MCom I Semester Basic Motivation Concepts Study Material Notes
Table of Contents
MCom I Semester Basic Motivation Concepts Study Material Notes: Defining Motivation Early Theories of Motivation Hierarchy of Needs Theory Two Factor Theory Contemporary Theories of Motivation Mcclelland Theory of Needs Reinforcement Theory Job Design Theory Do not Forget Ability and Opportunity Integration Contemporary Theories of Motivation :
BBA I Semester Fundamental Economics tools Study Material Notes
Defining Motivation
What is motivation? Maybe the place to begin is to say what motivation isn’t. Many people incorrectly view motivation as a personal trait-that is, some have it and others don’t. In practice, inexperienced managers often label employees who seem to lack motivation as lazy. Such a label assumes that an individual is always lazy or lacking in motivation. Our knowledge of motivation tells us that this just isn’t true. What we know is that motivation is the result of the interaction of the individual and the difference in their basic motivational drive. But the same student who finds it difficult to read a textbook for more than 20 minutes may devour a Harry Potter book in one afternoon. For this student, the change in motivation is driven by the situation. So as we analyze the concept of motivation, keep in mind that the level of motivation varies both between individuals and within individuals at different times.
We define motivation as the processes that account for an individual’s intensity persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.” While general motivation is concerned with effort toward any goal, we’ll narrow the focus to organizational goals in order to reflect our singular interest in work-related behavior.
The three key elements in our definition are intensity, direction, and persistence. Intensity is concerned with how hard a person tries. This is the element most of us focus on when we talk about motivation. However, high intensity is unlikely to lead to favorable job-performance outcomes unless the effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organization. Therefore, we have to consider the quality of effort as well as its intensity. Effort that is directed toward, and consistent with, the organization’s goals is the kind of effort that we should be seeking. Finally, motivation has a persistence dimension. This is a measure of how long a person can maintain their effort. Motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve their goal.
Early Theories of Motivation
Basic Motivation Concepts
The 1950s were a fruitful period in the development of motivation concepts. Three specific theories were formulated during this period, which although heavily attacked and now questionable in terms of validity, are probably still the best-known explanations for employee motivation. These are the hierarchy of needs theory, Theories X and Y, and the two-factor theory. As you’ll see later in this chapter, we have since developed more valid explanations of motivation, but you should know these early theories for at least two reasons: (1) They represent a foundation from which contemporary theories have grown, and (2) practicing managers still regularly use these theories and their terminology in explaining employee motivation.
Basic Motivation Concepts
Hierarchy of Needs Theory
us probably safe to say that the most well-known theory of motivation is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. He hypothesized that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of five needs. These needs are:
1 Physiological: Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs
2. Safety: Includes security and protection from physical and emotional harm
3. Social: Includes affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship
4. Esteem. Includes internal esteem factors such as self-respect, autonomy, and achievement and external esteem factors such as status, recognition, and attention
5. Self-actualization. The drive to become what one is capable of becoming: includes growth, achieving one’s potential, and self-fulfillment
As each of these needs becomes substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. In terms of Exhibit 6-1, the individual moves up the steps of the hierarchy. From the standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although no need is ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. So if you want to motivate someone, according to Maslow, you need to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is currently on and focus on satisfying the needs at or above that level.
Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Physiological and safety needs were described as lower-order and social, esteem, and self-actualization as higher-order needs. The differentiation between the two orders was made on the premise that higher-order needs are satisfied internally (within the person), whereas lower-order needs are predominantly satisfied externally (by things such as pay, union contracts, and tenure).
Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. This can be attributed to the theory’s intuitive logic and ease of understanding. Unfortunately, however, research does not generally validate the theory. Maslow provided no empirical substantiation, and several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it.”
Old theories, especially ones that are intuitively logical, apparently die hard. Although the need hierarchy theory and its terminology have remained popular with practicing managers, there is little evidence that needs structures are organized along the dimensions proposed by Maslow or that a satisfied need activates movement to a new need level.
Basic Motivation Concepts
Theory X and Theory Y
Douglas McGregor proposed two distinct views of human beings: one basically negative, labeled Theory X, and the other basically positive, labeled Theory Y. After viewing the way in which managers dealt with employees, McGregor concluded that a manager’s view of the nature of human beings is based on a certain grouping of assumptions and that he or she tends to mold his or her behavior toward employees according to these assumptions.
