Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theories of Motivation
Theories of Motivation
"This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to
performance and to ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved and
wanted by the recipients." [1]
Vroom's theory assumes that behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives
whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain. Together with Edward
Lawler and Lyman Porter, Vroom suggested that the relationship between people's
behavior at work and their goals was not as simple as was first imagined by other
scientists. Vroom realized that an employee's performance is based on individual factors
such as personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities.
Victor H. Vroom introduces three variables within the expectancy theory which are
valence (V), expectancy (E) and instrumentality (I). The three elements are important
behind choosing one element over another because they are clearly defined: effort-
performance expectancy (E>P expectancy), performance-outcome expectancy (P>O
expectancy).
E>P expectancy: Our assessment of the probability our efforts will lead to the required
performance level.
P>O expectancy: Our assessment of the probability our successful performance will lead
to certain outcomes.
In order to enhance the performance-outcome tie, managers should use systems that tie
rewards very closely to performance. Managers also need to ensure that the rewards
provided are deserved and wanted by the recipients.[3] In order to improve the effort-
performance tie, managers should engage in training to improve their capabilities and
improve their belief that added effort will in fact lead to better performance.[4]
2.TWO FACTOR THEORY.
The theory was based around interviews with 203 American accountants & engineers in
Pittsburgh, chosen because of their professions' growing importance in the business
world. The subjects were asked to relate times when they felt exceptionally good or bad
about their present job or any previous job, and to provide reasons, and a description of
the sequence of events giving rise to that positive or negative feeling.
Briefly, we asked our respondents to describe periods in their lives when they were exceedingly
happy and unhappy with their jobs. Each respondent gave as many "sequences of events" as he
could which met certain criteria including a marked change in feeling, a beginning and an end,
and contained some substantive description other than feelings and interpretations…
The proposed hypothesis appears verified. The factors on the right that led to satisfaction
(achievement, intrinsic interest in the work, responsibility, and advancement) are mostly unipolar;
that is, they contribute very little to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dis-satisfiers (company
policy and administrative practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions,
and salary) contribute very little to job satisfaction[3].
• Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits) which do not
give positive satisfaction, although dissatisfaction results from their absence.
These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as company
policies, supervisory practices, or wages/salary[4].
Unlike Maslow, who offered little data to support his ideas, Herzberg and others have
presented considerable empirical evidence to confirm the motivation-hygiene theory.
Their work, however, has been criticized on methodological grounds. Nevertheless,
Herzberg and his associates have rendered a valuable service to science and to
management through their efforts to apply scientific methods to understanding complex
motivational problems at work and have stimulated others to continue the search.
3.NEED HIERARCHY THEORY.
5.REINFORCEMENT THEORY
6.THEORY X AND Y.
7.ERG THEORY.