GOAL SETTING THEORY:

Goal setting theory refers to the effects of setting goals on subsequent performance.
Goals must be effective and the principles that contribute towards an effective goal setting are
as follows:

1. Clarity: A clear measurable goal is more achievable than the one that is vague. In other
words, goal should be specific rather than general. Specifying gives the individual a
specific objective to achieve.
2. Challenging: The goal must have a decent level of difficulty in order to motivate you to
strive towards the goal. The more difficult the goal the higher the level of performance.
Individuals exert a high level of effort a achieve a harder task than an easier one.
3. Feedback: People do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing
towards their goals, because it helps identify discrepancies between what they have
done and what they want to do--that is, feedback guides behavior.

In addition to feedback three factors influence the goals-performance relationship:

1. Goal commitment.

2. Task characteristics.

3. National culture

Implementing Goal-Setting:

A systematic way to implement Goal-Setting is with management by objectives (MBO), which

emphasizes participatively set goals that are tangible, verifiable, and measurable. Four
ingredients common to MBO programs: goal specificity, participation in decision making, an
explicit time period, and performance feed backs.

SELF EFFICACY THEORY:

Self efficacy refers to an individual’s optimistic self belief in his or her competence or chances of
successfully accomplishing a task and producing a favorable outcome. The higher the self
efficacy, the more confidence an individual has in his or her ability to succeed.

Albert Bandura named four sources of self efficacy:

1. Enactive mastery: gaining relevant experience with the task or job. For example: Having
a past experience of success in doing a job, will build self belief in that area.
2. Vicarious modeling: This comes from our observation of people around us especially our
role models. Seeing people like ourselves succeed in a particular job boosts our
 confidence that we too possess the possess the capabilities that are needed to succeed
in that area.
3. Verbal persuasion: Being persuaded that we possess the capabilities to master certain
activities means that we are more likely to put in our efforts.
4. Arousal: Arousal leads to an energized state, so the person gets psyched up and
performs better.

REINFORCEMENT THEORY:
Reinforcement theory says that you can change someone behavior by using reinforcement.

Operant conditioning theory , a component of reinforcement theory, argues that people learn to
behave to get something they want or to avoid something they don’t want. Operant behavior is
influenced by the reinforcement or lack of Reinforcement brought about by its consequences.
Therefore, reinforcement strengthens a behavior and increases the likelihood that it will be
repeated.

EQUITY THEORY/ ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE:

A theory that says that individuals compare their job inputs and outcomes with those of others
and then respond to eliminate any inequities. The core of this theory is the principle of balance
and equity. As per this motivation theory, an individual’s motivation level is correlated to his
perception of equity, fairness and justice practiced by the management. Higher is individual’s
perception of fairness, greater is the motivation level and vice versa. While evaluating fairness,
employee compares the job input to outcome and also compares the same with that of another
peer of equal category.

Referents: The four comparisons an employee can make have been termed as “referents”
according to Goodman. The referent chosen is a significant variable in equity theory. These
referents are as follows:

Self-inside: An employee’s experience in a different position inside his present

organization.

Self-outside: An employee’s experience in a situation outside the present organization.

Other-inside: Another employee or group of employees inside the employee’s present

organization.

Other-outside: Another employee or employees outside the employee’s present

 organization.

An employee might compare himself with his peer within the present job in the current
organization or with his friend/peer working in some other organization or with the past
jobs held by him with others. An employee’s choice of the referent will be influenced by
the appeal of the referent and the employee’s knowledge about the referent.

Moderating Variables: The gender, salary, education and the experience level are
moderating variables. Individuals with greater and higher education are more informed.
Thus, they are likely to compare themselves with the outsiders. Males and females
prefer same sex comparison. It has been observed that females are paid typically less
than males in comparable jobs and have less salary expectations than male for the
same work. Thus, a women employee that uses another women employee as a referent
tends to lead to a lower comparative standard. Employees with greater experience know
their organization very well and compare themselves with their own colleagues, while
employees with less experience rely on their personal experiences and knowledge for
making comparisons.

Choices: The employees who perceive inequity can make the following choices:

 Change in input (e.g. Don’t overexert)

 Change their outcome (Produce quantity output and increasing earning by sacrificing
quality when piece rate incentive system exist)

 Choose a different referent

 Quit the job

 Change self perception (For instance - I know that I’ve performed better and harder
than everyone else.)

 Change perception of others (For instance - Jack’s job is not as desirable as I earlier
thought it was.)

Finally equity theory first focused on distributive justice, which is the employees perceived
fairness of the amount rewards among individuals and who received. But organizational
justice is something bigger. Organizational justice refers to employee’s overall perceptions of
fairness in the workplace. These perceptions can be classified into three categories:
distributive, procedural and interactional. Distributive justice reflects perceptions regarding
fairness of outcomes, while procedural justice reflects perceptions of processes that lead to
these outcomes. A third type of justice, interactional justice, describes an individual’s
perception of the degree to which she is treated with dignity, concern and respect.

Out of these three forms of justice, distributive justice is conducive to organizational

commitment and satisfactions with outcomes such as pay. Procedural justice relates strongly
to job satisfaction, employee trust, withdrawal from the organization, job performance and
citizenship behavior.

EXPECTANCY THEORY:

The theory states that the intensity of a tendency to perform in a particular manner is dependent
on the intensity of an expectation that the performance will be followed by a definite outcome
and its attractiveness.

The Expectancy theory  focuses on three relationships:

1. Effort-performance relationship: It s associated with the belief that better efforts will
result in better performance.
2. Performance-reward relationship: It is associated with the individual’s belief that a person
will receive a reward if the performance expectation is met.
3. Rewards-personal goals relationship: it is associated with the value an individual places
on the rewards of an outcome.  There are individual differences in the level of value
associated with any specific outcome. For instance, a bonus may not increase motivation
for an employee who is motivated by formal recognition or by increased status such as
promotion.

This theory help explain why a lot of workers aren’t motivated on their jobs and do only the
minimum necessary to get by.