Under Theory X. the four assumptions held by managers are:
1 Employee inherently dislike work and, whenever possible, will attempt to avoid it
2. Since employees dislike work, they must be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment to achieve goals.
3. Employees will avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction whenever possible.
4. Most workers place security above all other factors associated with work and will display little ambition
In contrast to these negative views about the nature of human beings. McGregor listed the four positive assumptions that he called Theory Y:
1 Employee can view work as being as natural as rest or play.
2. People will exercise self-direction and self-control if they are committed to the objectives.
3. The average person can learn to accept. even seek, responsibility
4. The ability to make innovative decisions is widely dispersed throughout the population and is not necessarily the sole province of those in management positions.
What are the motivational implications if you accept McGregor’s analysis? The answer is best expressed in the framework presented by Maslow. Theory X assumes that lower-order needs dominate individuals. Theory Assumes that higher-order needs dominate individuals. McGregor himself held to the belief that Theory Y assumptions were more valid than Theory X. Therefore, he proposed ideas such as participative decision making, responsible and challenging jobs, and good group relations as approaches that would maximize an employee’s job motivation
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to confirm that either set of assumptions is valid or that accepting Theory Y assumptions and altering one’s actions accordingly will lead to having more motivated workers. As will become evident later in this chapter, either Theory X or Theory Y assumptions may be appropriate in a particular situation.
Basic Motivation Concepts
Two-Factor Theory
The two-factor theory (sometimes also called motivation-hygiene theory) was proposed by psychologist Frederick Herzberg.” In the belief that an individual’s relation to work is basic and that one’s attitude toward work can very well determine success or failure. Herzberg investigated the question. “What do people want from their jobs?” He asked people to describe, in detail, situations in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. These responses were then tabulated and categorized.
From the categorized responses, Herzberg concluded that the replies people gave Jobs were significantly different from the replies given when they felt bad. As seen in Exhibit 6-2, certain characteristics tend to be consistently related to job satisfaction and others to job dissatisfaction. Intrinsic factors, such as advancement reconnition, responsibility, and melt seem to be related to job satisfaction. Respondents who felt sood about their work tended atbute these factors to themselves. On the other hand, dissatisfied respondents tended to cite extrinsic factors, such as supervision, pay, company policies, and working conditions.
The data suggest, said Herzberg, that the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, as was fictionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make job satisfying. As illustrated in Exhibit 6-3, Herzberg proposed that his findings indicated the exist thence of a dual continuum: The onsite of “Satisfaction is “No Satisfaction, and the opposite O “Dissatisfaction” is “No Dissatisfaction.”
According to Herzberg, the factors leading to job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Therefore, managers who seek to eliminate factors that can create job dissatisfaction may bring about peace but not necessarily motivation. They will be placating their work force rather than motivating them. As a result, conditions surrounding the job such as quality of super vision, pay, company policies, physical working conditions, relations with others, and job security were characterized by Herzberg as hygiene factors. When they’re adequate, people will not be dissatisfied: neither will they be satisfied. If we want to motivate people on their jobs, Herzberg suggested emphases .siring factors associated with the work itself or to outcomes directly derived from it, such as promotional opportunities, opportunities for personal growth, recognition, responsibility, and achievement These are the characteristics that people find intrinsically rewarding.
The two-factor theory is not without detractors. 12 The criticisms of the theory include the following:
1 The procedure that Herzberg used is limited by its methodology. When things are going well, people tend to take credit themselves. Contrarily, they blame failure on the extrinsic environment
2. The reliability of Herzberg’s methodology is questioned. Raters have to make interpretations, so they may contaminate the findings by interpreting one response in one manner while treating a similar response differently.
3. No overall measure of satisfaction was used. A person may dislike part of his or her job yet still think the job is acceptable.
4. The theory is inconsistent with previous research. The two-factor theory ignores situational variables.
5. Herzberg assumed a relationship between satisfaction and productivity, but the research methodology he used looked only at satisfaction not at productivity. To make such research relevant, one must assume a strong relationship between satisfaction and productivity.
Regardless of criticisms, Herzberg’s theory has been widely read, and few managers are unfamiliar with his recommendations. The popularity over the past 40 years of vertically expanding jobs to allow workers greater responsibility in planning and controlling their work can probably be attributed largely to Herzberg’s findings and recommendations.
