MOTIVATION

Some individuals seem driven to succeed. But the same student who struggles to
read a textbook for more than 20 minutes may devour a Harry Potter book in a day.
The difference is the situation. So as we analyze the concept of motivation, Keep in
mind that the level of motivation varies both between individuals and within
individuals at different times.

DEFINITION:
Motivation is the process that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and
persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.

While general motivation is concerned with effort toward any goal, we’ll narrow the
focus to organizational goals in order to reflect our singular interest in work-related
behavior.

KEY ELEMENTS:
The three key elements in our definition are intensity, direction, and persistence.

 INTENSITY: It describes how hard a person tries. However, high intensity is

doubtful to lead to favorable job-performance outcomes if there is no direction.

 DIRECTION: Effort that is channeled toward, and consistent with, the

organization’s goals is the kind of effort we should be seeking(i.e. quality of
effort counts!). Therefore, we consider the quality of effort as well as its intensity.
So the effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organization.

 PERSISTENCE: This measures how long a person can maintain effort.

Motivation has a persistence dimension. Motivated individuals stay with a task
long enough to achieve their goal.
 EARLY THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
Four specific theories formulated during the period of 1950s although now
questionable in terms of validity are probably still the best known explanations for
employee motivation.

Early Theories Of
Motivation

Hierarchy Of Theory X and Two Factory McClelland’s

Needs Theory Theory Y Theory Theory Of Needs

MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS THEORY

According to humanist psychologist Abraham Maslow, our actions are motivated in
order to achieve certain needs. Maslow first introduced his concept of a hierarchy of
needs in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" and his subsequent book
MOTIVATION AND PERSONALITY. This hierarchy suggests that people are
motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to other, more advanced needs.

Maslow was interested in learning more about what makes people happy and the
things that they do to achieve that aim. As a humanist, Maslow believed that people
have an inborn desire to be self-actualized, to be all they can be. In order to achieve
this ultimate goals, however, a number of more basic needs must be met first such
as the need for food, safety, love, and self-esteem.

FROM BASIC TO MORE COMPLEX NEEDS:

This hierarchy is most often displayed as a pyramid. The lowest levels of the
pyramid are made up of the most basic needs, while the more complex needs are
located at the top of the pyramid. Needs at the bottom of the pyramid are basic
physical requirements including the need for food, water, sleep, and warmth. Once
these lower-level needs have been met, people can move on to the next level of
needs, which are for safety and security.

As people progress up the pyramid, needs become increasingly psychological and

social. Soon, the need for love, friendship, and intimacy become important. Further
up the pyramid, the need for personal esteem and feelings of accomplishment take
priority.
TYPES OF NEEDS:
Maslow believed that these needs are similar to instincts and play a major role in
motivating behavior. Physiological, security, social, and esteem needs are
deficiency needs (also known as D-needs), meaning that these needs arise due to
deprivation. Satisfying these lower-level needs is important in order to avoid
unpleasant feelings or consequences .Maslow termed the highest-level of the
pyramid as growth needs (also known as BEING NEEDS or B-NEEDS). Growth
needs do not stem from a lack of something, but rather from a desire to grow as a
person.

HIERARCHY OF NEEDS IN ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs relates to organizational theory and behavior because
it explores a worker's motivation. For example, some people are prepared to work
just for money, but others like going to work because of the friends they have made
there or the fact that they are respected by others and recognized for their good
work. One conclusion that can be made from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in the
workforce is, "If a lower need is not met, then the higher ones are ignored." For
example, if employees are worried that they will be fired, and have no job security,
they will be far more concerned about capital accumulation and ensuring their
lower rungs can continue to be met (paying rent, paying bills, etc.) than about
friendship and respect at work. However, if employees are wealthy enough to fulfill
their basic needs, praise for good work and meaningful group relationships may be
a more important motivation.
 If a need is not met, staff may become very frustrated. For example, if someone
works hard for a promotion and does not achieve the recognition they want, they
may become demotivated and put in less effort. When a need is met it will no
longer motivate the person, but the next need in the hierarchy will become
important to that person. Keep in mind that it is not quite as simple in reality as in
a model, and that individuals may have needs that are more complex or difficult to
quantify than the hierarchy suggests. Managers must be perceptive and empathetic
to their employees, they must listen to what their needs are and work to fulfill
them.

REAL LIFE EXAMPLE:

When your physiological needs have not been met, it is difficult to meet your needs
for safety. For example, if you are homeless and do not know where your next meal
is coming from, it is unlikely that you will be concerned with financial security or a
safe environment because your need to have food and shelter from day to day is
most prominent, but later if u get accepted to a restorative program at the local
mission and no longer have to worry about food or shelter, your safety needs
become more important. You would try to get a job to establish financial safety. You
would also care for your health and choose secure environments to care for your
physical safety. And so on you will slowly moves to upper levels of hierarchy.

CRITICIMS OF MASLOW’S THEORY OF NEEDS:

While some research showed some support for Maslow's theories, most research has
not been able to substantiate the idea of a needs hierarchy.

