1. 7
Motivation Concepts
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

2. Chapter Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
Describe the three elements of motivation.
Identify four early theories of motivation and evaluate their applicability today.
Apply the predictions of the self-determination theory to intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.
Compare and contrast goal-setting theory and management by objectives.
Contrast reinforcement theory and goal-setting theory.
Demonstrate how organizational justice is a refinement of equity theory.
Apply the key tenets of expectancy theory to motivating employees.
Compare contemporary theories of motivation.
Explain to what degree motivation theories are culture-bound.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

3. Defining Motivation
The result of the interaction between the individual and the situation.
The processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal – specifically, an organizational goal.
Three key elements:
Intensity – how hard a person tries
Direction – effort that is channeled toward, and
consistent with, organizational goals
Persistence – how long a person can maintain effort
It is easy to see that some individuals are more motivated than others. However, the reasons for that motivation are more difficult to determine. When defining motivation it is important to look at the interaction between the individual and the situation. There are three key elements that help us define motivation. The first is intensity or how hard the person tries to accomplish the task. The second element is direction and that is the effort that is channeled toward organizational goals. The final element is persistency or how long a person can maintain the effort.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

4. Early Theories of Motivation
These early theories may not be valid, but they do form the basis for contemporary theories and are still used by practicing managers.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
McClelland’s Theory of Needs
There are number of theories of motivation that help us gain a better understanding of the concept. Some of the earlier theories are not entirely valid anymore but they are still used by many managers.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
There is a hierarchy of five needs. As each need is substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant.
Assumptions
Individuals cannot move to the next higher level until all needs at the current (lower) level are satisfied
Must move in hierarchical order
Self-Actualization
Esteem
Social
Safety
Physiological
Higher Order
Internal
Lower Order
External
The first theory was developed by Abraham Maslow in the 1950’s. His theory states that with every individual there is a hierarchy of five needs. As each need is met or satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. His theory posits that individuals are stuck in their existing need level until it is satisfied and then they can move on to the next level. For example, until their safety needs are met, they will not be able to move on to the social level.
See E X H I B I T 7-1
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

6. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y
Two distinct views of human beings: Theory X (basically negative) and Theory Y (positive).
Managers used a set of assumptions based on their view
The assumptions molded their behavior toward employees
No empirical evidence to support this theory.
Theory X
Workers have little ambition
Dislike work
Avoid responsibility
Theory Y
Workers are self-directed
Enjoy work
Accept responsibility
Douglas McGregor added to the motivation work done in the 1950’s and developed the theory called Theory X, Theory Y. He believed that there are two distinct views of human beings that managers hold. The Theory X view is basically negative and believes that workers have little ambition, dislike work, and avoid responsibility. The Theory Y view is in contrast to X and believes that workers tend to be self-directed, enjoy work, and accept responsibility. Managers will modify their behavior toward employees based on what view they hold about them.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

7. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Key Point: Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposites but separate constructs
Hygiene Factors
Motivators
Achievement
Responsibility
Growth
Work Conditions
Salary
Company Policies
Extrinsic and Related to Dissatisfaction
Intrinsic and Related to Satisfaction
Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory is another one of the earlier developed theories. This theory sets forth that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposites but two separate ideas. There are a set of factors that when present will help to avoid dissatisfaction in workers. This group is called the hygiene factors and includes such things as salary, working conditions, and company policies. There is another set of factors that when present will help to cause satisfaction in workers. This group is called motivators and includes things such as growth, responsibility, and achievement. These sets are distinct and the presence of hygiene factors does not cause satisfaction, it just helps avoid dissatisfaction.
See E X H I B I T S 7-2 and 7-3
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

8. Criticisms of Two-Factor Theory
Herzberg says that hygiene factors must be met to remove dissatisfaction. If motivators are given, then satisfaction can occur.
Herzberg is limited by his methodology
Participants had self-serving bias
Reliability of raters questioned
Bias or errors of observation
No overall measure of satisfaction was used
Herzberg assumed, but didn’t research, a strong relationship between satisfaction and productivity
There are a number of criticisms of the two-factor theory. There are some questions about the study itself. First, the participants had a self-serving bias. When things are going well, they will take credit themselves. When things are not going well, they tend to blame it on the environment or others. The second criticism is that the raters will incorporate their own biases in their observations. Finally, Herzberg’s look at satisfaction had some errors in it as there was no attempt to measure overall satisfaction and he assumed a relationship between satisfaction and productivity.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