Basic Motivation Concepts
Contemporary Theories of Motivation
The previous theories are well known but, unfortunately, have not held up well under close examination. However, all is not lost. There are a number of contemporary theories that have one thing in common-each has a reasonable degree of valid supporting documentation. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the theories we are about to introduce are unquestionably right. We call them “contemporary theories” not because they necessarily were developed recently, but because they represent the current state of the art in explaining employee motivation
ERG Theory
Clayton Alerter has reworked Maslow’s need hierarchy to align it more closely with the empirical research. His revised need hierarchy is labeled ERG theory,
Alerter argues that there are three groups of core needs-existence, relatedness, and growth hence, the label: ERG theory. The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements. They include the items that Maslow considered to be physiological and safety needs. The second group of needs is those of relatedness the desire we have for maintaining important interpersonal relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow’s social need and the external component of Maslow’s esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs-an an intrinsic desire for personal development. These include the intrinsic component from Maslow’s esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization.
Aside from substituting three needs for five, how does Alderfer’s ERG theory differ from Maslow’s? In contrast to the hierarchy of needs theory, the ERG theory demonstrates that (1) more than one need may be operative at the same time, and (2) if the gratification of a higher-level need is stifled, the desire to satisfy a lower-level need increases.
Maslow’s need hierarchy follows a rigid, steplike progression. ERG theory does not assume that there exists a rigid hierarchy in which a lower need must be substantially gratified before one can move on. A person can, for instance, be working on growth even though existence or relatedness needs are unsatisfied; or all three need categories could be operating at the same time.
ERG theory also contains a frustration-regression dimension. Maslow, you’ll remember, argued that an individual would stay at a certain need level until that need was satisfied. ERG theory counters by noting that when a higher-order need level is frustrated, the individual’s desire to increase a lower-level need takes place. Inability to satisfy a need for social interaction, for instance, might increase the desire for more money or better working conditions. So frustration can lead to a regression to a lower need.
In summary, ERG theory argues, like Maslow’s theory, that satisfied lower-order needs lead to the desire to satisfy higher-order needs; but multiple needs can be operating as motivators at the same time, and frustration in attempting to satisfy a higher level need can result in regression to a lower level need.
ERG theory is more consistent with our knowledge of individual differences among people. Venables such as education, family background, and cultural environment can alter the importance or driving force that a group of needs holds for a particular individual. The evidence demonstrating that people in other cultures rank the need categories differently-for instance, natives of Spain and Japan place social needs before their physiological requirements would be consistent with ERG theory. Several studies have supported ERG theory, 15 but there is also evidence that it doesn’t work in some organizations. Overall, however, ERG theory represents a more valid version of the need hierarchy.
Basic Motivation Concepts
McClelland’s Theory of Needs
You have one beanbag and there are five targets set up in front of you. Each one is progressively far the away and, hence, more difficult to hit. Target A is a cinch. It sits almost within arm’s reach of you. If you hit it, you get Rs 500. Target B is a bit farther out, but about 80 percent of the people who try can hit it. It pays Rs 1000. Target C pays Rs 2000, and about half the people who try can hit it. Very few people can hit Target D, but the payoff is Rs 4000 if you do. Finally, Target E pays Rs 8000, but it’s almost impossible to achieve. Which target would you try for? If you selected C. you’re likely to be a high achiever. Why? Read on.
McClelland’s theory of needs was developed by David McClelland and his associates. The theory focuses on three needs achievement power, and affiliation. They are defined as follows:
Need for achievement: The drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive to succeed Need for power: The need to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise Need for affiliation: The desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships
Some people have a compelling drive to succeed. They’re striving for personal achievement rather than the rewards of success per se. They have a desire to do something better or more efficiently than it has been done before. This drive is the achievement need onAch). From research into the achievement need, McClelland found that high achievers differentiate them
They seek situations in which selves from others by their desire to do things better. they can attain personal responsibility for finding solutions to problems, in which they can receive rapid feedback on their performance so they can determine easily whether they are improving or not, and in which they can set moderately challeng ing goals. High achievers are not gamblers: they dislike succeeding by chance. They prefer the challenge of working at a problem and accepting the personal response bility for success or failure rather than leaving the outcome to chance or the actions of others. Importantly, they avoid what they perceive to be very easy or very difficult tasks. They prefer tasks of intermediate difficulty.
High achievers perform best when they perceive their probability of success as being 0.5, that is, when they estimate that they have a 50-50 chance of success. They dislike gambling with high odds because they get no achievement satisfaction from happenstance success. Similarly, they dislike low odds (high probability of success) because then there is no challenge to their skills. They like to set goals that require stretching themselves a little.
