PROCESS THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

INTRODUCTION

The content theories of motivation provided managers with a better understanding of the particular work-related factors that arouse employees to motivate employees’ behavior. However, these theories provide very little understanding of why people choose a particular behavioral pattern to accomplish work goals. The process theories will help understand the dynamics of cognitive aspects such as comparison, probability of maximizing benefits etc. Expectancy theory and equity theories are the two major theories that concern this approach to motivation in organization. Cognitive models of motivation are based on the notion that individual make conscious decision about their job behavior. Thus understanding the process by which individual make decision about how much effort they will put on the job will help manages to motivate people better.

PROCESS THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

Equity Theory:

Adams proposes equity theory of motivation based on the proposition that every one tend to compare the ratio of his/her input and out come with input-outcome ratio of other person. The comparison process is highly inevitable. The reference person or comparison person will always be in the same group, class, age, category etc. For example, a manager will always compare himself/herself with other fellow manages. A worker will always compare with other worker in the same organization. In the comparison process, if a person feels that his ratio of input-outcome is more or less equal to that of his comparison person’s ratio of input-outcome, a state of equity exists. Then he perceives the situation as just and fair. If a person perceives the ratio as unequal, he will experience inequity that will lead to tension and stress.

Inequity exists under two conditions: 1. the person feels a negative inequity, when he has been rewarded less for his efforts than another and 2. The person experiences a positive inequity, when he finds himself rewarded more than another for a similar degree of effort. Both kinds’ of inequities produce cognitive dissonance or internal tensions and propel people to action in order to reduce the dissonance.

Selection of Reference Person or Comparison Person:

The selection of comparison person adds to the complexity of equity theory. Research studies reveal that the type of reference person chosen plays an important role in equity theory. There are four referent comparisons that an employee can use.

1. Self-inside: An employee’s experiences in a different position inside his or her present organization.

2. Self-outside: An employee’s experiences in a situation or position outside his or her present organization.

3. Other-inside: Another individual or group of individuals inside the employee’s organization

4. Other-outside: Another individual or groups of individuals outside the employee’s organization.

Employees might compare themselves with other friends, neighbors, co-workers, colleagues in other organizations. The type of reference person or comparison person an employee chooses will be influenced by the information the employee holds about referents, as well as by the attractiveness of the referent. There are many factors which moderate the selection of reference person such as age, sex, education, tenure, nature of job etc.

The positive and negative inequities can be denoted as follows:

Positive Inequity Outcomes for Person Outcomes for Other

Inputs of Person > Inputs of Other

Negative Inequity Outcomes for Person Outcomes for Other

Inputs of Person < Inputs of Other

Based on equity theory, the employees who perceive inequity in the occupation may have many options to choose to restore balance

1. Changing their input by putting more effort in their job, updating skills, knowledge or talents etc.

2. Changing their outcomes by increasing their output such as producing more volume of output, high quality of output, conserving more resources. Saving more time, minimizing downtime etc.

3. Distorting self perception by rationalizing certain things such as due to sickness the amount of effort put in is very low or acquisition of some degrees or certificates will make a person feel that I am working harder than anyone else.

4. Distorting perception of the reference person by assuming that the person has more contacts with influential superiors and gets more benefits.

5. Choosing a different referent person and seeking comfort with that person. For instance, if A used B as her comparison point till now, she might after feeling negative inequity, change her comparison point to C by persuading herself that B is now bound to enjoy special favors since she has married the boss’s nephew.

6. Leaving the field once for all.

There are two types of justice emphasized in equity theory such as Distributive Justice and Procedural justice.

Distributive Justice: It refers to the perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among individuals.

Procedural Justice: It refers to the perceived fairness of the process used to determine the distribution of rewards.

Research results indicate that distributive justice has a grater influence on employee satisfaction than procedural justice, while procedural justice tends to affect employees organizational commitment, trust in their boss and intention to quit.

Implications of Equity Theory:

Equity theory sensitizes managers to the fact that individuals often make equity comparisons and that sometimes the rewards given by managers may have consequences which might be reflected in subordinates’ behaviors. This is especially true when visible rewards such as promotions, pay increases and bonuses are given to employees. Managers must anticipate when the employees experience inequities and try to adjust the behavior in such a way by communicating the performance appraisal process to their employees. The proper explanation of how the performance appraisal process is being carried out must be explained to all the employees. Further, the types of rewards dispensed and creating a well established system which takes care of the anomalies in the reward systems are essential in maintaining inequity in the organization. . Felt inequities are common in all organizations and hence it is important for managers to manage equity dynamics intelligently and carefully.

