Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Work Motivation: Theoretical

Framework
Sait Revda Dinibutun

Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Management and Organisat ional Behaviour 1 287 325

Lova Rat efiarivony

T he role of t radit ional Mot ivat ion t heories on employee ret ent ion Nit hyajot hiGovindaraju
Dr Nit hyajot hi Govindaraju

T HEORIES OF MOT IVAT ION T HEORIES OF MOT IVAT ION

larry ogo
 Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.

Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework

S. Revda Dinibutun, Department of Business Administration, Dogus University

II. THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

Abstract- Motivation is an internal force that accounts for
the level, direction, and persistence of effort expended at work. The usual approach to the study of motivation is through
There are many competing theories, which attempt to explain an understanding of internal cognitive processes, which is,
the nature of motivation. These theories help to explain the what people feel and how they think. This understanding
behavior of certain people at certain times. Content theories, should help the manager to predict likely behavior of staff in
including the work of Maslow, Alderfer, McClelland, and given situations. These different cognitive theories of
Herzberg, focus on locating individual needs that influence motivation are mainly divided into two approaches: content
behavior in the workplace. Process theories, such as equity and
theories and process theories.
expectancy theory, examine the thought processes that affect
decisions about alternative action by people at work. This
paper explores the many different theories of motivation, and A. Content Theories
presents motivation as a basic psychological process. [*]
Content theories attempt to explain those specific things,
Keywords- Motivation, content theories, process theories, which actually motivate the individual at work. These
hierarchy of needs, expectancy, equity. theories are concerned with identifying people’s needs and
their relative strengths, and the goals they pursue in order to
satisfy these needs. Content theories place emphasis on the
I. OVERVIEW OF MAIN THEORIES OF WORK nature of needs and what motivates. Major content theories
MOTIVATION of motivation include:
 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory,
Different theories are important to the manager. This is  Alderfer’s modified need hierarchy model,
because of the complexity of motivation, and the fact that
 Herzberg’s two-factor theory,
there is no ready-made solution or single answer to what
 McClelland’s achievement motivation theory.
motivates people to work well. Theories show there are
many motives, which influence people’s behavior and
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
performance. Different theories provide a framework of how
Maslow’s theory of individual development and
best to motivate staff to work willingly and effectively, and
motivation was published in 1943. Maslow’s basic
they also provide a basis for review of the most effective
proposition is that people are wanting beings, they always
motivational style (Fig.1) [1].
want more, and what they want depends on what they
already have. He suggests that human needs are arranged in
a series of levels, a hierarchy of importance.
EARLY IDEAS ON WORK
The hierarchy is usually shown as ranging through five
MOTIVATION main levels, form, at the lowest level, physiological needs,
through safety needs, love (social) needs, and esteem needs,
Scientific management and
to the need for self-actualization at the highest level. The
the work of F. W. Taylor
hierarchy of needs may be shown as a series of steps, but is
usually displayed in the form of a pyramid (Fig.2) [1]. This
The Hawthorne experiments
is an appropriate form of illustration as it implies a thinning
and Human Relations approach
out of needs as people progress up the hierarchy.
Development of many competing theories
on the nature of work motivation
CONTENT THEORIES
Emphasis on what motivates individuals
Major theorists are:
 Maslow  Alderfer
 Herzberg  McClelland
PROCESS THEORIES
Emphasis on the actual process of motivation
Major theories are:
 Expectancy theories  Equity theory
 Goal theory  Attribution theory Fig. 2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Model
Fig. 1. Overview of Main Theories of Work Motivation

Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
 Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
 Physiological needs. The most basic level in the hierarchy,
the physiological needs, generally corresponds to the
unlearned primary needs. The need of hunger, thirst, sleep,
and sex are some examples. According to the theory, once
these basic needs are satisfied, they no longer motivate.
For example, a thirsty person will strive to obtain a glass
of water that is within reach. However, after drinking his
or her fill of water, the person will not strive to obtain
another one and will be motivated only by the next higher
level of needs.
 Safety needs. These include safety and security, freedom
from pain or threat of physical attack, protection from
danger, the need for predictability and orderliness.
 Love (social) needs. These include affection, sense of
belonging, social activities, friendships, and both the
giving and receiving of love.
 Esteem needs. The esteem level represents the higher
needs of humans. These include both self-esteem and the
esteem of others. Self-esteem involves the desire for
confidence, strength, independence and freedom, and
achievement. Esteem of others involves reputation or
prestige, status, recognition, attention and appreciation.
 Self-actualization needs. This is the development and
realization of one’s full potential. People who have
become self-actualized are self-fulfilled and have realized
all their potential. Maslow sees this as; what humans can
be, they must be. Self-actualization needs are not
necessarily a creative urge, and may take many forms,
which vary widely from one individual to another.
Once a lower need has been satisfied, it no longer acts as
a strong motivator. The needs of the next higher level in the
hierarchy demand satisfaction and become the motivating
influence. Only unsatisfied needs motivate a person.
Individuals advance up the hierarchy as each lower-level
need becomes satisfied. Therefore, to provide motivation for
a change in behavior, the manager must direct attention to
the next higher level of needs that seek satisfaction.
The work of Maslow has drawn attention to a number of
different motivators and stimulated study and research. The
need hierarchy model provides a useful base for the
evaluation of motivation at work. A list of general rewards
and organizational factors used to satisfy different needs is
given in Table 1 [2].
Alderfer’s Modified Need Hierarchy Model
Alderfer has presented a modified need hierarchy model.
This model condenses Maslow’s five levels of need into
only three levels based on the core needs of existence,
relatedness and growth (ERG theory).
Existence needs are concerned with sustaining human
existence and survival, and cover physiological and safety
needs of a material nature.
Relatedness needs are concerned with relationships to the
social environment, and cover love or belonging, affiliation,
and meaningful interpersonal relationships of a safety or
esteem nature.
Growth needs are concerned with the development of
potential, and cover self-esteem and self-actualization.
Like Maslow, Alderfer suggests that people progress
through the hierarchy from existence needs, to relatedness
needs, to growth needs, as the lower-level needs become
satisfied. However, Alderfer suggests these needs are more a
continuum than hierarchical levels. More than one need may
be activated at the same time. People may also progress
down the hierarchy [3].
Unlike Maslow’s theory, the results of Alderfer’s work
suggest that lower-level needs do not have to be satisfied
before a higher-level need emerges as a motivating
influence.
ERG theory states that an individual is motivated to
satisfy one or more basic sets of needs. Therefore, if a
person’s needs at a particular level are blocked, then
attention should be focused on the satisfaction of needs at
the other levels.

TABLE I Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Applying Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Herzberg extended the work of Maslow and developed a
specific content theory of work motivation. He conducted a
Needs levels General rewards Organizational factors
widely reported motivational study on about 200
1 Physiological Food, water, a Pay accountants and engineers employed by firms in and around
sex, sleep b Pleasant working conditions Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania [4]. He used the critical incident
c Cafeteria method of obtaining data for analysis. Subjects were asked
2 Safety Safety, security, a Safe working conditions to relate times when they felt exceptionally good or
stability, exceptionally bad about their present job or any previous
protection b Company benefits job. They were asked to give reasons and a description of
c Job security the sequence of events giving rise to that feeling.
3 Social Love, affection, a Cohesive work group Responses obtained from this critical incident method
were interesting and fairly consistent. Reported good
belongingness b Friendly supervision
feelings were generally associated with job experiences and
c Professional associations
job content. Reported bad feelings, on the other hand, were
Self-esteem,
4 Esteem self-respect, a Social recognition generally associated with the surrounding of the job and job
context. Tabulating these reported good and bad feelings,
prestige, status b Job title
Herzberg concluded that job satisfiers are related to job
c High status job
content and that job dissatisfiers are related to job context.
d Feedback from the job itself Herzberg labeled the satisfiers as motivators, and the
5 Self- dissatisfiers as hygiene factors. The term hygiene refers to
actualization Growth, a Challenging job
factors that are preventive. In Herzberg’s theory the hygiene
advancement, b Opportunities for creativity factors are those that prevent dissatisfaction. Taken together,
creativity c Achievement in work the motivators and the hygiene factors have become known
d Advancement in the as Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation (Table 2) [5].
organization

Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
 Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
TABLE II think is happening, what the people in the picture are
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory thinking, and what events have led to the situation depicted
[7]. The descriptions are used as a basis for analyzing the
Hygiene Factors Motivators strength of the individual’s motives.
 The achievement motive. People, who are high in the need
Company policy and administration Achievement to achieve, have a predisposition to strive for success.
Supervision, technical Recognition They are highly motivated to obtain the satisfaction that
Salary Work itself comes from accomplishing a challenging task or goal.
Interpersonal relations, supervisor Responsibility They prefer tasks for which there is a reasonable chance
Working conditions Advancement for success and avoid those that are either too easy or too
difficult. Such people prefer timely criticism and feedback
The hygiene factors can be related roughly to Maslow’s about their performance.
lower-level needs and the motivators to Maslow’s higher-  The power motive. People with a strong need for power
level needs (Table 3) [1]. Proper attention to the hygiene want to influence others directly by making suggestions,
factors will tend to prevent dissatisfaction, but does not by giving their opinions and evaluations. They enjoy roles
itself create a positive attitude or motivation to work. The requiring persuasion, such as teaching and public
opposite of dissatisfaction is not satisfaction, but, simply, no speaking. A person with a high need for power but a low
dissatisfaction. To motivate workers to give of their best, the need for warm, supportive relationships might become
manager must give proper attention to the motivators or dictatorial, while one with high needs for friendship might
growth factors [6]. become a social worker. McClelland believed that a good
manager is motivated by a strictly controlled and regulated
TABLE III concern for influencing others, in other words, good
Linking Maslow’s, Alderfer’s and Herzberg’s Theories of managers do have a need for power, but one that is under
Motivation control [8].
 The affiliative motives. People, with a strong need for
Maslow’s hierarchy Alderfer’s Herzberg’s affiliation, are highly motivated to maintain strong, warm
of needs ERG theory two-factor theory relationships with friends and relatives. At group meetings
they try to establish friendly relationships, often by being
PHYSIOLOGICAL EXISTENCE agreeable or giving emotional support [9].
SAFETY HYGIENE
B. Process Theories
FACTORS

