Motivation Process Theories to Workplace

 

Anon (n.d.) claims that process theories explain ‘how’ satisfaction comes about, as opposed to ‘what’ causes motivation. Thus, it can be expressed as process of theories of motivation define how individual behaviors are energized, focused, and maintained in the specifically desired and self-directed human cognitive processes and it is identifiable that process theories of motivation are based on early cognitive theories, which suggest that behavior is the result of mindful decision-making processes. The major process theories of motivation can be identified as expectancy theory, equity theory, goal-setting theory, and reinforcement theory (Coon, 2006). 

Adams Equity Theory

Adams Equity Theory was invented by an American psychologist John Stacey Adams in the year of 1963. The theory involves with finding the balance between an employee's input (effort) and the output (outcome). Inputs can be identified as hard work, talents, and excitement while salary, recognition, and responsibility can be identified as outputs (Chiekezie et al, 2009). In fact, a healthy balance of input and output ensures that employees are satisfied and motivated, which enhances their productivity. Furthermore, Chiekezie et al. (2009) explain people assess the equity of rewards by comparing them either to the rewards others are receiving for similar input or to some other effort reward ratio that occurs to them. Consequently, two types of equity theories can be identified as distributive equity and procedural equity. Henceforth, it can be recognized that distributive equity is concerned with the fairness with which people believe they are rewarded in accordance with others, while procedural equity is concerned with the perceptions employees have about the fairness with which the organization's procedures are operated. Armstrong (2009) introduces appraisal and promotion as an example for equity theory. It is further elaborated by Robbins (2007) as, if employees perceive an inequity in their input-outcome ratio compared to the other employees, they become dissatisfied and less motivated. It is further illustrated in figure 1.0.

Figure 3.0 Reinforcement Theory

(Source: Chapman,2002)

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

Despite equity theory, expectancy theory is also a cognitive process and a motivational theory based on the idea that people believe there are connections between the effort they put in at work, the performance they achieve as a result of that effort, and the rewards they receive as a result of that effort and performance. Lunenburg (2011) exemplifies it by stating that people will be motivated if they believe that putting forth a great effort will result in good performance, and that high performance will result in desired rewards.

As per the explanation of Vroom (1964), expectancy theory is based on four assumptions, and he elaborates that one assumption is that people join organizations with expectations about their requirements, motivations, and past experiences. These facts may impact how individuals react to the organization. The second assumption is that an individual’s behavior is a result of conscious choice. People are free to choose those behaviors suggested by their own expectancy calculations. The third assumption is that various people expect different things from the company like good salary, job security, career advancement, and challenges.  Fourth assumption is that people will pick among alternatives in order to achieve the best possible results for themselves.

Figure 2.0 (Vroom’s Expectancy Theory)

(Sourse: Jason,2014)

Reinforcement Theory

The goal of Reinforcement theory can be identified as the necessity to achieve the desired level of motivation among the employees by means of reinforcement, punishment and extinction (Juneja ,2015). Thus, it is evident this approach can affect both positively and negatively in the process of reinforcing the desired behavior. However, punishment acts as a deterrent to unwanted behaviors of the employees. Del Chiaro (2006) states extinction as diminishing the probability of undesirable behavior. Accordingly, it is clear that in order to motivate people, the organization's external environment should be designed positively and effectively. Juneja (2015) further emphasizes that this theory is a powerful tool for analyzing controlling mechanism for individual’s behavior. 

Following are some methods that can be used to control the behavior of the employees 

Positive Reinforcement :

Positive reinforcement basically means giving positive feedback or response when an individual shows positive and required behavior. Griggs (2009) attests that praise, appreciation, allowances, promotion, or any other reward can increase the possibility of rewarded behaviors repetition.

For instance, in the education sector lecturers have the possibility to get rewards depending on their performance and hard work. Accordingly, it results in increasing the probability of outstanding behavior occurring again.  When considering from a student’s perspective, when a student who is usually late to classes gets positive feedback when he arrives on time, the student becomes more and more punctual.

Negative Reinforcement :

Griggs (2009) discloses negative reinforcement implies rewarding an employee by removing negative / undesirable consequences. Thus, both positive and negative reinforcement can be used for increasing desirable / required behavior. 

Punishment :

Punishments are given with the intention of lowering the probability of repeating undesirable behavior in future(Coon,2006). In other words, punishment means applying undesirable consequence for showing undesirable behavior. However, Griggs (2009) emphasizes that punishment can be equalized by positive reinforcement from alternative source. For instance, suspending an employee for breaking the organizational rules. 

Extinction :

Extinction can be identified as lowering the probability of undesired behaviors by removing reward for that kind of behaviors. For instance, if an employee no longer receives praise and admiration for his good work, he may understand that his behavior is generating no fruitful consequence. Accordingly, Coon (2006) ascertains that extinction may unintentionally lower desirable behavior.