Managers should consider openly sharing information on how allocation decisions are made, following consistent and unbiased procedures and engaging in similar practices to increase the perception of procedural justice. By increasing the perception of procedural fairness, employees are likely to view their bosses and the organization as positive even if they have dissatisfied with pay, promotions and other outcomes.

Equity theory proves at lease three guidelines for managers to consider:

i) It emphasizes on equitable rewards for employees. When individuals believe that they are not being rewarded in an equitable fashion, certain morale and productivity problems may arise.

ii) The concerning equity or inequity is not made solely on a personal basis but involves comparison with other workers, both within and outside the organization. In other words, it is not only important how much an employee is being paid, but how much he or she is being paid compared to other employees who have the same or similar jobs.

iii) Individual reaction to inequity can include changes in inputs and changes in outcomes, with the level or direction depending on whether the inequity was perceived to be underpaying or overpaying.

Vroom Expectancy Model

Expectancy theory relates to choice behavior. The theory states that individuals will evaluate various strategies of behavior (eg. Working hard each day versus working hard three days out of five) and then choose the particular strategy that they believe will lead to those work related rewards that they value (eg. Pay increase). If the individual workers believe that working hard each day will lead to a pay increase, expectancy theory would predict that this will be the behavior he will choose.

The main postulates of expectancy theory are centered on the belief systems of an individual. Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of the that outcome to the individual. There are three key concepts in Expectancy theory.

Expectancy I:

EffortàPerformance Relationship: Expectancy is the perceived belief concerning the likelihood that a particular behavioral act will be followed by a particular outcome. The degree of belief can vary between 0 (complete lack of a relationship between the act and a given outcome) and 1 (complete certainty that an act will result in a given outcome). That is, the extent to which an individual’s belief system links effort-performance relationship, that is, exerting a given amount of effort will lead to corresponding level of performance. For instance, a student has a strong belief that if he puts 10 hours of reading per day, the chances of getting distinction in his examination is very high and at the same time if he believes that just putting only 2 hours of reading per day, the chances of getting a pass mark is very remote. The main emphasis is the differential levels of efforts in work will lead to differential level of outcome.

He might decide to put forth his best effort and perform an excellent job, or he might decide to put forth a moderate level of effort and do an acceptable job. If he pouts in moderate effort, the final performance may be either acceptable or less acceptable. Hence, for each of the effort – performance contingencies, the individual will attach some kind of probability which would range from 0 to 1. For example, the individual might attaché a probability of .7 that he would do an excellent job if he puts in superior efforts and a probability of .3 that it would end up to be only an acceptable job even when he puts in superiors performance.

Expectancy II (Instrumentality) Performance àReward Relationship:

It refers to the relationship between first and second – level outcomes. According to Vroom, instrumentality can vary between +1.0 and -1.0. If the first-level outcome (eg. High performance) always leads to a pay increase, the instrumentality would be perceived as having a value of +1.0. If there is no perceived relationship between first and second-level outcome, then the instrumentality approaches zero. That is, the extent to which an individual’s belief system links performance – reward relationship, that is, getting a desired level of performance will lead to the attainment of desired outcome. For instance, insurance agent beliefs strongly that getting policies worth of 10 crores will lead to getting a club membership and attractive cash incentive. The main emphasis is the differential level of performance in work will lead to differential level of reward outcome.

Valence:

Attractiveness of rewards: The degree to which organizational rewards satisfy an individual’s personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of those potential rewards for the individual.

Expectancy theory helps to analyze the extent to which the belief system facilitates to maximize the amount of effort put in their work. For instance, if a person feels that his skill level is very deficient, no matter how hard he tries in his work, he is not likely to be a high performer. Similarly if a person believes if his boss is biased or partial, he expects to get a poor appraisal regardless of his level of effort. These examples suggest that one possible source of low employee motivation is the belief that no matter how hard he or she works, the likelihood of getting a good performance appraisal is very low.