LOVE RELATEDNESS Process theories attempt to identify the relationships

among the dynamic variables, which make up motivation,
ESTEEM and the actions required to influence behavior and actions.
GROWTH MOTIVATORS These theories are concerned more with how behavior is
SELF-ACTUALIZATION initiated, directed and sustained. Process theories place
emphasis on the actual process of motivation, and they
Herzberg emphasizes that hygiene factors are not a provide a further contribution to the understanding of the
second-class citizen system. They are as important as the complex nature of work motivation. Major process theories
motivators, but for different reasons. Hygiene factors are of motivation include:
necessary to avoid unpleasantness at work and to deny  Expectancy-based models: Vroom, and Porter and
unfair treatment. The motivators relate to what people are Lawler,
allowed to do and the quality of human experience at work.  Equity theory: Adams,
They are the variables, which actually motivate people.
 Goal theory: Locke,
 Attribution theory: Heider, and Kelley.
McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory
David McClelland agrees with Herzberg that higher-level
Expectancy-based Models
needs are most important at work. He identified three main
The underlying basis of expectancy theory is that people
socially developed motives:
are influenced by the expected results of their actions.
 The achievement motive,
Motivation is a function of the relationship between:
 The power motive,
 Effort expended and perceived level of performance,
 The affiliative motives [7].
 The expectation that rewards will be related to
These three motives correspond to Maslow’s self-
performance,
actualization, esteem, and love needs. The relative intensity
 The expectation that rewards are available.
of these motives varies between individuals. They also tend
These relationships determine the strength of the
to vary between different occupations. Managers appear to
motivational link (Fig.3) [1].
be higher in achievement motivation than in affiliation
Expectancy theory is a generic theory of motivation and
motivation.
cannot be linked to a single individual writer. There are a
McClelland used a series of projective tests in his
number of different versions and some of the models are
research studies to measure an individual’s motivation. For
rather complex. More recent approaches to expectancy
example, individuals are shown a number of pictures in
theory have been associated with the work of Vroom and of
which some activity is depicted. Respondents are asked to
Porter and Lawler.
look briefly at the pictures, and then to describe what they
Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
 Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
MOTIVATION – a function of the perceived relationship between
(1) and (2)
Effort expended Effective level Rewards related
of performance to performance
Availability of
reward
Fig. 3. Expectancy Theory: The Motivational Link
i. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory of work motivation
seeks to answer this basic question: What determines the
willingness of an individual to exert personal effort to work
at tasks that contribute to the performance of the work unit
and the organization [10]. The answer, according to the
expectancy theory, is found in the individual beliefs
regarding effort-performance relationships and the
desirability of various work outcomes that are associated
with different performance levels. Simply, the theory is
based on this logic: People will do what they can do when
they want to. This means, if a person wants a promotion
and sees that high performance can lead to that promotion
and believes that if he/she works hard he/she can achieve
high performance, then he/she will be motivated to work
hard.
Fig.4 presents the managerial foundations of expectancy
theory [6]. The three key components of the theory are:
1) Expectancy. The probability assigned by an individual
that work effort would be followed by a given level of
achieved task performance. Expectancy would equal 0 if
the person felt it was impossible to achieve the given
performance level; it would equal 1 if a person was 100
percent certain that the performance could be achieved.
2) Instrumentality. The probability assigned by the
individual that a given level of achieved task
performance would lead to various work outcomes.
Instrumentality also varies from 0 to 1.
3) Valence. The value attached by the individual to various
work outcomes. Valences form a scale from –1, which is
very undesirable outcome, to +1, which is very desirable
outcome.
Fig. 4. Key Terms and Managerial Implications of Vroom’s
Expectancy Theory
Vroom hypothesizes that motivation (M), expectancy (E),
instrumentality (I), and valence (V) are related to one
another by the equation: M  E  I  V. This multiplier
effect means that the motivational appeal of a given work
Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
path is sharply reduced whenever any one or more of these
factors approaches the value of zero. Conversely, for a given
reward to have a high and positive motivational impact as a
work outcome, the expectancy, instrumentality, and valence
associated with the reward all must be high and positive.
ii. The Porter and Lawler Expectancy Model
Porter and Lawler have developed Vroom’s expectancy
theory. Their model goes beyond motivational force and
considers performance as a whole. They point out that effort
