Introduction
Work motivation can be described as „the desire to take action.“
Definition: „[…]psychological processes that direct, energize and maintain
action towards a task, role or project.“
Core theoretical perspectives on work motivation
Work motivation
endogenous
process theories
expectancy
theory
equity
theory
exogenous cause
theories
job
design
goalsetting
theory
hybrid
perspective
selfdetermination
theory
Endogenous Process Theories: psychological mechanisms explaining
motivation inside epmloyees‘ heads
Exogenous Cause Theories: contextual influences on work motivation that can
be changed and altered
Hybrid Perspective: equivalent emphasis on endogenous and exogenous
causes
Employees choose to invest effort in courses of action by weighing their
relative utilities  probabilities of achieving desired outcome
instrumentality
Expectancy
valence
motivation
influence on effort: if one of these beliefs is missing, course of action will not
be seleceted!
Limitations of Expectancy Theory
Expectancy, instrumentality and valence leave consinderable variance
unexplained
Over calculative: caricature of how employees make decisions and experience
motivation (Who actually calculates probablities?)
affective components which influence expectancy, instrumentality and valence
judgements
No specification of nature and source of variations in employees‘ beliefs and
judgements (enjoying experience of expending effort; performance itself as
reward even without external outcomes)
No explanation of how employees update and change their beliefs over time
Conclusion Expectancy Theory
Focus: within-person-decision that employees make about whether, where and
how to invest their time and energy
Focus on identifying key psychological forces that guide decisions about effort
and understanding their consequences
Diagnosing and resolving motivational problems in organizations
NOT focussing on specifying causes or fluctuations
Equity Theory - Placing motivation in a social context
Central assumption: employees are motivated, when their inputs (effort,
knowledge, skill, loyalty..) are matched by outcomes (pay, bonuses, benefits, recogntion) which
creates a sense of equity or fairness
Outcomes ≠ Input  Distress, perception of inequity
 employee tries to reduce distress
Feeling under-rewarded: reduction of input, attempting to reduce other‘s
inputs, seeking to increase their outcomes, aiming to decrease coworkers
outcomes
Feeling over-rewarded: increasing inputs or reducing outcomes
Judgement of equity
Evaluation of input-outcome ratios through comparisons
Possible comparisons:
1. Outcome vs. Input (Input = effort, ability, seniority)
2. Input-outcome ratios and other input-outcome ratios (including my past
i.-o. ratios and other people‘s i.-o. ratios)
Social comparison  motivation
suffers, when others are
perceived to maintain more
favorable i.-o. ratios
Over- and under-rewarding employees can be detrimental to motivation.
 Negative motivational and behavioral effects of under-reward inequity
 Mixed results about consequences of over-reward inequity
New approach: including understanding individual differences in equity
sensivity
Equity preferences
benevolent
Preferring a lower inputoutcome ratio compared to
others
Under-reward inequity leads to
higher motivation than for equity
sensitive/entitled employees
Equity sensitive
entitled
Preferring an equal
input-outcome
ratio compared to
others
Preferring a
higher inputoutcome ratio
compared to
others
Perceiving distress when receiving lower outcomes than
coworkers