Similarly if a person feels that there is a weak relationship between performances – reward relationship in their job, the chances of getting outstanding performance will be poor. The reason is that organizations reward system is not solely based on the performance criteria but on the other non-performance factors. For example, when pay rise is given to employees based on factors such as seniority, being cooperative; employees are likely to see weak performance-reward relationship and feel demotivated. Since Vroom’s initial model, expectancy theory has undergone at least four developments.

i) The theory was extended by making the distinction between extrinsic outcomes (eg. Pay and Promotion) and intrinsic outcomes (eg. Recognition, Achievement and Personal Development). Extrinsic valence refers to outcomes that come to the individual from others because of his performance; intrinsic valences are associated with the job itself.

ii) A further distinction was made between two types of expectancies. Expectancy I is concerned with the perceived relationship between effort and performance. Expectancy II, similar to Vroom’s concept of instrumentality is concerned with the relationship between first level outcomes (eg. Performance) and second-level outcomes or reward (eg. Pay, recognition, or achievement). These expectancies have come to be known as EI (effort-performance expectancy) and EII (performancereward expectancy)

iii) It also concerns the broadening to the theory to include the possible effects of other work-related variable on the major variables of expectancy such as: a) the possible impact of personality variables (eg. Self-esteem and Self-confidence) in the formation of expectancy perceptions. B) the effect of past experiences on expectancy development and c) the inclusion of ability and role perception as possible moderating effects on the relationship between motivation and actual performance.

iv) The expectancy model is also extended to include the variables of workrelated satisfaction. Satisfaction is viewed as being a function of actual performance and the real rewards gained from that performance.

Implications of Vroom Expectancy Model:

As mentioned above, if the employees feel that the rewards are not so attractive to fulfill his goals, he or she may not put much effort in his or her work. For example, the employee works hard in the hope of getting a promotion but gets a pay rise instead which he is not interested in will make him demotivated. Or the employee wants a more interesting and challenging job but receives only a few words of praise. It is desirable to assess what attracts employees in their work. But some managers incorrectly assume that all employees want the same thing, thus overlooking the motivational effects of differentiating rewards. In summary, the key to expectancy theory is the understanding of an individual’s goals and the linkage between effort and performance, between performance and rewards and finally, between rewards and individual goal satisfaction.

Porter and Lawler Model:

Porter and Lawler proposed a comprehensive model of motivation encompassing the moderating effects of abilities and traits and role perception and accelerating roles of perceived equitable rewards and perceived Effort-Reward probability.

Fig. Porter and Lawler Model:

The model highlights two important factors which facilitate or influence to put more effort in work. They are the valence and perceived EffortàReward probability (i) Valence: The first factor concerns the extent to which the value of reward (valence) that is likely to be received from their job influences the amount of effort. For instance, if a person is showing more interest towards the reward or expected outcome, the chances of putting more effort in his or her work will be very high. If the expected reward is not attractive enough, he will lower his effort.

(ii) Perceived EffortàReward probability: The second factor states the influence of perceived effortà.reward probability. If a person feels that the probability of getting reward is very high for given level of effort, he will more likely to put high level of effort in his work.

There are other two significant factors which facilitate to maximize the amount of performance. (i) They are individual’s abilities and role perception.

(i) Abilities and Traits: If an individual has requisite abilities, skills and traits to perform the assigned job, he will produce more results than others who do not have such skills to such type of tasks. Traits include endurance, perseverance and goal-directedness which are relevant for doing any tasks. These abilities and traits will moderate the effortàperformance relationships.

(ii) Role Perception: If an individual has very clear role perception, that is, very clear job descriptions of what he is supposed to do in his tasks without any ambiguity or confusion, the person will deliver more output. The accuracy of role perception is another variable that moderate the effortàPerformance relationship. That is, only those who perceived their role as it is defined by the organization will be able to perform when they put forth the required effort in their job.

Types of rewards: Performance will result in getting various rewards. This can be classified into intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Intrinsic rewards are those which are derived within oneself by getting the feelings of job satisfaction, self-esteem, sense of competence and realizing ones own potentialities. Extrinsic rewards are those external rewards that are given by others in the work environment such as money, promotion, security, incentives etc. Both these types of rewards will result in satisfaction. Once again, the Rewardà Satisfaction relationships is moderated by the perceived equitable rewards, that is, satisfaction will be experienced only when the person feels fairly and rewarded for his efforts.

Implications of Porter and Lawler Model:

Porter and Lawler’s model is of great significance to managers since it sensitizes them to focus attention on the following to keep their employees motivated.

i) Assigning right type of jobs to right types of person, ensuring perfect match between person and job.

ii) Providing a clear job descriptions and highlighting what a person is expected of in his work (role perception)

iii) Assigning the proper performance levels such s quantity, waste control number of customer attended etc.

iv) Ensuring that the rewards given to their employees are very attractive to them.

If high levels of motivation are to be induced, managers should ensure that the employees perceive a direct link between performance and desired rewards. If significant changers in performance levels are desired, the rewards given must also be significant and valued enough by the employees to change their effort levels. The Porter and Lawler model is useful in understanding by the dynamic of motivation at the work place.