Chapter 7 – motivation concepts PDF

CHAPTER 7 – MOTIVATION CONCEPTS
Motivation is the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction
and persistence that effort toward attaining a goal. Intensity describes how hard
a person tries. High intensity is unlikely to lead to favourable job-performance
outcomes unless the effort is channelled in a direction that benefits the
organization. Finally, motivation has a persistence dimension. This measures
how long a person can maintain effort.
Hierarchy of needs theory
There are five needs. Firstly, physiological is includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex
and other bodily needs. Secondly, safety security and protection from physical
and emotional harm. Thirdly, social affection, belongingness, acceptance and
friendship. Next, esteem internal factors such as self-respect, autonomy, and
achievement, and external factors such as status, recognition and attention.
Finally, self-actualization drive to become what we are capable of becoming;
includes growth, achieving our potential, and self-fulfillment. Physiological and
safety needs were lower-order needs, and social, esteem and self-actualization
were higher-order needs. Higher-order needs are satisfied internally, whereas
lower-order needs are predominantly satisfied externally. Maslow’s theory has
received wide recognition. It is intuitively logical and easy to understand.
However, research does not validate it.
Theory X and Theory Y
Douglas McGregor proposed two distinct views of human beings: one basically
negative, labelled theory X, and the other basically positive, labelled theory Y.
According to theory X managers believe employees inherently dislike work and
must therefore be directed or even coerced into performing it. Theory Y is
managers assume employees can view work as being as natural as rest and play,
and therefore the average person can learn to accept, and even seek,
responsibility. No evidence exists that either set of assumptions is valid or that
acting on theory Y assumptions will lead to more motivated workers.
Two-factor theory
Motivation-hygiene theory
According to Herzberg, the factors that lead to job satisfaction were separate
and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. When hygiene factors are
adequate people will not be dissatisfied neither will they be satisfied.
Criticisms including Herzberg’s methodology is limited because it relies on
self-reports. When things are going well, people tend to take credit. Contrarily,
they blame failure on the extrinsic environment. The reliability of Herzberg’s
methodology is questionable. Raters have to make interpretations, so they may

contaminate the findings by interpreting one response in one manner while
treating a similar response differently. No overall measure of satisfaction was
utilized. A person may dislike part of a job yet still think the job is acceptable
overall. Herzberg assumed a relationship between satisfaction and productivity,
but he looked only at satisfaction. To make his research relevant, we must
assume a strong relationship between satisfaction and productivity.
McClelland’s theory of needs
It looks at three needs. One is need for achievement-the drive to excel, to
achieve in relationship to a set of standards. Next is the need to power, the need
to make others behave in a way they would not have otherwise. And finally,
need for affiliation-the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships.
Self-Determination Theory
Proposes that people prefer to feel they have control over their actions.
Anything that makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than
a freely chosen activity will undermine motivation. Much research has focused
on cognitive evaluation theory which hypothesizes that extrinsic rewards will
reduce intrinsic interest in a task. For example, if you get paid for your work, it
feels less like something you want to do and more like something you have to
do. Goal setting is more effective in improving motivation. A recent outgrowth
of self-determination theory is self-concordance, which considers how strongly
people’s reasons for pursuing goals are consistent with their interests and core
values.
Job Engagement
The investment of an employee’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energies
into job performance. Practising managers and scholars alike have lately
become interested in facilitating job engagement, believing something deeper
than liking a job or finding it interesting drives performance. There are far more
engaged employees in highly successful than in average organizations. One key
is the degree to which an employee believes it is meaningful to engage in work,
determined by job characteristics and sufficient resources to work effectively.
Another factor is the match between the individual’s values and those of the
organization.
Goal-Setting Theory
Goal-setting theory reveals impressive effects of goal specificity, challenge and
feedback on performance. Specific goals produce a higher level of output than
the generalized goal “do your best” because specificity itself seems to act as an
internal stimulus. Challenging goals get our attention and help us focus, and
difficult goals energize us because we have to work harder to attain them. Also,

people persist in trying to attain them and lead us to discover strategies that help
us perform the job or task more effectively. Feedback, goal commitment, task
characteristics and national culture influence the goals. Implementing goal
setting can be done with management by objectives (MBO) which emphasizes
participatively set goals that are tangible, verifiable and measurable.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Refers to an individual’s belief that he is capable of performing a task. The
higher the self- efficacy, the more confidence you have in your ability to
succeed. In difficult situations, people with low self-efficacy tend to lessen their
effort or give up, while those with high self-efficacy try harder to master the
challenge. The self-efficacy theory and goal-setting theory complement each
other. There are four ways self-efficacy can be increased: enactive mastery,
vicarious modelling, verbal persuasion and arousal.
Equity Theory/Organized Justice
Employees perceive what they get from a job situation (salary levels, raises,
recognition) in a relationship to what they put into it (effort, experience,
education, competence), and when they compare their outcome-input ratio with
that of relevant others. If we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant
others with whom we compare ourselves, a state of equity exists; it is fair.
When we see the ratio is unequal and we feel under rewarded, we experience
equity tension that creates anger. There are four referent comparisons: self-
inside, self-outside, other-inside and other-outside. Beside that, employees who
perceive inequity will make one of six choices: change inputs – exert less effort
if underpaid or more if overpaid, chance outcomes – individuals paid on a
piece-rate basis increase their pay by
producing a higher quantity of units of lower quality, distort perceptions of self
– “I used to think I worked at a moderate pace, but now I realize I work a lot
harder than everyone else”, distort perceptions of others – “Mike’s job isn’t as
desirable as I thought”, choose a different referent – “I may not make as much
as my brother-in-law, but I’m doing a lot better than my dad did when he was
my age” and leave the field – quit the job.
Expectancy Theory
One of the most widely accepted explanations for motivation. Argues that the
strength of our tendency to act a certain way depends on the strength of our
expectation of a given outcome and its attractiveness. In more practical terms,
employees will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when they believe it
will lead to a good performance appraisal. Firstly, Effort-Performance
Relationship is the probability perceived by the individual that exerting a given

amount of effort will lead to performance. Next, Performance-Reward
Relationship is the degree to which the individual believes performing at a
particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome. Finally,
Rewards-personal Goals Relationship is degree to which organizational rewards
satisfy an individual’s personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of those
potential rewards for the individual.