The need for power (nPow) is the desire to have impact, to be influential, and to control others. Individuals high in n Pow enjoy being “in charge.” strive for influ. ence over others, prefer to be placed into competitive and status-oriented situations, and tend to be more concerned with prestige and gaining influence over others than with effective performance. The third need isolated by McClelland is affiliation This need has received the least attention from researchers. Individuals with a high affiliation Takeshi Uchiyahada has a high motive strive for friendship, prefer cooperative situations rather than competitive achievement need. As Toyota’s chief ones, and desire relationships that involve a high degree of mutual understanding.
Basic Motivation Concepts
engineer, Uchiyahada heads the Relying on an extensive amount of research, some reasonably well-supported development team for Prius, the predictions can be made based on the relationship between achievement need and gas-electric hybrid car. With the first model in 1997, Toyota proved that job performance. Although less research has been done on power and affiliation hybrid cars were technically feasible. needs, there are consistent findings here, too. For the redesigned 2004 model, it First, as shown in Exhibit 6-4, individuals with a high need to achieve prefer achieved a design attractive to job situations with personal responsibility, feedback, and intermediate degree consumers. For future models, of risk. When these characteristics are prevalent, high achievers will be strongly
Third, the needs for affiliation and power tend to be closely related to managerial success. The best managers are high in their need for power and low in their need for affiliation.” In fact, a high power motive may be a requirement for managerial effectiveness. Of course, what the cause is and what the effect is are arguable. It has been suggested that a high power need may occur simply as a function of one’s level in a hierarchical organization. The latter argument proposes that the higher the level an individual rises to in the organization, the greater is the incumbent’s power motive. As a result, powerful positions would be the stimulus to a high power motive.
Finally, employees have been successfully trained to stimulate their achievement need. Trainers have been effective in teaching individuals to think in terms of accomplishments, winning, and success, and then helping them to learn how to act in a high achievement way by preferring situations in which they have personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risks. So if the job calls for a high achiever, management can select a person with a high tech or develop its own candidate through achievement training.”
Basic Motivation Concepts
Cognitive Evaluation Theory
It’s strange,” said Ritu. “I started work as a volunteer at an NGO. I put in 18 hours a week helping expectant mothers in slums and advising them on nutritious diet and care. I loved going to work Then, three months ago, they hired me full time at Rs 18,000 a month. I am doing the same work I did before, but I’m not finding it nearly as much fun.”
There’s an explanation for Ritu’s reaction. It’s called cognitive evaluation theory and it proposes that the introduction of extrinsic rewards, such as pay, for work effort that was previously intrinsically rewarding due to the pleasure associated with the content of the work itself tends to decrease overall motivation. Cognitive evaluation theory has been extensively researched, and a large number of studies have been supportive. 26 As we’ll show, the major implications for this theory relate to the way in which people are paid in organizations.
cognitive evaluation theory Allocating extrinsic rewards for behavior that had been previously intrinsically rewarding tends to decrease the overall level of motivation.
Historically motivation theorists generally assumed that intrinsic motivations such as achievement, responsibility, and competence were independent of extrinsic motivators such as high pay. promotions, good supervisor relations, and pleasant working conditions. But cognitive evaluation theory suggests otherwise. It argues that when extrinsic rewards are used by organizations as playroom for superior performance, the intrinsic rewards, which are derived from individuals doing what they like, are reduced. In other words, when extrinsic rewards are given tosomeone for performing an interesting task, it causes intrinsic interest in hen extrinsic rewards are given to someone for the task itself to decline.
If the cognitive evaluation theory is valid, it should have major implications for managerial practices. It has been a truism among compensation specialists for years that if pay or other extrinsic rewards are to be effective motivators, they should be made contingent on an individual’s performance. But, cognitive evaluation theorists would argue that this will only tend to decrease the inter receives from doing the job. In fact, if cognitive evaluation theory is correct, it would make sense to make an individual’s pay no contingent on performance in order to avoid decreasing intrinsic motivation.
We noted earlier that the cognitive evaluation theory has been supported in a number of studies. Yet it has also met with attacks, specifically on the methodology used in these studies and in the interpretation of the findings. But where does this theory stand today? Can we say that when organizations use extrinsic motivators such as pay and promotions to stimulate workers’ performance they do so at the expense of reducing intrinsic interest and motivation in the work being done? The answer is not a simple “Yes” or “No.”
