OB Chapter 4-1 Motivation PDF

**CHAPTER FOUR** **MOTIVATION** 1. Motivation is the process that account for an individual's intensity, direction and 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 ref...

**CHAPTER FOUR** **MOTIVATION** 1. Motivation is the process that account for an individual's intensity, direction and 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 his or her effort. Motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve their goal. **3.2. Early Theories of Motivation** 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. 1. **Hierarchy of Needs Theory** It\'s 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. 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 those 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 needs** and social, esteem, and self-actualization needs 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 such things as pay, union contracts, and tenure). In fact, the natural conclusion to be drawn from Maslow\'s classification is that in times of economic plenty, almost all permanently employed workers have their lower-order, needs substantially met. 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. One researcher reviewed the evidence and concluded that \"although of great societal popularity, need hierarchy as a theory continues to receive little empirical support.\" Furthermore, the researcher stated that the \"available research should certainly generate a reluctance to accept unconditionally the implication of Maslow\'s hierarchy. Another review came to the same conclusion. Little support was found for the prediction that need structures are organized along the dimensions proposed by Maslow, that unsatisfied needs motivate, or that a satisfied need activates movement to a new need level. 2. **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. Employees 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: - ***Under Theory Y, the four assumptions held by managers are:*** 1. Employees 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 Y 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 such ideas 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 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. **3.2.3 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 when they felt good about their jobs were significantly different from the replies given when they felt bad. Certain characteristics tend to be consistently related to job satisfaction and others to job dissatisfaction. Intrinsic factors, such as the work itself, responsibility, and achievement, seems to be related to job satisfaction. Respondents who felt good about their work tended to attribute these factors to them. 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 dissatisfaliion***, as was traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed that his findings indicated the existence of a dual continuum: The opposite of **\"Satisfaction\"** is **\"No Satisfaction,\"** and the opposite of **"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 workforce rather than motivating them. As a result, conditions surrounding the job such as quality of supervision, pay, company policies, physical working conditions, relations with others, and job security were characterized by Herzberg as **hygiene fac**tors. 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 emphasizing 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. **3.3 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 are unquestionably right. They are called \"contemporary theories\" not because they necessarily were developed recently but because they represent the current state of the art in explaining employee motivation. 1. **ERG Theory** Clayton Alderfer of Yale University has reworked Maslow\'s need hierarchy to align it more closely with the empirical research. His revised need hierarchy is labeled **ERG theory**. Alderfer 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 intrinsic desire for personal development. These include the intrinsic component from Maslow\'s esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization. Besides 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, step like progression. ERG theory does not assume that there exists a rigid hierarchy in which a lower-order 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 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. Variables 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, 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. 2. **McClelland\'s Theory of Needs** 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 desire to do something better or more efficiently, to solve problems, or to master complex tasks. - ***Need for power:*** The desire to control others, to influence their behavior, or to be responsible for others. - ***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, McClelland found that high achievers differentiate themselves from others by their desire to do things better. They seek situations in which they can attain personal responsibility for finding solutions to problems, in which they can receive rapid feedback on their performance so they can tell easily whether they are improving or not, and in which they can set moderately challenging goals. High achievers are not gamblers; they dislike succeeding by chance. They prefer the challenge of working at a problem and accepting the personal responsibility 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 want to overcome obstacles, but they want to feel that their success (or failure) is due to their own actions. This means they like tasks of intermediate difficulty. High achievers perform best when they perceive their probability of success as being 0.5, that is, where 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. When there is an approximately equal chance of success or failure, there is the optimum opportunity to experience feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction from their efforts. The need for power is the desire to have impact, to be influential, and to control others. Individuals high in Power enjoy being \"in charge,\" strive for influence 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. Affiliation can be likened to Dale Carnegie\'s goals-the desire to be liked and accepted by others. Individuals with a high affiliation motive strive for friendship, prefer cooperative situations rather than competitive ones, and desire relationships involving a high degree of mutual understanding. How do you find out if someone is, for instance, a high achiever? First, individuals with a high need to achieve prefer job situations with personal responsibility, feedback, and an intermediate degree of risk. When these characteristics are prevalent, high achievers will be strongly motivated. The evidence consistently demonstrates, for instance, that high achievers are successful in entrepreneurial activities such as running their own businesses and managing a self-contained unit within a large organization. Second, a high need to achieve does not necessarily lead to being a good manager, especially in large organizations. People with a high achievement need are interested in how well they do personally and not influencing others to do well. High-nAch salespeople do not necessarily make good sales managers, and the good general manager in a large organization does not typically have a high need to achieve. 