Theories of motivation

 

Theories of motivation

Motivation theories are different methods of analyzing factors that motivate a person, be it personal or professional reasons. Several theories of motivation have been proposed and some major theories have been discussed below.

1.     Maslow’s theory: The hierarchy of needs

Maslow’s theory implies that people want to increase the quality and quantity of things they want to achieve in their life or profession (Maslow, 1943). Their needs are categorized according to their importance. Therefore, based on this theory, job satisfaction depends on the employee's needs and the factors which are in place to bring them satisfaction to a reasonable degree. Maslow’s theory introduces five stages based on the basic physical, biological, social, and psychological needs of humans (M. Badubi, 2017). These stages have been depicted in Figure 1.

An average member of society or an employee is most often partially satisfied with these wants. For example, an employee who is starting from the very bottom of the organization will be satisfied with the basic physiological needs. But as they progress along the career path, their needs become different and more complex. As long as their evolving needs are met, the employee will be happy and motivated. Thus, Maslow’s theory implied that the managers of organizations should aim at satisfying the unmet wants of their employees (Maslow, 1943). When the hierarchy of needs theory is applied to an organization, it became obvious that a proper work environment should be established to develop the full potential of the employees. Inability to do so would subsequently result in poor job performance, lower job satisfaction, and higher employee withdrawal (Steers and Porter, 1979).

2.     Vroom’s expectancy theory

According to Vrooms’s expectancy theory, “choices made by a person among alternative courses of action are lawfully related to psychological events occurring contemporaneously with the behavior”  (Vroom, 1994). The tendency of an employee to behave in a certain manner depends on the strength of the expectation which depends on the expected outcome and its attractiveness to the employee (Robbins and Judge, 2013). For example, a manager can ask an employee to conduct an advertising campaign which will earn him the reward of a salary increase that he was expecting. This theory implies that the behavior of an employee is a result of choices made from other available alternatives and is thus related to the psychology of the person, in particular the perception and formation of attitudes and beliefs (Kour, El-Den and Sriratanaviriyakul, 2019).

Vroom identified three components that instigate and direct behavior towards motivation. There are namely valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. Valence can be defined as the emotional orientations people hold regarding outcomes. An outcome is considered to be positively valent if the person desires to have it. It is important to note that the valances concerning a work-related outcome are the level of satisfaction the employee gains from it, and not the real value. Instrumentality is the probability belief that links one outcome to others. That is, the employee’s preference towards an outcome depends on their perception of how it affects other preferred outcomes. Expectancy is the person’s perception of whether or not a certain outcome is possible to be achieved.

3.     Equity theory

Equity theory belongs to the category of process theory which explains how satisfaction is achieved instead of what caused motivation (M. Badubi, 2017). According to the equity theory, employees will compare the input they have to put into their jobs with the outcomes they gain from it. Thus, employees who believe that the output they gain from the job is more valuable than the effort they have to put in will have job satisfaction. This belief depends on certain characteristics of the job itself. For example, a job with clear tasks and a clear role will bring more satisfaction. Employees tend to compare their input/outcome ratio with their co-workers to evaluate whether the outcomes are fair (Robbins and Judge, 2013). If they feel that there is an inequity in their input/outcome ratio in comparison to other employees, they will be demotivated. For instance, consider a hardworking employee who is not getting the reward that they deserve. Once that employee compares his rewards with the others who are being rewarded, he will naturally feel demotivated. Therefore, equity theory implies that the employees are not only concerned about the amount of rewards they get, but also the relationship of their reward with others. Based on the inputs such as effort, education, experience, etc. the employees can compare the outcomes such as salary, status, promotions, etc. with each other. Since people strive for fairness and equity, they are motivated to perform better.

The equity and justice theory proposed by J.S. Adams (Adams, 1965) is based on how people evaluate social exchange relationships. The main components of this theory are inputs and outcomes. In the workplace, employees exchange their services for pay with the inputs being their skills, experience, education, training, and effort. The outcomes are the results of the exchange and can be status, promotion, recognition, materialistic benefits, etc. Similar to the equity theory, Adam’s theory states that people develop beliefs about fairness (or justice) that they deserve and deem equitable for their actions. Then, they would compare the outcomes with those of others and be motivated to take necessary actions to deserve an equitable outcome. Therefore, the development and implementation of fair and equitable rewards are indispensable to an organization to keep its employees motivated.