Figure 3.0 Reinforcement Theory

(Denis, 2018)

Locke’s Goal Setting Theory 

Locke’s goal setting theory can be identified as an integrative model of motivation that is similar to the expectancy theory. As per the emphasize of  Locke and Latham (2002) goals have a pervasive influence on employee behavior and performance in organizations and management practice. Locke and Latham (2002) further explain that research indicates that specific goals help to bring about other desirable organizational goals, such as reducing absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover. Henceforth, Locke’s theory discloses that goal setting is essentially linked to task performance. It elaborates that specific and challenging goals along with appropriate feedback contribute to higher and better task performance. According to the research conducted by many scholars, it is evident that an employee performs better when the goals that guide the work are clear, specific, and challenging rather than vague, ambiguous, and unchallenging (Latham et al., 2008; Latham & Locke, 2013; Rainey & Jung, 2015). However, to be motivated and to increase productivity, goals need to have the following characteristics named: (1.) Clarity (2.) Challenge (3.) Commitment (4.) Feedback (5.) Task Complexity.

Clarity

If an individual to be motivated, his or her goals need to be clear. Thus, when the goal that needs to be achieved is clear it’s easy to understand exactly what employee need to achieve. Simultaneously, Rainey and Jung (2015) attest that when a goal is vague and imprecise, it’s difficult to know if they have achieved it. 

Challenge

When an individual receives a work, it should be capable enough to challenge his/ her competency level but not too challenging which make them motivated to perform the best and acquire new knowledge. When a goal is too easy to achieve, it will not motivate employees to do the best and increase their performance. Simultaneously, if they receive a target which is out of league, it will make them demotivated as well. Locke & Latham (2006) further explain if a goal to motivate an employee it must hit the nice spot between challenging employees but not over challenging them. Indeed, challenging goals are difficult but not impossible to attain. Consequently, it results people to raise the intensity and persistence of their work effort and fulfill a person’s achievement and self-actualization needs when they are met. Furthermore, Koppes (2014) states that empirical research supports the proposition that goals that are challenging are more motivational than goals that are relatively easy to achieve. 

Commitment

As per the explanation of Klein et al. (1999), commitment can be identified as the most important and relevant in achieving goals when they are challenging and difficult. It is assured by Erez and Zidon (1984) by stating that goals that are difficult for people require high effort and are associated with lower chances of success than easy goals. 

Feedback.

Feedbacks has a major role in motivating employees to achieve their targets. Thus, for goals to be effective, people need summary feedback that reveals progress in relation to their goals. If the employees do not have proper understanding how well they have performed or what are the mistakes they have done, it is difficult or impossible for them to adjust the level or direction of their effort or to adjust their performance strategies to match what the goal requires. Matsui et al. (1983) ascertain that when people find they are below target, they normally increase their effort or try a new strategy. 

 

Task Complexity

If a goal to be achieved and motivating, it should not be too complex for the individual to understand. As per the explanation of Chesney and Locke (1991), highly complicated goals can be overwhelming and demotivating the employees. However, people use a greater variety of strategies on tasks that are complex than on tasks that are easy. Accordingly, measures of task strategy often correlate more highly with performance than do measures of goal difficulty.

 

References

Anon, (n.d.). Motivation Theories: Content and Process – The World of Work Project. [online] Available at: https://worldofwork.io/2019/02/motivation-theories-context-and-process/.

Armstrong, M. (2009) Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resources Management Practice (11th ed.).  Kogan Page London.

Chesney, A. & Locke, E. (1991) An examination of the relationship among goal difficulty, business strategies, and performance on a complex management simulation task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 400–424.

Chiekezie, O., Nzewi, N.  & Orogbu, O. (2009) Management: A Practical Approach. Adroit Global Concept Ltd, Lagos.

 

Coon, D. (2006) Psychology: A modular approach to mind and behavior (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education. 

Del Chiaro, S. A. (2006) The effect of training supervisors to use positive reinforcement on employee job satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. The Sciences and Engineering, 67(6), 3434.

Erez, M. & Zidon, I. (1984) Effects of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal setting and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,69, 69–78.

Griggs, R. A. (2009) Psychology: A concise introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Jung, C. S. (2011) Organizational goal ambiguity and performance: Conceptualization, measurement, and relationships. International Public Management Journal, 14, 193-217.

Juneja, P. (2015) Reinforcement Theory of Motivation. [online] Managementstudyguide.com. Available at: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/reinforcement-theory-motivation.htm 

Koppes, L.L. (2014) Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Klein, H., Wesson, M., Hollenbeck, J. & Alge, B. (1999) Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 885–896.

Latham, G. P. (2003) Goal setting: A five-step approach to behavior change. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 309-318.

Latham, G. P., Borgogni, L. & Petitta, L. (2008) Goal setting and performance management in the public sector. International Public Management Journal, 11, 385-403.

Latham, G. P. & Locke, E. A. (2013) Goal setting theory, 1990. In: Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P. (Eds.) New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 3-15. 

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990) A theory of goal setting and task performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lunenburg, F.C. (2011) Motivating by Altering Expectations. Expectancy Theory of Motivation.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2006) New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science. [online] 15(5), pp.265–268. Available at: http://cdp.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x  [Accessed August 19, 2021].

Matsui, T., Okada, A. & Inoshita, O. (1983) Mechanism of feedback affecting task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 114–122.

Rainey, H. G. & Jung, C. S. (2015) A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 71-99.