9. McClelland’s Three Needs Theory
Need for Achievement (nAch)
The drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive to succeed
Need for Power (nPow)
The need to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise
Need for Affiliation (nAff)
The desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships
People have varying levels of each of the three needs.
Hard to measure
The final earlier theory of needs we will look at is McClelland’s need theory. He bases his theory on the idea that people are motivated in the workplace by three main needs. The first need is the need for achievement or the drive to excel in relation to a set of defined standards. The second is the need for power, to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise. The final need addressed in this theory is the need for affiliation. Affiliation looks at the relationship aspect and the desire for close relationships. People will have varying levels of these needs, which make this theory difficult to measure.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

10. Performance Predictions for High nAch
People with a high need for achievement are likely to:
Prefer to undertake activities with a 50/50 chance of success, avoiding very low- or high-risk situations
Be motivated in jobs that offer high degree of personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risk
Not necessarily make good managers – too personal a focus. Most good general managers do NOT have a high nAch
Need high level of nPow and low nAff for managerial success
Good research support, but it is not a very practical theory
The need that has received the most attention by researchers is the need for achievement. Achievers will carefully measure the odds and try to take on activities that are challenging but not too high-risk. They tend to be motivated in jobs that are more individualistic in nature and provide regular and effective feedback.
Achievers tend to not make good managers because they have more of a personal focus. Strong managers have a higher level of need for power and a lower level of need for affiliation as they are trying to motivate a team to move toward a given direction.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

11. Contemporary Theories of Motivation
Self-Determination Theory
Goal-Setting Theory
Management by Objectives (MBO)
Self-Efficacy Theory
Also known as Social Cognitive Theory or Social Learning Theory
Reinforcement Theory
Equity Theory
Expectancy Theory
There are a number of contemporary theories of motivation that have utilized the older theories to provide us with a deeper understanding of motivation in the workplace.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

12. Self-Determination Theory
People prefer to feel they have control over their actions, so anything that makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than a freely chosen activity will undermine motivation.
Major Implications for Work Rewards
Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are not independent
Extrinsic rewards may decrease intrinsic rewards
Goal setting is more effective in improving motivation
Verbal rewards increase intrinsic motivation; tangible rewards reduce it
The self-determination theory states that people prefer to have control over their actions. So when they are required to do something they previously freely chose, it will diminish their motivation.
This theory sets forth that in the workplace, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are not independent of one another. In fact, the presence of extrinsic rewards may decrease the intrinsic rewards. In addition to extrinsic rewards, managers need to realize the importance of using goal setting and verbal rewards as a method to increase motivation.
See E X H I B I T 7-4
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

13. Locke’s Goal-Setting Theory
Basic Premise:
That specific and difficult goals, with self-generated feedback, lead to higher performance
Difficult Goals:
Focus and direct attention
Energize the person to work harder
Difficulty increases persistence
Force people to be more effective and efficient
Relationship between goals and performance depends on:
Goal commitment (the more public the better!)
Task characteristics (simple, well-learned)
Culture (best match is in North America)
Edwin Locke developed what is called the goal-setting theory. The idea behind this theory is that goals that are specific and effectively difficult can lead to higher performance if they include self-generated feedback. A difficult goal will help the individual to focus and direct attention as well as energize them to work harder. The difficulty of the goal will increase persistence and force people to be more effective and efficient.
The relationship between goals and performance depends on how committed the individual is to the goal as well as how specific the tasks are. Most of the research has been done in the United States so the applicability of this theory to other cultures is suspect.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