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 nAch or develop its own candidate through achievement training. 3. **Goal-Setting Theory** 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. The evidence strongly supports the value of goals. More to the point, we can say that specific goals increase performance; that difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than do easy goals; and that feedback leads to higher performance than does not feedback. Specific hard goals produce a higher level of output than does the generalized goal of \"do your best.\" The specificity of the goal itself acts as an internal stimulus. 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. However, 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 will exert a high level of effort until it is achieved, lowered, or abandoned. 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-where 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 superiority over assigned goals when acceptance is taken as given, participation does increase the probability that more difficult goals will be agreed to and acted upon. Are there any contingencies in goal-setting theory or can we take it as a universal truth that difficult and specific goals will always lead to higher performance? In addition to feedback, four other factors have been found to influence the goals-performance relationship. These are goal commitment, adequate self-efficacy, task characteristics, and national culture. Goal-setting theory presupposes that an individual is committed to the goal, that is, is determined not to lower or abandon the goal. This is most likely to occur when goals are made public, when the individual has an internal locus of control, and when the goals are self-set rather than assigned. Self-efficacy refers to an individual\'s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. The higher your self-efficacy, the more confidence you have in your ability to succeed in a task. So, in difficult situations, we find that people with low self-efficacy are more likely to lessen their effort or give up altogether, while those with high self-efficacy will try harder to master the challenge. In addition, individuals high in self-efficacy seem to respond to negative feedback with increased effort and motivation, whereas those low in self-efficacy are likely to lessen their effort when given negative feedback. Research indicates that individual goal setting doesn\'t work equally well on all tasks. The evidence suggests that goals seem to have more substantial effect on performance when tasks are simple rather than complex, well learned rather than novel, and independent rather than interdependent. On interdependent tasks, group goals are preferable. Our overall conclusion is that intentions-as articulated in terms of hard and specific goals-are a potent motivating force. Under the proper conditions, they can lead to higher performance. However, there is no evidence that such goals are associated with increased job satisfaction. 4. **Reinforcement Theory** A counterpoint to goal-setting theory is reinforcement theory. The former is a cognitive approach, proposing that an individual\'s purposes direct his or her action. In reinforcement theory, we have a behaviorist approach, which argues that reinforcement conditions behavior. The two are clearly at odds philosophically. Reinforcement theorists see behavior as being environmentally caused. You need not be concerned, they would argue, with internal cognitive events; what controls behavior are reinforces-any consequence that, when immediately following a response, increases the probability that the behavior will be repeated. Reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens to a person when he or she takes some action. Because it does not concern itself with what initiates behavior, it is not, strictly speaking, a theory of motivation. But it does provide a powerful means of analysis of what controls behavior, and it is for this reason that it is typically considered in discussions of motivation. We showed how using reinforces to condition behavior gives us considerable insight into how people learn. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that reinforcement has a wide following as a motivational device. In its pure form, however, reinforcement theory ignores feelings, attitudes, expectations, and other cognitive variables that are known to impact behavior. In fact, some researchers look at the same experiments that reinforcement theorists use to support their position and interpret the findings in a cognitive framework. Reinforcement is undoubtedly an important influence on behavior, but few scholars are prepared to argue that it is the only influence. The behaviors you engage in at work and the amount of effort you allocate to each task are affected by the consequences that follow from your behavior. For instance, if you are consistently reprimanded for out producing your colleagues, you will likely reduce your productivity. But your lower productivity may also be explained in terms of goals, inequity, or expectancies. 