Although further research is needed to clarify some of the current ambiguity, the evidence does lead us to conclude that the interdependence of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards is a real phenomenon. However, its impact on employee motivation at work, in contrast to motivation in general, may be considerably less than originally thought. First, many of the studies testing the theory were done with students, not paid organizational employees. The researchers would observe what happens to a student’s behavior when a reward that had been allocated is stopped. This is interesting. but it doesn’t represent the typical work situation. In the real world, when extrinsic rewards are stopped, it usually means the individual is no longer part of the organization. Second, evidence indicates that very high intrinsic motivation levels are strongly resistant to the detrimental impacts of extrinsic rewards. Even when a job is inherently interesting, there still exists a powerful norm for extrinsic payment. At the other extreme, on dull tasks extrinsic rewards appear to increase intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the theory may have limited applicability to work organizations because most low-level jobs are not inherently satisfying enough to foster high intrinsic interest and many managerial and professional positions offer intrinsic rewards. Cognitive evaluation theory may be relevant to that set of jobs that falls in between those that are neither extremely dull nor extremely interesting
Basic Motivation Concepts
Goal-Setting Theory
The coach of the Delhi Public School Sports Club, gave the athletes these last words before they approached the line for the league championship race: “Each one of you is physically ready. Now, get out there and do your best. No one can ever ask more of you than that.”
You’ve heard the phrase a number of times yourself: “Just do your best. That’s all anyone can ask for.” But what does “do your best” mean? Do we ever know if we’ve achieved that vague goal? Would the runners have recorded faster times if the coach had given each a specific goal to shoot for? Might you have done better in your high school English class if your parents had said, “You should strive for 85 percent or higher on all your work in English” rather than telling you to do your best”? The research on goal-setting theory addresses these issues, and the findings, as you’ll see, are impressive in terms of the effect that goal specificity, challenge, and feedback have on performance.
In the late 1960s, Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of work motivation. That is, goals tell an employee what needs to be done and how much effort will need to be expended. 4 The evidence strongly supports the value of goals. More to the point, we can say that specific goal increase performance; that difficult goal, when accepted, result in higher per romance than do easy goals; and that feedback leads to higher performance than does nonfeed back.
Basic Motivation Concepts
Specific hard goals produce a higher level of output than does the generalized goal of “do your best.” Why? The specificity of the goal itself seems to act as an internal stimulus. For instance, when a trucker commits to making 12 round-trip hauls between Mumbai and Pune. each week, this intention gives him a specific objective to try to attain. We can say that, all things being equal, the trucker with a specific goal will outperform his or her counterpart operating with no goals or the generalized goal of “do your best.”
In a business school, a professor gave building blocks to the students and asked them to build as high as they could. The group was able to achieve 14 levels. To the next group the professor gave a target of 19 levels, and the group could achieve 21 levels. Thus, in spite of the same conditions, goal setting helped the second group to outperform the first. To yet another group, in similar conditions, the professor said, “group 2 has achieved 21 levels, let us see what you all can achieve.” To his surprise the group achieved 25 levels.
If factors such as ability and acceptance of the goals are held constant, we can also state that the more difficult the goal, the higher the level of performance. On course, it’s logical to assume that easier goals are more likely to be accepted. But once an employee accepts a hard task, he or she can be expected to exert a high level of effort to try to achieve it.
People will do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing toward their goals because feedback helps to identify discrepancies between what they have done and what they want to do; that is, feedback acts to guide behavior. But all feedback is not equally potent. Self-generated feedback for which the employee is able to monitor his or her own progress-has been shown to be a more powerful motivator than externally generated feedback.
If employees have the opportunity to participate in the setting of their own goals, will they try harder? The evidence is mixed regarding the superiority of participative over assigned goals. In some cases, participative set goals elicited superior performance, while in other cases, individuals performed best when assigned goals by their boss. But a major advantage of participation may be in increasing acceptance of the goal itself as a desirable one toward which to work. As we noted. resistance is greater when goals are difficult. If people participate in goal setting they are more likely to accept even a difficult goal than if they are arbitrarily assigned it by their boss. The reason is that individuals are more committed to choices in which they have a part. Thus, although participative goals may have no Goal-setting works well for Pat superiority over assigned goals when acceptance is taken as a given, participation Cavanaugh, CEO and top salesman does increase the probability that more difficult goals will be agreed to and acted of his promotional products on. company.