14. Implementation: Management by Objectives
MBO is a systematic way to utilize goal-setting.
Goals must be:
Tangible
Verifiable
Measurable
Corporate goals are broken down into smaller, more specific goals at each level of organization.
Four common ingredients to MBO programs:
Goal specificity
Participative decision making
Explicit time period
Performance feedback
An implementation of the goal-setting theory is Management by Objectives, better known as MBO. MBO is a systematic way to utilize goal-setting theory, in which goals are set jointly by managers and employees. The goals must be tangible, verifiable, and measurable in order to be effective. The manager helps to break down the organizational goals into smaller more specific goals for the employee. In order for MBO to be effective, the goals must be specific, the employees must participate in the goal setting, there must be a defined time period, and feedback must be incorporated into the process.
See E X H I B I T 7-5
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

15. Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory
An individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task.
Higher efficacy is related to:
Greater confidence
Greater persistence in the face of difficulties
Better response to negative feedback (work harder)
Self-efficacy complements Goal-Setting Theory
Given Hard Goal
Higher Self-Set Goal
Increased Confidence
Higher Performance
Another theory of motivation is the self-efficacy theory developed by Albert Bandura. This theory is based on an individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. This theory is a complement to the goal-setting theory as it incorporates goals into the process. Higher efficacy is related to greater confidence, greater persistence in the face of difficulties, and responding to negative feedback with working harder, not shutting down.
See E X H I B I T 7-6
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

16. Increasing Self-Efficacy
Enactive mastery
Most important source of efficacy
Gaining relevant experience with task or job
“Practice makes perfect”
Vicarious modeling
Increasing confidence by watching others perform the task
Most effective when observer sees the model to be similar to him- or herself
Verbal persuasion
Motivation through verbal conviction
Pygmalion and Galatea effects - self-fulfilling prophecies
Arousal
Getting “psyched up” – emotionally aroused – to complete task
Can hurt performance if emotion is not a component of the task
Self-efficacy can be increased in several ways. The first is increasing your mastery of a task/skill. Another way is to model your actions after someone else who performs the task effectively and applying their actions to your own. The final methods to increase self-efficacy is to receive verbal persuasion through others as well as getting excited about completing the task.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

17. Reinforcement Theory
Similar to Goal-Setting Theory, but focused on a behavioral approach rather than a cognitive one
Behavior is environmentally caused
Thought (internal cognitive event) is not important
Feelings, attitudes, and expectations are ignored
Behavior is controlled by its consequences – reinforcers
Is not a motivational theory but a means of analysis of behavior
Reinforcement strongly influences behavior but is not likely to be the sole cause
The Reinforcement Theory is based on the goal-setting theory we looked at earlier. However, it focuses on behaviors instead of cognitive factors. This theory believes that reinforcement conditions behavior and by reinforcing certain behaviors we can increase the types of behaviors that impact organizational effectiveness in a positive way. This theory is based on the idea that behavior is environmentally caused. Behavior is believed to be based on the consequences and not on thoughts, feelings, or attitudes.
This theory is not technically a motivational theory, rather it is a method used to analyze behavior. It is important to keep in mind that reinforcement does impact behavior but it is not the only factor that does so.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

18. Adams’ Equity Theory
Employees compare their ratios of outcomes-to-inputs of relevant others.
When ratios are equal: state of equity exists – there is no tension as the situation is considered fair
When ratios are unequal: tension exists due to unfairness
Underrewarded states cause anger
Overrewarded states cause guilt
Tension motivates people to act to bring their situation into equity
Adam’s equity theory utilizes perception theory that we looked at in previous chapters. The idea is that employees compare their ratios of outcomes to inputs of others they see as relevant. When they see the ratios as equal, there is a perceived state of equity and no tension arises. However, when they perceive the ratios to be unequal, they may experience anger or guilt, depending on the result of the equity analysis, and then tension can arise. This tension can motivate people to act in a way to bring the situation into a more equitable state.
See E X H I B I T 7-7
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

