1

Motive
–
A motive is defined an inner state that energizes, activates (or moves), and directs (or channels) the behaviour of individual towards certain goals.
Motives and Needs are different .
Motivation – While motives are energizers of actions, motivation is the actual action, (that is, work behaviour), itself.
Motivating is a term that implies that one person induces another to engage in action by ensuring that a channel to direct the motive of the individual becomes available and accessible to the individual.
2

Motive
Needs in individual
Motivating
Setting up proper stimuli in the environment to activate the motives in individual
Motivation
Engagement of individuals in work behaviour
3

Content Theories of Motivation
The content theories of motivation are basically concerned with the need patterns of the individuals.
Cognitive or Process Theories of Motivation
Cognitive models of motivation are based on the notion that individual make conscious decisions about their behaviour.
Reinforcement Theory
This theory uses the principles of learning proposed by Skinner.
4

Maslow believed that each person has an essential nature that
“presses” to emerge.
In his view, we all have higher-level growth needs – such as self-actualization and understanding of ourselves – but that these higher needs only assume a dominant role in our lives after our more primitive needs are satisfied.
Esteem
Belongingness
Safety
Physiological
Self-Actualization
5

6

Hygiene factors
Motivators
Opposite of Dissatisfaction is NOT Satisfaction
No Satisfaction Satisfaction
Dissatisfaction No Dissatisfaction
7

Adam (1965) defined inequity as an injustice perceived by a person when he compares the ratio of his outcomes (rewards) to his inputs (efforts), with the ratio of another comparable person’s outcomes to inputs, and finds that they are not equal.
Outcomes for person Outcomes for other
Positive
Inequity
Inputs of person
>
Inputs of other
8

Adam’s Equity Theory…
Negative
Inequity
Outcomes for person
Inputs of person
<
Outcomes for other
Inputs of other
Consequences of Inequity
1. The person can alter inputs (efforts).
2. The person can try to alter outcomes or rewards.
3. The person can cognitively distort inputs or outcomes.
4. The person might quit the job.
5. The person could try to influence the other individual to reduce inputs.
6. The person might change the level of comparison.
9

10

11

12

13

14

Valence
– the strength of an individual’s preference for a particular outcome. In order for the valence to be positive, the person must prefer attaining the outcomes to not attaining it.
Another major input into the valence is the instrumentality of the first-level outcome in obtaining a desired second-level outcome.
Expectancy in Vroom’s theory is the probability (ranging from 0 to 1)
15

Choice 1
Effort Alternatives
E
Probabilty
P
.6
Possible Performance Results
High Performance
Attempted High
Performance Efforts
.4
Acceptable Performance
Choice 2
Acceptable Performance
.7
Attempted Acceptable
Performance Efforts
.3
Sub-Standard Performance
Fig: Expectancy perceptions on effort levels leading to performance
16

Vroom’s model…
Performance Alternatives
High Performance
P

O
Contengencies
.8
.6
.7
Outcomes
Bonus
Recognition
Stress
Acceptable
Performance
.3
.4
.2
Bonus
Recognition
Stress
Sub-Standard
Performance
.01
.01
Bonus
Recognition
.6
Stress
Fig: Instrumentality Perceptions: Probabilities of Performance leading to Rewards
17

Vroom’s model…
Effort Alternatives
E

P
Probability
Performance
Results
High Performance
P

R
Probability
.8
.6
Outcomes
Bonus
Recognition
Choice 1:
Attempted
High
Performance
Efforts
.6
.4
.7
Stress
Bonus
Acceptable
Performance
.3
.4
Recognition
.2
Stress
Valence
E

P X P

R X V
+.8
+.384
+.4
-.5
+.114
-.21
+.8
+.4
-.5
+.
096
+.
064
-.
04
Fig: Choice Decisions based on Force calculations
Force for Choice 1
= +.438
18

Vroom’s model…
Effort Alternatives
E

P
Probability
Performance
Results
Acceptable Performance
P

R
Probability
.3
.4
Outcomes
Bonus
Recognition
Choice 2:
Attempted
Acceptable
Performance
Efforts
.7
.2
Stress
.3
Sub-standard
Performance
.01
.01
Bonus
Recognition
.6
Stress
Valence
E

P X P

R X V
+.8
+.168
+.4
-.5
+.112
-.07
+.8
+.4
-.5
+.
0024
+.
0012
-.
09
Fig: Choice Decisions based on Force calculations
Force for Choice 2
= +.1236
19

20

Porter & Lawler – Contribution to Work Motivation
The expectancy models provide certain guidelines that can be followed by human resource managers. For example, on the front-end (the relationship between motivation and performance), it has been suggested that the following barriers must be overcome:
1.
Doubts about ability, skills, or knowledge.
2.
The physical or practical possibility of the job.
3.
The interdependence of the job with other people or activities.
4.
Ambiguity surrounding the job requirements.
In addition, on the back end (the relationship between performance and satisfaction), guidelines such as the following have been suggested:
1.
Determine what rewards each employee values
2.
Define desired performance
3.
Make desired performance attainable
4.
Link valued rewards to performance
21

Reinforcement theory suggests that it is possible to predict behaviour without trying to understand the internal thought process of individuals.
Reinforcement theorists believe that environmental consequences mould the behaviour of people.
Reinforcement Strategies
Positive Reinforcement
Negative Reinforcement –
Negative reinforcement increases the frequency and strength of desired behaviour by making it contingent upon the avoidance of undesirable consequences for the person.
Punishment
Extinction
Shaping
22