Criticisms of Maslow's theory note that his definition of self-actualization is difficult

to test scientifically. His research on self-actualization was also based on a very
limited sample of individuals, including people he knew as well as biographies of
famous individuals that Maslow believed to be self-actualized, such as Albert
Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt. Regardless of these criticisms, Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs represents part of an important shift in psychology. Rather than focusing
on abnormal behavior and development, Maslow's humanistic psychology was
focused on the development of healthy individuals.

While there was relatively little research supporting the theory, hierarchy of needs is
well-known and popular both in and out of psychology.
 McGREGOR THEORY X AND Y
Douglas McGregor, an American social psychologist, proposed his famous X-Y
theory in his 1960 book 'The Human Side Of Enterprise'. Theory X and theory Y
are still referred to commonly in the field of management and motivation, and
whilst more recent studies have questioned the rigidity of the model, McGregor’s X-
Y Theory remains a valid basic principle from which to develop positive
management style and techniques. McGregor's XY Theory remains central to
organizational development, and to improving organizational culture.

THEORY X (‘AUTHORITARIAN MANAGEMENT’ STYLE):

The average person dislikes work and will avoid it he/she can. Therefore most
people must be forced with the threat of punishment to work towards
organizational objectives. The average person prefers to be directed; to avoid
responsibility; is relatively NO ambitious, and wants security above all else.

THEORY Y (‘PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT’ STYLE):

Effort in work is as natural as work and play. People will apply self-control and self-
direction in the pursuit of organizational objectives, without external control or the
threat of punishment. Commitment to objectives is a function of rewards associated
with their achievement. People usually accept and often seek responsibility. The
capacity to use a high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity in solving
organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population. In
industry the intellectual potential of the average person is only partly utilized.
 HERZBERG TWO FACTOR THEORY
Frederick Herzberg was a psychologist interested in the correlation between
employee attitude and workplace motivation. His aim was to determine work
situations where the subjects were highly motivated and satisfied rather than where
the opposite was true. He wanted to find out what made people feel satisfied and
unsatisfied when it came to the workplace. After spending countless hours
interviewing employees about what made them feel both good and bad about their
jobs, What he found was that people who felt good about their jobs gave very
different responses from the people who felt bad. On the basis of these results,
Herzberg developed a theory of workplace motivation called the two-factor theory,
also called motivation-hygiene theory. He first published his theory in 1959 in a
book entitled ‘The Motivation to Work’.

Herzberg's findings revealed that there are some job factors that result in
satisfaction while there are other job factors that prevent dissatisfaction. So two-
factor theory is based on the assumption that there are two sets of factors that
influence motivation in the workplace by either enhancing employee satisfaction or
hindering it. These factors are termed as hygiene factors and motivation factors.

HYGIENE FACTORS-Hygiene factors are those job factors which are needed to
ensure an employee does not become dissatisfied. They do not lead to higher level
of motivation and aren’t strong contributors to satisfaction. But if these factors are
absent at workplace, then they lead to dissatisfaction. In other words, hygiene
factors are those factors which when adequate/reasonable in a job, pacify the
employees and do not make them dissatisfied. These factors are extrinsic to work.
Hygiene factors are also called as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors as they are
required to avoid dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors include:

 PAY-The pay or salary structure should be appropriate and reasonable. It must be

equal and competitive to those in the same industry in the same domain.
 COMPANY POLICIES & ADMINITRATIVE POLICIES-The company policies should
not be too rigid. They should be fair and clear.
 PHYSICAL WORKING CONDITIONS- The working conditions should be safe, clean
and hygienic. The work equipments should be updated and well-maintained.
 STATUS-The employees’ status within the organization should be familiar and
retained.
 INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS-The relationship of the employees with peers,
superiors and subordinates should be appropriate and acceptable. There should
be no conflict or humiliation element present.
 JOB SECURITY-The organization must provide job security to the employees.
MOTIVATION FACTORS-According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors cannot be
regarded as motivators. The motivational factors yield positive satisfaction. These
factors are inherent to work. These factors motivate the employees for a superior
performance. They are also termed as satisfiers. Employees find these factors
intrinsically rewarding. Motivational factors include:

 RECOGNITION- The employees should be praised and recognized for their

accomplishments by the managers.
SENSE OF ACHIEVEMENT-The employees must have a sense of achievement.
This depends on the job. There must be a fruit of some sort in the job.
GROWTH & PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITES-There must be growth and
advancement opportunities in an organization to motivate the employees to
perform well.
RESPONSIBILITY-The employees must hold themselves responsible for the
work. The managers should give them ownership of the work. They should
minimize control but retain accountability.
MEANINGFULNESS OF THE WORK-The work itself should be meaningful,
interesting and challenging for the employee to perform and to get motivated.

It is clear from the lists that the factors in each are not actually opposing i.e. the
satisfiers are not the opposite of the dissatisfies. The conclusion he drew is that job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not opposites.

 The opposite of Satisfaction is No Satisfaction.

 The opposite of Dissatisfaction is No Dissatisfaction.