19. Equity Theory’s “Relevant Others”
Can be four different situations:
Self-Inside
The person’s experience in a different job in the same organization
Self-Outside
The person’s experience in a different job in a different organization
Other-Inside
Another individual or group within the organization
Other-Outside
Another individual or group outside of the organization
There are four different type of situations that arise with the equity theory’s relevant others; they are as follows:
* Self-inside where the person compares themselves with someone else within the organization who holds a different job;
* Self-outside where the person compares themselves with someone outside of the organization with a different job;
* Other-inside where the person compares another individual or group of individuals within the organization; and
* Other-outside where the person compares another individual or group of individuals outside of the organization.
All these factors are based on the individual’s perceptions of what is equitable or fair.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

20. Reactions to Inequity Employee behaviors to create equity:
Change inputs (slack off)
Change outcomes (increase output)
Distort/change perceptions of self
Distort/change perceptions of others
Choose a different referent person
Leave the field (quit the job)
Propositions relating to inequitable pay:
Paid by time:
Overrewarded employees produce more
Underrewarded employees produce less with low quality
Paid by quality:
Overrewarded employees give higher quality
Underrewarded employees make more of low quality
Employees will often react strongly to situations they perceive as inequitable. They normally engage in behaviors to create equity, such as slacking off when they feel they are working harder than others or quitting when they see no way to make things equitable. There are also some responses to inequitable pay that employees engage, such as producing more when they are overpaid or producing lower quality outputs when they feel they are underpaid.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

21. Justice and Equity Theory
Organizational Justice
Distributive Justice
Fairness of outcome
Procedural Justice
Fairness of outcome process
Interactional Justice
Being treated with dignity and respect
The justice and equity theory is based on perceived equity in the workplace. For organizational justice to be perceived, there must be distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Distributive justice is the fairness in which the outcomes are distributed or experienced. The procedural justice focuses not on the outcomes but on the process itself. Interactional justice focuses on how you are treated during the process.
Overall perception of what is fair in the workplace.
See E X H I B I T 7-8
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

22. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
The strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of the outcome to the individual.
Expectancy of performance success
Instrumentality of success in getting reward
Valuation of the reward in employee’s eyes
The most commonly used and widely accepted theory of motivation is Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. This theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way is dependent on the strength of the expectation that they will receive a given outcome and that the outcome is desired.
Employees are willing to work harder if they believe that their actions will get them an outcome they desire. For example, employees are willing to work long and hard hours if they know that they will be rewarded through promotion, recognition, or pay in response to their hard work.
See E X H I B I T 7-9
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

23. Integrating Contemporary Motivation Theories
Based on Expectancy Theory
This graph looks at integrating the various motivational theories we have looked at. It is based on Vroom’s expectancy theory. This graph looks at individual effort and recognizes that it can be impacted by opportunity. Goals effect behavior and will definitely influence individual effort. Employees will exert a lot of effort if they perceive that effort will help them perform better and receive rewards for that performance. This also assumes that the rewards are based on a fair and objective appraisal process as perceived by the individual. If equity is perceived, motivation is high.
See E X H I B I T 7-10
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

24. Global Implications Motivation theories are often culture-bound.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
Order of needs is not universal
McClelland’s Three Needs Theory
nAch presupposes a willingness to accept risk and performance concerns – not universal traits
Adams’ Equity Theory
A desire for equity is not universal
“Each according to his need” – socialist/former communists
Desire for interesting work seems to be universal.
There is some evidence that the intrinsic factors of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory may be universal
Unfortunately, in the area of motivation theory, the vast majority of research has been done in the United Sates and is culturally bound. There does seem to be a universal acceptance that a desire for interesting work is common across the globe, but there is no research to support this.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall .
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

25. Summary and Managerial Implications
Need Theories (Maslow, Alderfer, McClelland, Herzberg)
Well known, but not very good predictors of behavior
Goal-Setting Theory
While limited in scope, good predictor
Reinforcement Theory
Powerful predictor in many work areas
Equity Theory
Best known for research in organizational justice
Expectancy Theory
Good predictor of performance variables but shares many of the assumptions as rational decision making
There are a number of theories that can increase our understanding as managers about motivation in the workplace. It is important to utilize these theories when designing workplace programs and procedures.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
(c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

26. Copyright ©2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.
Copyright ©2011 Pearson Education, Inc.  Publishing as Prentice Hall
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall