Chehek Parashar 21/0066

FIOP-2 ASSIGNMENT

Q. Explain motivation. Give a detailed account of process theories or contemporary

theories.

A.

Introduction

Motivation is an important factor which encourages persons to give their best performance
and help in reaching enterprise goals. A strong positive motivation will enable the increased
output of employees but a negative motivation will reduce their performance. A key element
in personnel management is motivation.

According to Likert, “It is the core of management which shows that every human being
gives him a sense of worth in face-to face groups which are most important to him….A
supervisor should strive to treat individuals with dignity and a recognition of their personal
worth.”

Motivation is generally defined as an internal state that induces a person to engage in

particular behaviors. From one perspective, it has to do with the direction, intensity, and
persistence of behavior over time. Direction refers to the choice of specific behaviors from a
large number of possible behaviors. For example, an employee might decide to volunteer for
an extra work project that will require him or her to work overtime instead of going home on
time and watching television. Intensity refers to the amount of effort a person expends at
doing a task. If an employee is asked to sweep a floor, the person can exert a lot of effort by
sweeping hard and fast or exert a little effort by sweeping softly and slowly. Persistence
refers to the continuing engagement in a behavior over time. An employee might try to
accomplish something over an extended period of time, such as studying to pass the CPA
exam to become a certified public accountant, even though it might take several attempts.
From another perspective, motivation is concerned with the desire to acquire or achieve some
goal. That is, motivation derives from a person’s wants, needs, or desires. Some people, for
example, are highly motivated to acquire money. It is presumed that a high level of
motivation to have money affects the behavior relevant to acquiring it.
Process Theories of Motivation

The process theories of motivation take the fundamental position that motivation is a
complex psychological process determined by factors and choices on the individual side and
shaped by context factors. Thus, they differ from the need theories, which focus on common
needs of all individuals. As the process theories focus on the ‘how’ of motivation, they are
generally found more useful for application in the work context. The process theories are not
independent of the need theories. In fact, it is possible to integrate our understand ing of
needs with the prominent process theories:

1. VIE or Expectancy Theory by Victor Vroom

Vroom believed that people who are never motivated or those who are always motivated
do not exist, and that individual differences and the situational context infl uence the level
of motivation. The theory suggests that when presented with behavioural options in a
situation, individuals select the option with the greatest motivation forces (MF).
Researchers of various dynamics of behaviour, including decision-making, learning
theory, social power, and attitudes, have found this theory useful.

Here, Expectancy indicates the probability that an individual assigns to the belief that if
he/she tried (E), that there would be success (P) necessary for meeting the fi nal goals.
This perception is based on an individual’s past experience, self-effi cacy, and the
perceived diffi culty of the goal. These terms have been explained below:
(i) Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy is a person’s belief about his or her ability to
perform a particular task successfully. If self-effi cacy is high, the person is
more confi dent of achieving the desired goals, leading to stronger expectancy
(ii) Perceived Control Over Performance: When individuals believe that they
have control over the expected outcome, the expectancy is high. If a person
believes that the outcome is beyond his/her ability to infl uence, then
expectancy, and thus motiva tion, is low. For example, a profi t-sharing plan
may not motivate individuals to increase their efforts because employees do
not believe that they have direct control over the profi ts of their large
companies. Perceptions about control over resources and one’s belief about
one’s level of skills have also been found to contribute to expectancy.
(iii) Goal Difficulty: If a person feels that the given goals are too high, or
performance expectations from him/her are unrealistic, then such goals or
expectations lead to low expectancy. As a result, motivation is also low.
Instrumentality (P → R) is the subjective probability that meeting
performance expectations will be instrumental in getting the rewards desired
or valued by the individual, such as pay increase, promotion, recognition or
sense of accomplishment. It is important to note that when valued rewards are
contingent upon performance, instrumentality increases. Instrumentality is
again a perception, affected by the following factors:
(a) Trust: When individuals trust their leaders, or senior offi cers,
they’re more likely to believe in promises made by them regarding
rewards for good performance
(b) Control: In absence of trust in the senior management, employees
often attempt to control the reward system through a contract or
some other type of control mechanism. When individuals believe
they have some kind of control over how, when, and why rewards
are distributed, instrumentality tends to increase.
(c) Policies: The degree to which the pay and reward systems are
formalised in written policies has an impact on the individuals’
Instrumentality perceptions. Formalised policies linking rewards to
performance tend to increase instrumentality
2. Equity Theory
Adams (1965) proposed his Equity Theory by combining two areas of knowledge.
One was based on the study of psychology which suggested that our attitudes and
beliefs are consistent with each other. The other was based on the study of social
sciences that talk about our tendency to assess our position relative to oth ers. In
other words, it meant that people are concerned not only with the absolute amount of
rewards they receive for their efforts, but also with what amount others receive in
relation to others’ efforts and that a sense of equity is important to them. The theory
explains that employees compare the ratios of their own outcomes and efforts with
those of others to interpret if they are treated more or less favourably. The pay, raises,
promotions, and recognition given are examples of outputs, for which inputs can be
skill, training, education, effort, experience, and competence. When the ratios are in
balance, equity is experienced. When there is an imbalance between these ratios,
employees experience dissonance, which is reflected in their attitudes such as job
satisfaction, and are motivated to restore the equity and fairness.
Several options are available to the individual for restoring equity.
1. Change the perceived input/output ratio of self and/or referent
2. Increase output of self through more effort or citizenship behaviour
3. Decrease the output of self through restricting work and deviant behaviour such as
theft, tardiness
4. Cause a change in received outcomes such as seeking salary increases or seeking a
more enjoyable assignment
5. Withdraw from the situation entirely, quit the job.