expended does not lead directly to performance. It is
mediated by individual abilities and traits, and by the
person’s role perceptions [11]. They also introduce rewards
as an intervening variable. Porter and Lawler see
motivation, satisfaction and performance as separate
variables, and attempt to explain the complex relationships
among them. Their model recognizes that job satisfaction is
more dependent upon performance, than performance is
upon satisfaction. These relationships are expressed
diagrammatically in Fig.5 [11].
 Value of reward (Box 1) is similar to valence in Vroom’s
model. People desire various rewards, which they hope to
achieve from work. The value placed on a reward depends
on the strength of its desirability.
 Perceived effort-reward probability (Box 2) is similar to
expectancy. It refers to a person’s expectation that certain
rewards are dependent upon a given amount of effort.
 Effort (Box 3) is how hard the person tries, the amount of
energy a person exerts on a given activity. It does not
relate to how successful a person is in carrying out an
activity. The amount of energy exerted is dependent upon
the interaction of the input variables of value of reward,
and perception of the effort-reward relationship.
 Abilities and traits (Box 4). Porter and Lawler suggest that
effort does not lead directly to performance, but is
influenced by individual characteristics. Factors such as
intelligence, skills, knowledge, training and personality
affect the ability to perform a given activity.
 Role perceptions (Box 5) refer to the way in which
individuals view their work and the role they should adopt.
This influences the type of effort exerted. Role perceptions
will influence the direction and level of action, which is
believed to be necessary for effective performance.
 Performance (Box 6) depends not only on the amount of
effort exerted but also on the intervening influences of the
person’s abilities and traits, and their role perceptions. If
the person lacks the right ability or personality, or has an
inaccurate role perception of what is required, then the
exertion of a large amount of energy may still result in a
low level of performance, or task accomplishment.
 Rewards (Boxes 7A and 7B) are desirable outcomes.
Intrinsic rewards derive from the individuals themselves
and include a sense of achievement, a feeling of
responsibility and recognition. Extrinsic rewards derive
from the organization and the actions of others, and
include salary, working conditions and supervision.
 Perceived equitable rewards (Box 8). This is the level of
rewards people feel they should fairly receive for a given
standard of performance. Self-rating of performance links
directly with the perceived equitable reward variable.
Higher levels of self-rated performance are associated with
higher levels of expected equitable rewards.
 Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
 Satisfaction (Box 9). This is not the same as motivation. It
is an attitude, an individual’s internal state. Satisfaction is
determined by both actual rewards received, and perceived
level of rewards from the organization for a given standard
of performance. If perceived equitable rewards are greater
than actual rewards received, the person experiences
dissatisfaction. The experience of satisfaction derives from
actual rewards, which meet or exceed the perceived
equitable rewards [11].
Fig. 5. The Porter and Lawler Motivation Model
iii. Lawler’s Revised Expectancy Model
Following the original Porter and Lawler model, further
work was undertaken by Lawler (Fig.6) [1]. He suggests that
in deciding on the attractiveness of alternative behaviors,
there are two types of expectancies to be considered: effort-
performance expectancies (EP); and performance-
outcome expectancies (PO) [12].
Level of performance Need related
outcomes
E P P O
Expectancies Expectancies
Outcome
Performance
Outcome
Effort
Outcome
Performance
Outcome
Fig. 6. An Illustration of the Lawler Expectancy Model
The first expectancy (EP) is the person’s perception of
the probability that a given amount of effort will result in
achieving an intended level of performance. It is measured
on a scale between 0 and 1. The closer the perceived
Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
relationship between effort and performance, the higher the
EP expectancy scores.
The second expectancy (PO) is the person’s perception
of the probability that a given level of performance will
actually lead to particular need-related outcomes. This is
measured also on a scale between 0 and 1. The closer the
perceived relationship between performance and outcome,
the higher the PO expectancy scores.
The multiplicative combination of the two types of
expectancies, EP and the sum of the products PO,
determines expectancy. The motivational force to perform is
determined by multiplying EP and PO by the strength
of outcome valence (V).
E (Effort)  (EP)  [(PO)  V]
The distinction between the two types of expectancies
arises because they are determined by different conditions.
EP expectancy is determined in part by the person’s
ability and self-confidence, past experience, and the
difficulty of the tasnk. PO expectancy is determined by
the attractiveness of the outcomes and the belief about who
controls the outcomes, the person him/herself or other
people [12].
Equity Theory
One of the major variables of satisfaction in the Porter
and Lawler expectancy model is perceived equitable
rewards [13]. This leads to consideration of another process
theory of motivation, which is Stacy Adams’s equity theory.
Equity theory focuses on people’s feelings of how fairly
they have been treated in comparison with the treatment
received by others. People are strongly motivated to
maintain a balance between what they perceive as their
inputs or contributions, and their rewards. Equity theory
states that if a person perceives an inequity, a tension or
drive will develop in the person’s mind, and the person will
be motivated to reduce or eliminate the tension and
perceived inequity [14].
People place a weighting on various inputs and outcomes
according to how they perceive their importance. When the
ratio of a person’s total outcomes to total inputs equals the
perceived ratio of other people’s total outcomes to total
inputs, there is equity. When there is an unequal comparison
of ratios, the person experiences a sense of inequity. The
feeling of inequity might arise when an individual’s ratio of
outcomes to inputs is either less than, or greater than, that of
other people (Fig.7) [5].
Equity
Person’s outcomes Other’s outcomes
=
Person’s inputs Other’s inputs
Inequity
Person’s outcomes Other’s outcomes
<
Person’s inputs Other’s inputs
Person’s outcomes Other’s outcomes
>
Person’s inputs Other’s inputs
Fig. 7. The Equity Comparison in a Work Situation
 Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
Both the inputs and the outputs of person and other are
based upon the person’s perceptions. Age, sex, education,
social status, organizational position, qualifications, and
how hard the person works are examples of perceived input
variables. Outcomes consist primarily of rewards such as
pay, status, promotion, and intrinsic interest in the job. The
ratio is based upon the person’s perception of what the
person is giving and receiving versus the ratio of what the
relevant other is giving and receiving. This cognition may or
may not be the same as someone else’s observation of the
ratios or the same as the actual situation [15].
Goal Theory
The goal theory of motivation assumes that once someone
decides to pursue a goal, the person regulates his or her
behavior to try to reach the goal [16]. Locke and his
colleagues contend that goals provide the mechanism
through which unsatisfied needs are translated into action. In
other words, unsatisfied needs prompt the person to seek
ways to satisfy those needs, and the person then formulates
goals that prompt action [16].
The combination of goal difficulty and the extent of the
person’s commitment to achieving the goal regulate the
level of effort expended. People with specific quantitative
goals, such as a defined level of performance, or a given
deadline for completion of a task, will perform better than
people with no set goal or only an unclear goal. People who
have difficult goals will perform better than people with
easier goals.
Locke pointed out that goal setting is more appropriately
viewed as a motivational technique rather than as a formal
theory of motivation. The theory of goal setting provides a
useful approach to work motivation and performance [17].
Attribution Theory
Unlike the other motivation theories, attribution theory is
more a theory of the relationship between personal
perception and interpersonal behavior than a theory of
individual motivation. There are an increasing variety of
attribution theories.
Well-known theorist Harold Kelley stresses that
attribution theory is concerned mainly with the cognitive
processes by which an individual interprets behavior as
being caused by certain parts of the relevant environment. It
is concerned with the why questions of motivation and
behavior. Since most causes, attributes, and whys are not
directly observable, the theory says that people must depend
upon cognitions, particularly perception. The attribution
theorist assumes that humans are rational and are motivated
to identify and understand the causal structure of their
relevant environment [18].
Theory’s initiator is generally recognized to be Fritz
Heider. Heider believed that both internal forces, which are
personal attributes such as ability, effort, and fatigue, and
external forces, which are environmental attributes such as
rules and the weather, combine additively to determine
behavior. He stressed that it is the perceived, not the actual,
determinants that are important to behavior. People will
behave differently if they perceive internal attributes than
they will if they perceive external attributes [19].
Behavior at work may be explained by the locus of
control, that is whether the individual perceives outcomes as
controlled by themselves, or by external factors. Judgments
Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
made about other people will also be influenced strongly by
whether the cause is seen as internal or external.
In making attributions and determining whether an
internal or external attribution is chosen, Kelley suggests
three basic criteria [18]. These are:
 Distinctiveness. Does the person act differently in
other situations?
 Consensus. Do others act this way in a situation?
 Consistency. Does the person act this way in this
situation at other times?
Fig. 8. Representation of Attribution Theory
Kelley hypothesized that people attribute behavior to
internal forces or personal factors when they perceive low
distinctiveness, low consensus and high consistency.
