-class air travel, etc (Meudell and Callen, 1996, pp.77-78). These things are not totally recognized as her benefits but they are needed to enable her to do well. After all, expectancy theory conceptually involves the expected relationships among variables, which make up motivation, called effort, performance and outcome. Firstly, from effort to performance expectancy is known as “a person’s perception of the probability that effort will lead to performance” (Griffin and Moorhead, 2001, p.144). That means the more effort is exerted, the higher level of performance is expected. However, some people suppose the same performances for no matter how much effort is made, which is not likely to expect any considerable outcome. Moving to the second condition, from performance to outcome expectancy, similarly known as an individual perception of how performance leads to some certain outcomes. Indeed, we tend to do something if we think we will get a valued reward for it, such as pay raise, promotion, etc in the workplace. Finally, an outcome is expected after such efforts and performance. Vroom, generally considered as the first one applying this theory, gave out the conception of valence – “the feeling about a specific outcome … the attractiveness of, or preference for, a particular outcome to the individual” (Mullins Laurie J., 2006, p.202). This term is another individual perception, so it can be either positive or negative. Promotion, wages, praise, recognition, friends and security, etc are positive ones by contrast with disadvantageous issues like stress, the lack of rest, etc. On the other hand, Porter and Lawler had the term of satisfactory in their model. Performance results in two kinds of rewards, namely intrinsic and extrinsic. The former involves individual achievement, responsibility and recognition while the latter focuses on salary, working condition and supervision. However, the reward is, again, valued individually, which is quite similar to the term of valence defined by Vroom. Consequently, expectancy theory presents a key role in managing workforce, in general, and in motivating employees, in particular. This theory has offered managers a number of important guidelines to orient people’s behavior to do what they want them to do. It is really helpful to establish clear links between performance and rewards, to determine the primary outcome each employee wants, to make sure the rewards are large enough, to analyze the situation for conflicting expectancies and to minimize undesirable outcomes.

This is a preview of the whole essay

We continue to discuss process motivation theories with the other kind, equity theory. In the book of “Essentials of organizational behavior”, Laurie J. Mullins wrote “Equity theory focuses on people’s feeling of how fairly they have been treated in comparison with the treatment received by others.” (Mullins Laurie J., 2006, p.207). Indeed, if they are responsible for equivalent work, they expect equivalent rewards. However, equity perception is also a personal term. First, an employee evaluates how they are treated in the organization. Second, he makes a comparison with others based on working in group, same missions, similar achievements or some particular circumstances, etc. Third, he forms his own equity perception and chooses a behavioral alternative. This kind of perception will become a serious problem in the organization when people feel being treated unfair, which means they have sense of inequity. USA Today has raised a topical issue about treatment between childless employees and working parents. In more details, some organizations nowadays offer a lot of family friendly benefits such as extra insurance, extra flexibility in working time, holiday (Moorehead and Griffin, 2001, p.140). They help these working parents feel easier to work out from home, to balance work and family which lead to finish effective jobs. Whereas such parents have such additional benefits, other employees without worries about family, children receive nothing as replacement. Especially, when managers need someone to work late, they tend to think of childless workers. Although these people can understand the necessity of extra benefits offered to their colleagues with children, they are still able to have a feeling that the organization is taking advantage of them. In other words, childless employees possibly argue they receive less benefit from the organization than people with children, which means they have sense of inequity. Thus, managers must carefully balance this kind of treatment because inequity perception can result in several drawbacks. J. Stacey Adams, a behavioral scientist working at the General Electric Company, identified six types of possibly behavioral responses to inequity, called changes to inputs (less efforts), changes to outcomes (demanding pay raise, extra revenue, higher job security), cognitive distortion (changing outlook or work and life balance), leaving the field, acting on others (disrupt other workers), and changing the object of comparison. Therefore, the mission of managers is setting a fair or equal reward system. BMW, for instance, expanded six wage group to nine and the new pay agreement emphasizing flexible working arrangements and performance-related pay was introduced in early 2001. if a worker performs higher valued activities, he can be moved to higher groups: “On top of the basic remuneration a 25 per cent bonus was paid to all employees for meeting prearranged production quotas … Employees could also earn extra pay through a personal supplement, payable for an individual’s contribution to group results.” (Boddy David, 2008, p.24). Besides, equity theory also offers managers with some other messages. First, people have right to question a decision and they are more likely to accept a decision if they think it is fair. People base their attentions on their perceptions of reality. Second, team will work better if all group members are treated equally. Finally, managers need to pay attention to their employees’ perception of fairness or equity.

When doing research about expectancy theory and equity theory, human resource managers will have fundamental knowledge of how to set up a relevant reward system in the organization. However, both of theories have limitations in applying in the workplace. For example, it is too difficult to test expectancy theory logically and scientifically. People tend to be subjective in choosing behaviors. Similarly, equity theory also includes personal perceptions. Moreover, this theory is sometimes focused narrowly on overpayment or underpayment. Such drawbacks can result in wrong predictions and then wrong decisions.

In conclusion, both expectancy and equity theory are among very important aspects influencing managers when making reinforcement and motivating their employees. Managers must consider a lot of different motivation theories to find out individual differences in what a worker thinks is a motivating reward. They can take advantage of these combined theories, which means they give workers a clear understanding of what level of performance is required of employees and motivate them to make efforts, and then achieve the organization’s goal.

Reference list

Boddy David, 2008, Management An Introduction, 4th ed. Prentice Hall (Source: European Industrial Relations Review, issue 271 (1996), p.24; Financial Times, 26 January 2001; The Times, 8 February 2001)

Griffin W. Ricky and Moorhead Gregory, 2001. Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations. 6th ed. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company

Meudell Karen and Callen Tony, 1996, Management and Organizational behavior A student workbook, 2nd ed. Pitman publishing (Source: “Holiday on Ice: Stuck at the Office”, USA Today, November 18, 1998, p.B5; “Employees without kids say they have lives, too”, USA Today, November 12, 1997, pp. 1B, 2A)

Mullins Laurie J., 2006, Essentials of organizational behavior, Prentice Hall