This theory has been described as one of the most useful organisational behaviour
theories, and several reviews have concluded that the evidence for equity theory is
generally strong. However, support seems to be stronger for under-compensation
rather than over-compensation53. Research has consistently suggested that under-
compensated workers lower their performance (reduced their inputs). Critics have
also described equity theory as one of the ‘not so useful’ theories in organisational
behaviour, perhaps because of its vagueness about which of several behavioural
options is likely to be observed in any particular context.

3. Goal- Setting Theory

Goal setting is among the most dominant theories of work motivation. Systematic and
rigorous reviews and meta-analyses have found substantial support for the basic
principles of the goal-setting theory. This theory emphasises that all behaviour is
motivated, and motivation is a goal directed process. So, the level of motivation
depends on the kind of goals that are set and the way internal and external factors
affecting the process between goal identifi cation to goal achievement are managed.
The theory believes that a person who has found his/her goal will also fi nd the
knowledge and skills necessary to achieve it. Locke found that conditions necessary
for goal accomplishment change on the basis of feedback, goal commitment, ability
and task complexity. The goals can be in terms of:

In the case of organisations, multiple goals, easy or difficult goals, and specific or
general goals are more relevant. There are hardly any situations where employees
work on a single goal or have no goals. Research on goal setting and motivation has
some interesting findings:
1. The highest level of individual performance occurs when individuals are highly
committed to difficult goals60 and when their efforts are supported by specific
outcomes and process feedback
2. Consistently better performance requires specific and difficult goals rather than
specific but easy goals, or general goals such as ‘do your best,’ or no goals.
3. Effective goal-setting requires the following dimensions:
(a) Feedback: The performer should be informed about progress toward the goal.
Specific outcome feedback tells the individual what change is needed and
specific process feedback that tells the individual how to change.
(b) Employee commitment to goal: If the performer committed to the goal
believes ‘I can do this’ (self-efficacy, discussed later in the chapter on
personality) and has been involved in the goal-setting process, he would be
more committed to the achievement of the goal. But when highly committed
employees face difficult goals, they also tend to extend less help to others.
 4. Too many goals should be avoided. Multiple goals create conflict within the
individual and one goal may be sacrificed for meeting another goal. When a
difficult task involves both quantity and quality goals, people may tend to neglect
the quality goal66 and maximise the quantity goal67. When the rewards are
valued highly, the tasks with high probability of a positive outcome are chosen
rather than the most desirable one.
5. When tasks are complex, general – ‘do your best’ goals and not specific, difficult
goals result in higher performance. Specific, difficult goals lead to higher quantity
of performance on a simpler version of the same task.
6. When the goal is difficult (so intrinsically rewarding), provision of external
evaluation may reduce the intrinsic motivation when the goal is achieved.
7. When the goal is diffi cult, individuals experience far greater total motivation—
both extrinsic and intrinsic, compared to individuals who are assigned easy goals.
This difference in total motivation accounts for the performance results.
CONCLUSION

Motivation serves as a pivotal force driving individuals towards optimal performance, crucial
for organizational success. Likert underscores its essence in fostering a sense of worth and
dignity among individuals within groups. Process theories delve into the intricate
psychological mechanisms dictating motivation, diverging from the broad needs-based
theories. Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory emphasizes the interplay of individual
perception, past experiences, and goal difficulty in shaping motivation. Equity Theory,
articulated by Adams, accentuates the importance of fairness in evaluating one's inputs and
outcomes relative to others, while Goal-Setting Theory elucidates the potency of clear,
challenging goals in driving performance, underlining the significance of feedback and
commitment in goal attainment.