Remedying the causes of dissatisfaction will not create satisfaction. Nor will adding
the factors of job satisfaction eliminate job dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg,
the factors leading to job satisfaction are "separate and distinct from those that lead
to job dissatisfaction." Therefore, if you set about eliminating dissatisfying job
factors you may create peace, but not necessarily enhance performance. If you want
to motivate your team, you then have to focus on satisfaction factors like
achievement, recognition, and responsibility

IMPLICATIONS OF TWO FACTOR THEORY:

Suppose, You work in an office where the roof is constantly leaking, the computers
are always shorting out, and you never seem to be able to catch up on your work
because of it. Suddenly, you are informed that you will be receiving an award for
meeting last month's sales quota. The award, which is a satisfier, would not
eliminate your dissatisfaction with the inadequate working conditions. While you
might be happy for a short moment when you receive your award, once you return
to your office and realize that the roof is still leaking, your computer doesn't work
properly, and you're still behind, you will quickly remember how unhappy you are.

The Two-Factor theory implies that the managers must stress upon guaranteeing
the adequacy of the hygiene factors to avoid employee dissatisfaction. Also, the
managers must make sure that the work is stimulating and rewarding so that the
employees are motivated to work and perform harder and better. This theory
emphasize upon job-enrichment so as to motivate the employees. The job must
utilize the employee’s skills and competencies to the maximum. Focusing on the
motivational factors can improve work-quality.

LIMITATIONS OF THE TWO FACTOR THEORY:

The two factor theory is not free from limitations:

1. The two-factor theory overlooks situational variables.

2. Herzberg assumed a correlation between satisfaction and productivity. But the
research conducted by Herzberg stressed upon satisfaction and ignored
productivity.
3. The theory’s reliability is uncertain. Analysis has to be made by the raters. The
raters may spoil the findings by analyzing same response in different manner.
4. No comprehensive measure of satisfaction was used. An employee may find his
job acceptable despite the fact that he may hate/object part of his job.
5. The two factor theory is not free from bias as it is based on the natural reaction of
employees when they are enquired the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
at work. They will blame dissatisfaction on the external factors such as salary
structure, company policies and peer relationship. Also, the employees will give
credit to themselves for the satisfaction factor at work.
 Mc CLELLAND’S THEORY OF NEEDS
American David Clarence McClelland (1917-98) achieved his doctorate in
psychology at Yale in 1941 and became professor at Wesleyan University. He then
taught and lectured, including a spell at Harvard from 1956, where with colleagues
for twenty years he studied particularly motivation and the achievement needs.

David McClelland is most noted for describing three types of motivational need,
which he identified in his 1961 book, ‘The Achieving Society’
 achievement motivation (n-ach)
 authority/power motivation (n-pow)
 affiliation motivation (n-affil)

NEED FOR POWER

NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT

NEED FOR AFFILIATION

•The n-ach person is •The affiliation •The n-Pow person is

'achievement driver produces 'authority
motivated' and motivation and motivated'. This
therefore seeks need to be liked here is also
achievement, and held in popular motivation and need
attainment of regard .The n-affil towards increasing
realistic but person is 'affiliation personal status and
challenging goals, motivated', and has prestige.This driver
and advancement in a need for friendly produces a need to
the job. There is a
relationships and is be influential,
strong need for
feedback as to
motivated towards effective and to
achievement and interaction with make an impact.
progress, and a need other people
for a sense of
accomplishment

McClelland said that most people possess and exhibit a combination of these
characteristics. Some people exhibit a strong bias to a particular motivational need,
and this motivational or needs 'mix' consequently affects their behavior and
working/managing style. McClelland suggested that a strong n-affil 'affiliation-
motivation' undermines a manager's objectivity, because of their need to be liked,
and that this affects a manager's decision-making capability. A strong n-pow
'authority-motivation' will produce a determined work ethic and commitment to
the organization, and while n-pow people are attracted to the leadership role, they
may not possess the required flexibility and people-centered skills. McClelland
argues that n-ach people with strong 'achievement motivation' make the best
leaders, although there can be a tendency to demand too much of their staff in the
belief that they are all similarly and highly achievement-focused and results driven,
which of course most people are not.
 CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
Contemporary theories have one thing in common; they have reasonable degree of
valid supporting documentation. We call them “contemporary theories” because
they represent current state of thinking in explaining employee motivation. These
are as follows:

COGNITIVE EVALUATION THEORY

Cognitive Evaluation Theory of Motivation belongs to the category of contemporary
theories. It is also commonly known as CET, but before describing this theory it’s
important to know about the terms intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION & INTRINSIC MOTIVATION:

People are motivated by two different forces. They are motivated intrinsically by
forces that are inside themselves and extrinsically by forces that are outside
themselves. Extrinsic motivation means when you are motivated to do something
because of external rewards and/or punishment associated with it. On the other
hand, intrinsic motivation is totally independent of any external reward. For things
you love to do, you are intrinsically motivated, because you get internal pleasure
from the activity.

For example, if you are reading a novel because your teacher will give you a good
grade, this is extrinsic motivation. On the contrary, if you are reading the novel only
for the pleasure of it – and there is no additional benefit associated to it, e.g. the
good grades – this is referred to as the intrinsic motivation.

WHAT IS COGNITIVE EVALUATION THEORY?

Simply put, the theory says that the introduction of extrinsic rewards may hurt the
intrinsic motivation, and therefore, the overall level of motivation. Intrinsically
motivated individuals perform for their own achievement and satisfaction. If they
come to believe that they are doing some job because of the pay or the working
conditions or some other extrinsic reason, they begin to lose motivation. The belief is
that the presence of powerful extrinsic motivators can actually reduce a person's
intrinsic motivation, particularly if the extrinsic motivators are perceived by the
person to be controlled by people.

Earlier, it was believed that intrinsic motivation was totally independent of extrinsic
motivation. However, with further studies and researches, it was concluded that
these two are connected with each other. Finally, psychologists and organizational
behaviorists reached on the conclusion that with the use of extrinsic motivation, the
intrinsic motivation – which could be already present – eventually decreases.
EXAMPLE: An example of cognitive evaluation theory at work might involve a
worker whose internal locus of control is stronger. She would feel that she had more
control over her work and other aspects of her life than other people or her work
environment did. The way to motivate a worker like this might be to give her
important projects and the responsibility and authority to complete them. If her boss
offered her monetary rewards such as a bonus for her work, it might actually make
her feel less competent and less likely to succeed at her task or to feel motivated to
do it.

WHY DOES IT HAPPEN?

There can be a lot of explanations for this theory – based on the specific situations
and cases. However, psychologists believe that the cognitive evaluation theory
holds true mainly because of the following two reasons:

 When the extrinsic rewards are offered, the individual himself loses a lot of
control on the task. This loss of control results in lower intrinsic motivation.

 Secondly, the presence of extrinsic rewards changes the perception of the

individual. The very reason, why he was performing the task in the first place,
changes. This results in a shift from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation.
When the focus of the individual changes, so does his motivation.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF COGNITIVE EVALUATION THEORY:.
The practical application of the cognitive evaluation theory can be determined into
two categories:

1. CET FOR MANAGERS:

For managers, the CET suggests never to use extrinsic rewards and punishment,
where intrinsic motivation is already available. But CET does encourage the use of
verbal extrinsic rewards, such as, appreciation, recognition and praise.
Moreover, it also teaches the managers to keep the salary independent from the
performance. Otherwise, the intrinsic motivation – if there is any – will become
dependent on the extrinsic rewards (salary). In other words, money, in terms of
commission, might make your employees more productive and focused, but in strict
motivational sense, it will seriously reduce their intrinsic motivation.
2. CET FOR EMPLOYEES:
For employees, CET suggests to pick up a job that you really love and care about.
This falls more into the lines of choosing a career and career development. When
you will be intrinsically motivated for your job, the extrinsic rewards won’t matter
much. You will be able to perform significantly better than the rest of your
colleagues. Moreover, with the inclusion of verbal extrinsic rewards, your
performance and motivation level will keep increasing progressively.

GOAL SETTING THEORY

In the late 1960s, Locke's pioneering research into goal setting and motivation gave
us our modern understanding of goal setting. In his 1968 article "Toward a Theory
of Task Motivation and Incentives," he showed that clear goals and appropriate
feedback motivate employees. He went on to highlight that working toward a goal
is also a major source of motivation – which, in turn, improves performance.
Locke and Latham's Five Principles

According to Locke and Latham, there are five goal setting principles that can
improve our chances of success:
1. Clarity.
2. Challenge.
3. Commitment.
4. Feedback.
5. Task complexity.
Let's look at each of these elements, and explore how you can apply them to your
personal goals and to your team's objectives.

Participation of setting goal, however, makes goal more acceptable and

leads to more involvement.
Goal setting theory has certain eventualities such as:

Self-efficiency- Self-efficiency is the individual’s self-confidence and

faith that he has potential of performing the task. Higher the level of self-
efficiency, greater will be the efforts put in by the individual when they
face challenging tasks. While, lower the level of self-efficiency, less will be
the efforts put in by the individual or he might even quit while meeting
challenges.

Goal commitment- Goal setting theory assumes that the individual is

committed to the goal and will not leave the goal. The goal commitment
is dependent on the following factors: Goals are made open, known and
broadcasted. Goals should be set-self by individual rather than
designated. Individual’s set goals should be consistent with the
organizational goals and vision.
 Limitations of Goal Setting Theory
 At times, the organizational goals are in conflict with the managerial goals.
Goal conflict has a detrimental effect on the performance if it motivates
incompatible action drift.
 Very difficult and complex goals stimulate riskier behaviour.
 If the employee lacks skills and competencies to perform actions essential for
goal, then the goal-setting can fail and lead to undermining of performance.
 There is no evidence to prove that goal-setting improves job satisfaction

SELF EFFICACY THEORY

Psychologist Albert Bandura defined self-efficacy as “the belief in one’s capabilities
to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective
situations." In other words, self-efficacy is a person’s belief in his or her ability to
succeed in a particular situation. Bandura believed that an essential component to
accomplishing something is our confidence that we can. Bandura referred to self-
efficacy as the mind's self-regulatory function; it tells us when to try and when to
stop. If you do not believe something is possible, you are less likely to attempt the
task and more likely to give up early if you do. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how
people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave.

EXAMPLE: For example, Employee A has high ability and a great deal of experience
in creating graphs, but does not have confidence that he can create a high quality
graph for an important conference. Employee B has only average ability and only a
small amount of experience in creating graphs, yet has great confidence that she can
work hard to create a high quality graph for the same conference. Because of
Employee A's low self-efficacy for graph creation, he lacks the motivation to create
one for the conference and tells his supervisor he cannot complete the task.
Employee B, due to her high self-efficacy, is highly motivated, works overtime to
learn how to create a high quality graph, presents it during the conference, and
earns a promotion.

PEOPLE WITH HIGH SELF EFFICACY:

Self-efficacy drives your motivation. A strong sense of efficacy enhances human
accomplishment and personal well-being in many ways. People with high assurance
in their capabilities approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than
as threats to be avoided. Such an efficacious outlook fosters intrinsic interest and
deep engrossment in activities. They set challenging goals and maintain strong
commitment to them. They heighten and sustain their efforts in the face of failure.
They quickly recover their sense of efficacy after failures or setbacks. They attribute
failure to insufficient effort or deficient knowledge and skills which are acquirable.
They approach threatening situations with assurance that they can exercise control
over them. Such an efficacious outlook produces personal accomplishments,
reduces stress and lowers vulnerability to depression.
PEOPLE WITH LOW SELF EFFICACY:
In contrast, people who doubt their capabilities shy away from difficult tasks which
they view as personal threats. They have low aspirations and weak commitment to
the goals they choose to pursue. When faced with difficult tasks, they dwell on their
personal deficiencies, on the obstacles they will encounter, and all kinds of adverse
outcomes rather than concentrate on how to perform successfully. They slacken
their efforts and give up quickly in the face of difficulties. They are slow to recover
their sense of efficacy following failure or setbacks. Because they view insufficient
performance as deficient aptitude it does not require much failure for them to lose
faith in their capabilities. They fall easy victim to stress and depression.

SOURCES OF SELF EFFICACY:

It's a logical assumption that, if completing an activity is related to our belief that we
can accomplish the task, then increasing our self-efficacy should enable us to be
more successful at finishing the things we attempt. This begs the question, 'Where
does self-efficacy come from?' If we can understand where self-efficacy comes from,
then we can take steps to increase it.

According to Bandura, self-efficacy is a constantly evolving process from childhood

to old age. These beliefs begin to form in early childhood as children deal with a
wide variety of experiences, tasks, and situations. However, the growth of self-
efficacy does not end during youth, but continues to evolve throughout life as
people acquire new skills, experiences, and understanding. According to Bandura,
there are four major sources of self-efficacy.

ENACTIVE MASTERY

VACARIOUS MODELING
SOURCES OF SELF-
EFFICACY
VERBAL PERSUASION

EMOTIONAL CUES

 ENACTIVE MASTERY:
The most effective way of creating a strong sense of efficacy is through mastery
experiences. For most people, the most influential source is the interpreted result of
one's own performance, or mastery experience. Simply put, individuals gauge the
effects of their actions, and their interpretations of these effects help create their
efficacy beliefs. Successes build a robust belief in one's personal efficacy. Failures
undermine it. When you succeed at something, you are more likely to attempt it
 again. Individuals who have succeeded on some particular tasks are likely to have
more confidence to complete similar tasks in the future (high self efficacy) than
individuals who have been unsuccessful (low self efficacy). For example: Students
who perform well on mathematics tests and earn high grades in mathematics classes
develop confidence in their mathematics capabilities. This sense of efficacy helps
ensure that they will enrol in subsequent mathematics-related classes, approach
mathematics tasks with serenity, and increase their efforts when a difficulty arises.

 VACARIOUS MODELING:
The second way of creating and strengthening self-beliefs of efficacy is through the
vicarious experiences provided by social models. Seeing people similar to oneself
succeed by sustained effort raises observers' beliefs that they too possess the
capabilities to master comparable activities required to succeed. i.e., (“If he can do it,
so can I!”). By the same token, observing others' fail despite high effort lowers
observers' judgments of their own efficacy and undermines their efforts. The impact
of modelling on perceived self-efficacy is strongly influenced by perceived
similarity to the models. The greater the assumed similarity the more persuasive are
the models' successes and failures. If people see the models as very different from
themselves their perceived self-efficacy is not much influenced by the models'
behaviour and the results its produces. For example: Watching a basket ball player
dunk a basketball might not increase your confidence in being able to dunk the
basketball yourself if you are 5 feet, 6 inches tall. But if you observe a basketball
player with physical characteristics similar to yourself, it can be persuasive.

 VERBAL PERSUASION:
Social persuasion is a third way of strengthening people's beliefs that they have
what it takes to succeed. Bandura asserted that people could be persuaded to
believe that they have the skills and capabilities to succeed. Consider a time when
someone said something positive and encouraging that helped you achieve a goal.
Getting verbal encouragement from others helps people overcome self-doubt and
instead focus on giving their best effort to the task at hand. People who are
persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given activities are
likely to mobilize greater effort and sustain it than if they harbour self-doubts and
dwell on personal deficiencies when problems arise. To the extent that persuasive
boosts in perceived self-efficacy lead people to try hard enough to succeed, they
promote development of skills and a sense of personal efficacy.
 EMOTIONAL CUES:
People also rely partly on their somatic and emotional states in judging their
capabilities. Moods, emotional states, physical reactions, and stress levels can all
impact how a person feels about their personal abilities in a particular situation.
They interpret their stress reactions and tension as signs of vulnerability to poor
performance. In activities involving strength and stamina, people judge their
fatigue, aches and pains as signs of physical debility. A person who becomes
extremely nervous before speaking in public may develop a weak sense of self-
efficacy in these situations. Mood also affects people's judgments of their personal
efficacy. Typically, optimism or a positive mood enhances self-efficacy, whereas
depression, despair, or a sense of despondency diminishes. By learning how to
minimize stress and elevate mood when facing difficult or challenging tasks, people
can improve their sense of self-efficacy.

IMPLICATIONS OF SELF EFFICACY IN WORKPLACE:

 SELECTION/PROMOTION DECISIONS-Organizations should select individuals

who have high levels of self efficacy. These people will be motivated to engage in
the behaviors that will help them perform well in the workplace. A measure of
self-efficacy can be administered during the hiring/promotion process.

 TRAINING PROGRAMS-Training programs often make use of enactive mastery by

having people practice and build their skills. In fact one of the reason training
works is that it increases self efficacy.

 GOAL SETTING & PERFORMANCE-Managers can help their employees achieve

high levels of self efficacy by bringing together goal setting theory and self
efficacy theory. When a leader sets difficult goals for employees, this leads
employees to have a higher level of self efficacy and also leads them to set higher
goals for their own performance. Why does this happen? Research has shown
that setting difficult goals for people communicates confidence. For example,
suppose that your supervisor sets a high goal for you. You learn that it is higher
than the goal she has set for your colleagues. How would you interpret this? You
would probably think that your supervisor believes you are capable of
performing better than others. This sets in motion a psychological process in
which you are more confident in yourself (higher self efficacy) and then you set
higher personal goals for yourself causing you to perform better.
 REINFORCEMENT THEORY
Reinforcement theory, takes a behaviorist view, arguing that reinforcement
conditions behavior

“A theory that says that behavior is a function of its consequences.”

ASSUMPTIONS:
 Behavior is environmentally caused
 Behavior can be modified (reinforced) by providing (controlling)
consequences.
 Reinforced behavior tends to be repeated.
Be concerned, they would argue, with internal cognitive events; what controls
behavior is reinforcers—any consequences that, when immediately following
responses, increase the probability that the behavior will be repeated.

Reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates
solely on what happens when he or she takes some action. Because it does not
concern itself with what initiates behavior, it is not, strictly speaking, a theory of
motivation. But, it does provide a powerful means of analyzing what controls
behavior, and this is why we typically consider it in discussions of motivation.

Reinforcement Theory argues that people learn to behave to get something they
want or to avoid something they don’t want. Therefore, reinforcement strengthens a
behavior and increases the likelihood it will be repeated, that people will most likely
engage in desired behaviors if they are positively reinforced for doing so; that
rewards are most effective if they immediately follow the desired response; and that
behavior that is not rewarded, or is punished, is less likely to be repeated.

REAL LIFE EXAMPLE: We know a teacher who places a mark by a student’s name
each time the student gives the answer. This practice is motivating because it
conditions a student to expect a reward (marks) each time she demonstrates a
specific behavior (answering in class).

ORGANIZATIONAL EXAMPLE: Assume that your boss says if you work

overtime during the next 3-week busy season you’ll be compensated for it at your
next performance appraisal. However, when performance-appraisal time comes,
you are given no positive reinforcement for your overtime work. The next time your
boss asks you to work overtime, what will you do? You’ll probably decline!

If a behavior fails to be positively reinforced, the probability it will be repeated

declines.
Although reinforcers such as pay can motivate people, the process is much more
complicated than stimulus–response. In its pure form, reinforcement theory ignores
feelings, attitudes, expectations, and other cognitive variables known to affect
behavior.

Reinforcement is undoubtedly an important influence on behavior, but few scholars

are prepared to argue it is the only one. The behaviors you engage in at work and
the amount of effort you allocate to each task are affected by the consequences that
follow. If you’re consistently reprimanded for out producing your colleagues, you’ll
likely reduce your productivity. But we might also explain your lower productivity
in terms of goals, inequity, or expectancies.

Concluding that, this theory has an impressive record for predicting quality and
quantity of work, persistence of effort, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates. It
does not offer much insight into employee satisfaction or the decision to quit.

EQUITY THEORY
In 1963, John Stacey Adams introduced the idea that fairness and equity are key
components of a motivated individual. Equity theory is based in the idea that
individuals are motivated by fairness, and if they identify inequities in the
input/output ratios of themselves and their referent group, they will seek to adjust
their input to reach their perceived equity. Adams' suggested that the higher an
individual's perception of equity, the more motivated they will be, and vice versa -
if someone perceives an unfair environment, they will be demotivated.

IMPORTANCE OF REFERENT GROUPS:

A referent group is a selection of people an individual relates to or uses when
comparing themselves to the larger population. If a salesperson compares
themselves to the rest of the sales staff, the referent group is the sales staff. As it
relates to equity theory, there are four basic referent groups that people use:

1. SELF-INSIDE: Your own experience within your current organization

('when I worked for Bob, things were better?')
2. SELF-OUTSIDE: Your own experience, but at another organization ('when I
did this same job for XYZ, I was paid a lot less?')
3. OTHERS-INSIDE: Other people within your current organization ('the
management team just sits around a conference table all day, and gets paid
way too much?')
4. OTHERS-OUTSIDE: Other people outside your current organization ('the
sales force our competitor has some pretty weak benefits?')
An individual will consider that he is treated fairly if he perceives the ratio of his
inputs to his outcomes to be equivalent to those around him. Thus, all else being
equal, it would be acceptable for a more senior colleague to receive higher
compensation, since the value of his experience (and input) is higher. The way
people base their experience with satisfaction for their job is to make comparisons
with themselves to people they work with. If an employee notices that another
person is getting more recognition and rewards for their contributions, even when
both have done the same amount and quality of work, it would persuade the
employee to be dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction would result in the employee
feeling underappreciated and perhaps worthless. This is in direct contrast with the
idea of equity theory, the idea is to have the rewards (outcomes) be directly related
with the quality and quantity of the employees contributions (inputs). If both
employees were perhaps rewarded the same, it would help the workforce realize
that the organization is fair, observant, and appreciative.

This can be illustrated by the following equation:

Here is the list of inputs and outputs those can be compared

Inputs Outputs
 Time  Job security
 Effort  Salary
 Loyalty  Employee benefit
 Hard Work  Expenses
 Commitment  Recognition
 Ability  Reputation
 Adaptability  Responsibility
 Flexibility  Sense of achievement
 Tolerance  Praise
 Determination  Thanks
 Enthusiasm  Stimuli
 Personal sacrifice
 Trust in superiors
 Support from co-workers and
colleagues
 Skill
By above equation 3 types of results or cases may be achieved these are :
 Case 1: EQUITY --pay allocation is perceived to be to be fair - motivation is
sustained
 Case 2: INEQUITY -- UNDERPAYMENT. Employee is motivated to seek justice.
Work motivation is disrupted.
 Case 3: INEQUITY - OVERPAYMENT. Could be problem. Inefficient.
When employees perceive inequity they can be predicted to make one of six choices
 Changing their input to match outcomes (e.g., leaving early or slacking off)
 Change outcomes to match inputs (e.g., asking for a pay increase, stealing)
 Persuading others to change inputs (e.g., complaining to superiors)
 Withdrawal (e.g., tardiness or turnover)
 Distort perception of self (e.g. I used to think I worked at a moderate pace but
now I realize that I work a lot harder than every one else )
 Distort perception of others (e.g., veena’s job isn’t as desirable as I previously
thought it was )
 Choose a different referent (e.g., I may not make as much as my brother in law
but I am doing a lot better than my father did when he was of my age )

PROPOSITION:

If payment is given in terms of time :

 Over rewarded employee will produce more then will equitably paid employee .
hourly and salaried employees will generate high quantity and quality of
production in order to increase the input side of the ratio and bring about equity
 Under rewarded employee will produce less or poorer quality of output . efforts
will be decreased, which will bring about lower productivity or poorer quality
output than equitably paid subjects If payment is given in terms of quantity of
production :
 Over rewarded employee will produce few but high quality units than will
equitably paid employee
 Under rewarded employees will produce a large number of low quality units in
comparison with equitably paid employee

JUSTICE IN EQUITY THEORY:

Organizational justice means how an employee judges the behavior of the
organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behavior. (e.g., if a firm
makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with
a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity).
Organizational justice is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. The three
proposed components are distributive, procedural, interactional justice.
 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision
outcomes and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed
may be tangible (e.g., pay) or intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive
justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied.
 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to
outcomes. When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that the
process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and lack
of bias then procedural justice is enhanced
 INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE refers to the treatment that an individual receives as
decisions are made and can be promoted by providing explanations for decisions
and delivering the news with sensitivity and respect.

EQUITY THEORY IN BUSINESS:

Equity theory has been widely applied to business settings by industrial
psychologists to describe the relationship between an employee's motivation and his
or her perception of equitable or inequitable treatment. In a business setting, the
relevant dyadic relationship is that between employee and employer. As in
marriage and other contractual dyadic relationships, equity theory assumes that
employees seek to maintain an equitable ratio between the inputs they bring to the
relationship and the outcomes they receive from it .Equity theory in business,
however, introduces the concept of social comparison, whereby employees evaluate
their own input/output ratios based on their comparison with the input/outcome
ratios of other employees.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS:

Equity theory has several implications for business managers:

 People measure the totals of their inputs and outcomes. This means a working
mother may accept lower monetary compensation in return for more flexible
working hours.
 Different employees ascribe personal values to inputs and outcomes. Thus, two
employees of equal experience and qualification performing the same work for
the same pay may have quite different perceptions of the fairness of the deal.
 Employees are able to adjust for purchasing power and local market conditions.
Thus a teacher from Alberta may accept lower compensation than his colleague
in Toronto if his cost of living is different, while a teacher in a remote African
village may accept a totally different pay structure.
 Although it may be acceptable for more senior staff to receive higher
compensation, there are limits to the balance of the scales of equity and
employees can find excessive executive pay demotivating.
 Staff perceptions of inputs and outcomes of themselves and others may be
incorrect, and perceptions need to be managed effectively.
 An employee who believes he is overcompensated may increase his effort.
 However he may also adjust the values that he ascribes to his own personal
inputs. It may be that he or she internalizes a sense of superiority and actually
decrease his efforts.

CRITICISMS:
Criticism has been directed toward both the assumptions and practical application
of equity theory. Scholars have questioned the simplicity of the model, arguing that
a number of demographic and psychological variables affect people's perceptions of
fairness and interactions with others. Furthermore, much of the research supporting
the basic propositions of equity theory has been conducted in laboratory settings,
and thus has questionable applicability to real-world situations .Critics have also
argued that people might perceive equity/inequity not only in terms of the specific
inputs and outcomes of a relationship, but also in terms of the overarching system
that determines those inputs and outputs. Thus, in a business setting, one might feel
that his or her compensation is equitable to other employees', but one might view
the entire compensation system as unfair.

EXPECTANCY THEORY
Expectancy Theory was given by, “Victor Vroom’s” which is one of the most widely
accepted explanations of motivation. Although it has its critics, most of the evidence
supports it.
“A theory that says that 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 that outcome to the individual.”
In an easy way we can say that, employees will be motivated to exert a high level of
effort when they believe it will lead to a good performance appraisal; that a good
appraisal will lead to organizational rewards such as bonuses, salary increases, or
promotions; and that the rewards will satisfy the employees’ personal goals.

RELATIONSHIPS OF THEORY:
The theory, focuses on three relationships:
 1. EFFORT–PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP. The probability
perceived by the individual that exerting a given amount of effort
will lead to performance.

2. PERFORMANCE–REWARD RELATIONSHIP. The degree to which

the individual believes performing at a particular level will lead to
the attainment of a desired outcome.

3. REWARDS–PERSONAL GOALS RELATIONSHIP. The degree to

which organizational rewards satisfy an individual’s personal goals
or needs and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the
individual

Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers aren’t motivated on their
jobs and do only the minimum necessary to get by. Let’s frame the theory’s three
relationships as questions employees need to answer in the affirmative if their
motivation is to be maximized

 First, if I give a maximum effort, will it be recognized in my

performance appraisal?
Employee’s skill level may be deficient, which means no matter how hard they
try, they’re not likely to be high performers. The organization’s performance
appraisal system may be designed to assess nonperformance factors such as
loyalty, initiative, or courage, which means more effort won’t necessarily result
in a higher evaluation.
Another possibility is that employees, rightly or wrongly, perceive the boss
doesn’t like them. As a result, they expect a poor appraisal, regardless of effort.
These examples suggest one possible source of low motivation is employees’
belief that, no matter how hard they work, the likelihood of getting a good
performance appraisal is low.

 Second, if I get a good performance appraisal, will it lead to

organizational rewards?
Many organizations reward things besides performance.
For Example: When pay is based on factors such as having seniority, being
cooperative, or “kissing up” to the boss, employees are likely to see the
performance–reward relationship as weak and de-motivating.
 Finally, if I’m rewarded, are the rewards attractive to me?
Unfortunately, many managers are limited in the rewards they can distribute,
which makes it difficult to tailor rewards to individual employee needs. The
employee works hard in the hope of getting a promotion but gets a pay raise
instead. Or the employee wants a more interesting and challenging job but
receives only a few words of praise.

Some incorrectly assume all employees want the same thing, thus overlooking
the motivational effects of differentiating rewards. In either case, employee
motivation is sub maximized.

ORGANIZATIONAL EXAMPLE:
At Mary Kay Cosmetics, the performance-reward relationship is strong. The
company offers a generous rewards and recognition program based on the
achievement of personal goals set by each employee. Mary Kay also understands
the motivational effects of differentiating rewards. For some employees, the best
reward is the opportunity to work from home, while other employees are motivated
by the opportunity to win a trip, jewelry, or the use of a pink Cadillac. In this photo,
a Mary Kay sales director explains career opportunities at a job fair to women
interested in joining the company. (Source: Eric Risberg)

Concluding that, Expectancy theory offers a powerful explanation of performance

variables such as employee productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. But it assumes
employees have few constraints on decision making, such as bias or incomplete
information, and this limits its applicability. Expectancy theory has some validity
because, for many behaviors, people consider expected outcomes.
Other theories don't allow for the same degree of individuality between people. This
model takes into account individual perceptions and thus personal histories,
allowing a richness of response not obvious in Maslow or McClelland, who assume
that people are essentially all the same. Vroom's expectancy theory could also be
overlaid over another theory (e.g. Maslow). Maslow could be used to describe
which outcomes people are motivated by and Vroom to describe whether they will
act based upon their experience and expectations.

CRITICISM:
Some critics suggest it has only limited use and is more valid where individuals
clearly perceive effort– performance and performance–reward linkages.

Because few individuals do, the theory tends to be idealistic. If organizations

actually rewarded individuals for performance rather than seniority, effort, skill
level, and job difficulty, expectancy theory might be much more valid. However,
rather than invalidating it, this criticism can explain why a significant segment of
the workforce exerts low effort on the job.