Behavior is attributed to external forces or environmental
factors when people perceived high distinctiveness, high
consensus, and low consistency (Fig.8) [5].
An additional consideration in the evaluation of task
performance within an organizational setting is whether the
cause of behavior was due to stable or unstable factors.
Stable factors are ability, or the ease or difficulty of the task.
Unstable factors are the exertion of effort, or luck.
The combination of internal and external attributions, and
stable and unstable characteristics, results in four possible
interpretations of a person’s task performance (Table 4)
[20].
TABLE IV
Classification of Possible Attributions for Performance
Internal attributions External attributions
Stable factors ABILITY TASK DIFFICULTY
Unstable factors EFFORT LUCK
Employees with an internal control orientation are more
likely to believe that they can influence their level of
performance through their own abilities, skills or efforts.
Employees with an external control orientation are more
likely to believe that their level of performance is
determined by external factors beyond their influence.
III. SUMMARY
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory views human needs
as activated in a five-step hierarchy, ranging from the
lowest, physiological, to safety, social, esteem, and self-
actualization, the highest. Alderfer’s ERG theory collapses
the five needs into three: existence, relatedness, and growth,
where more than one need can be activated at a time.
McClelland’s achievement motivation theory focuses on the
needs for achievement, affiliation, and power, and views
needs as developed over time through experience and
training. Herzberg’s two-factor theory links job satisfaction
to motivator factors, such as responsibility and challenge,
 Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.
associated with job content, and links job dissatisfaction to REFERENCES
hygiene factors, such as pay and working conditions,
associated with job context. [1] L. J., Mullins, (2002), “Management and Organizational Behavior”,
Expectancy theory states that people are influenced by the Prentice-Hall.
expected results of their actions. According to expectancy [2] R. M., Steers, and L. W., Porter, (1991), “Motivation and Work
Behavior”, McGraw-Hill.
theory, MotivationExpectancyInstrumentalityValence, [3] C. P., Alderfer, (1972), “Existence, Relatedness and Growth”, Collier
and managers should make each factor positive in order to Macmillan.
ensure high levels of motivation. Equity theory focuses on [4] F., Herzberg, (1959), “The Motivation to Work”, Chapman and Hall.
people’s feelings of how fairly they have been treated in [5] F., Luthans, (1995), “Organizational Behavior”, McGraw-Hill.
[6] J. G., Hunt, (1996), “Organizational Behavior”.
comparison with the treatment received by others. The [7] D. C., McClelland, (1988), “Human Motivation”, Cambridge
presence of inequity motivates the person to remove or to University Press.
reduce the level of tension and the perceived inequity. Goal [8] D. C., McClelland, and D., Burnham, (1995), “Power is the Great
theory assumes that once someone decides to pursue a goal, Motivator”, Harvard Business Review, January-February.
[9] G., Litwin, and R., Stringer, (1968), “Motivation and Organizational
the person regulates his or her behavior to try to reach the Climate”.
goal. The theory also suggests that people who have difficult [10] V. H., Vroom, (1964), “Work and Motivation”, Wiley.
goals will perform better than people with easier goals. [11] L. W., Porter, and E. E., Lawler, (1968), “Managerial Attitudes and
Attribution theory states that both internal forces and Performance”, Irwin.
[12] E. E., Lawler, (1973), “Motivation in Work Organizations”,
external forces combine additively to determine behavior. Brooks/Cole.
Internal forces are personal attributes such as ability, and [13] L. W., Porter, and E. E., Lawler, (1975), “Behavior in
effort. External forces are environmental attributes such as Organizations”, McGraw-Hill.
rules, and the weather. [14] J. S., Adams, (1965), “Injustice in Social Exchange”, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press.
[15] R., Kreitner, (1999), “Organizational Behavior”, McGraw-Hill.
[16] E. A., Locke, (1968), “Towards a Theory of Task Motivation and
Incentives”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3,
157-89.
[17] J. B., Miner, (1980), “Theories of Organizational Behavior”, Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
[18] H. H., Kelley, (1973), “The Process of Causal Attribution”,
American Psychologist, February.
[19] F., Heider, (1958), “The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations”,
Wiley and Sons.
[20] J. M., Bartunek, (1981), “Why Did You Do That? Attribution Theory
in Organizations”, Business Horizons, September-October.

[*] This paper is comprised of a summary of : S. R., Dinibutun, (2002),

“Motivation at Work”, Unpublished Bachelor Degree Project, Dogus
University.

S. Revda Dinibutun was born in Istanbul, September 1976. He has

graduated from Department of Business Administration at Doguş
University, in 2002, and got his MBA degree in 2005 at the same
university. He works as a research assistant at Dogus University and he is at
the final stages of his dissertation at Marmara University’s PhD program in
the field of Management and Organization.

Dinibutun, S. R. (2012). Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 1(4), 133.