4.     McClelland’s need theory

According to McClelland’s need achievement theory, people are motivated through personal achievements rather than rewards (McClelland, 1961). For some employees, setting high goals and achieving them is the base of their motivation. They are driven by the need to do something better than it has ever been done before (Robbins and Judge, 2013). McClelland has described the theory of needs based on three needs, namely achievement, power, and affiliation (McClelland, 1961). The need for achievement was described as the drive to excel in a certain task, to achieve some set standards, and to succeed in what they do. The need for power was described as the need to compel others to behave in a way in which they would not have behaved by themselves. The need for affiliation was described as the desire for good interpersonal relationships and acceptance. Those with a high need for affiliation spend more time building social relationships because of their need to be loved and recognized. These people may not be suitable to become effective managers because they are hesitant to make difficult decisions for fear of being disliked by others (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2012). In contrast, people motivated by the need for power are driven to coach, influence, teach, and encourage others. Thus, those who have a high need for power and a low need for affiliation are best suited to become effective managers (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2012).

5.     Motivator-hygiene theory

Motivator-Hygiene theory or Herzberg’s Two-factor theory (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman, 1959) emerged from a study among accountants and engineers to determine the factors that make a person feel good or bad about their job. According to Herzberg, there are five factors called motivators bringing about job satisfaction which are achievement, recognition, the job, responsibility, and advancement. In contrast, the hygiene factors namely, management approach, company policies, salary, supervision, work relationships, and work environment are factors that can demoralize employees.

According to Herzberg, eliminating the causes of dissatisfaction by managing the hygiene factors would not essentially result in satisfaction. Instead, it would create a neutral state with no satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Satisfaction and subsequently motivation would only occur by the use of motivators. This theory argued that jobs should be redesigned to offer increased challenge, higher responsibility, opportunities for advancement, chances of personal growth, and recognition. Since the factors leading to dissatisfaction are distinct from those leading to satisfaction, elimination of the factors of dissatisfaction will only create peace, not motivation. For example, changing the company policies would stop the employees from being satisfied, but it would not cause motivation. To induce motivation, the managers would have to implement motivation factors such as materialistic rewards. Hence, both types of factors should be given attention. It has been stated that vertical loading of jobs or giving more responsibility to workers would result in more motivation rather than horizontal loading which gives them tasks of similar difficulty. Herzberg highlighted seven principal which can be adapted during vertical loading (Herzberg, 1976). These have been included in the following table:

Table 1: Principles used to provide additional responsibility (Herzberg, 1976)

Principle	Motivators involved
Removing some controls while retaining accountability	Responsibility and personal achievement
Increasing the accountability of individuals for their own work	Responsibility and recognition
Giving a person a complete natural unit of work (module, division, area, and so on)	Responsibility, achievement, and recognition
Granting additional authority to an employee in one’s activity; job freedom	Responsibility, achievement, and recognition
Making periodic reports directly available to the worker directly rather than to the supervisor	Internal recognition
Introducing new and more difficult tasks not previously handled	Growth and learning
Assigning individuals specific or specialized tasks, enabling them to become experts	Responsibility, growth, and advancement

 

References

Adams, J. S. (1965) ‘Inequity In Social Exchange’, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 267–299. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2.

Herzberg, F. (1976) ‘One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?’, in Job Satisfaction — A Reader. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 17–32. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-02701-9_2.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959) The motivation to work. 2nd edn. John Wiley.

Kour, J., El-Den, J. and Sriratanaviriyakul, N. (2019) ‘The Role of Positive Psychology in Improving Employees’ Performance and Organizational Productivity: An Experimental Study’, Procedia Computer Science, 161, pp. 226–232. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.118.

Kreitner, R. and Kinicki, A. (2012) Organizational Behavior. 10th edn. McGraw-Hill Education.

M. Badubi, R. (2017) ‘Theories of Motivation and Their Application in Organizations: A Risk Analysis’, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 3(3), pp. 44–51. doi: 10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.33.2004.

Maslow, A. H. (1943) ‘A theory of human motivation.’, Psychological Review, 50(4), pp. 370–396. doi: 10.1037/h0054346.

McClelland, D. C. (1961) The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand.

Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2013) Organizational behavior. 15th edn. Edited by S. Yagan. Pearson Education, Inc.

Steers, R. M. and Porter, L. W. (1979) Motivation and Work Behavior. 7th edn. Edited by Lyman W. Porter, Gregory A. Bigley, and Richard M. Steers. McGraw-Hill.

Vroom, V. H. (1994) Work and Motivation. 1st edn. Jossey-Bass.