5. **Equity Theory** Employees make comparisons of their job inputs (i.e., effort, experience, education, competence) and outcomes (i.e., salary levels, raises, recognition) relative to those of others. We perceive what we get from a job situation (outcomes) in relation to what we put into it (inputs), and then we compare our outcome-input ratio with the outcome-input ratio of relevant others. If we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others with whom we compare ourselves, a state of equity is said to exist. We perceive our situation as fair- that justice prevails. When we see the ratio as unequal, we experience equity tension. J. Stacy Adams has proposed that this negative tension state provides the motivation to do something to correct it. The referent that an employee selects adds to the complexity of equity theory. Evidence indicates that the referent chosen is an important variable in equity theory. There are four referent comparisons that an employee can use: 1. *Self-inside: A*n employee's experiences in a different position inside his or her current organization. 2. *Self-outside:* An employee\'s experiences in a situation or position outside his or her current organization 3. *Other inside:* Another individual or group of individuals inside the employee\'s organization 4. *Other outside:* Another individual or group of individuals outside the employee\'s organization Employees might compare themselves to friends, neighbors, co-workers, colleagues in other organizations, or past jobs they themselves have had. Which referent an employee chooses will be influenced by the information the employee holds about referents as well as by the attractiveness of the referent. This has led to focusing on four moderating variables-gender, length of tenure, level in the organization, and amount of education or professionalism. Research shows that both men and women prefer same-sex comparisons. The research also demonstrates that women are typically paid less than men in comparable jobs and have lower pay expectations than men for the same work. So a female that uses another female as a referent tends to result in a lower comparative standard. This leads us to conclude that employees in jobs that are not sex segregated will make more cross-sex comparisons than those in jobs that are either male or female dominated. This also suggests that if women are tolerant of lower pay, it may be due to the comparative standard they use. Employees with short tenure in their current organizations tend to have little information about others inside the organization, so they rely on their own personal experiences. On the other hand, employees with long tenure rely more heavily on co-workers for comparison. Upper-level employees, those in the professional ranks, and those with higher amounts of education tend to be more cosmopolitan and have better information about people in other organizations. Therefore, these types of employees will make more other-outside comparisons. Based on equity theory, when employees perceive an inequity, they can be predicted to make one of six choices: 1. Change their inputs (e.g., don\'t exert as much effort) 2. Change their outcomes (e.g., individuals paid on a piece-rate basis can increase their pay by producing a higher quantity of units of lower quality) 3. Distort perceptions of self (e.g., \"I used to think I worked at a moderate pace but now I realize that I work a lot harder than everyone else.\") 4. Distort perceptions of others (e.g., \"Mike\'s job isn\'t as desirable as I previously thought it was.\") 5. Choose a different referent (e,g., \"I may not make as much as my brother-in- law, but I\'m doing a lot better than my Dad did when he was my age.\") 6. Leave the field (e.g\" quit the job) The theory establishes the following propositions relating to inequitable pay: 1. *Given payment by time, over rewarded employees will produce more than will equitably paid employees.* Hourly and salaried employees will generate high quantity or quality of production in order to increase the input side of the ratio and bring about equity. 2. *Given payment by quantity of production, over rewarded employees will produce fewer, but higher-quality, units than will equitably paid employees.* Individuals paid on a piece-rate basis will increase their effort to achieve equity, which can result in greater quality or quantity. However, increases in quantity will only increase inequity, since every unit produced results in further overpayment. Therefore, effort is directed toward increasing quality rather than increasing quantity. 3. *Given payment by time, under rewarded employees will produce less* or *poorer* *quality output.* Effort will be decreased, which will bring about lower productivity or poorer-quality output than equitably paid subjects. 4. *Given payment by quantity of production, under rewarded employees will produce a large number of low-quality units in comparison with equitably paid employees.* Employees on piece-rate pay plans can bring about equity because trading off quality of output for quantity will result in an increase in rewards with little or no increase in contributions. These propositions have generally been supported, with a few minor qualifications. First, inequities created by overpayment do not seem to have a very significant impact on behavior in most work situations. Apparently, people have a great deal more tolerance of overpayment inequities than of underpayment inequities, or are better able to rationalize them. Second, not all people are equity sensitive. For example, there is a small part of the working population who actually prefer that their outcome-input ratio be less than the referent comparison. Predictions from equity theory are not likely to be very accurate with these \"benevolent types.\" It\'s also important to note that while most research on equity theory has focused on pay, employees seem to look for equity in the distribution of other organizational rewards. For instance, it\'s been shown that the use of high- status job titles as well as large and lavishly furnished offices may function as outcomes for some employees in their equity equation. Finally, recent research has been directed at expanding what is meant by equity or fairness. Historically, equity theory focused on distributive justice or the perceived fairness of the *amount and allocation* of rewards among individuals. But equity should also consider procedural justice-the perceived fairness of the *process* used to determine the distribution of rewards. The evidence indicates that distributive justice has a greater influence on employee satisfaction than procedural justice, while procedural justice tends to affect an employee\'s organizational commitment, trust in his or her boss, and intention to quit. As result , 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\'re dissatisfied with pay, promotions, and other personal outcomes. Moreover, organizational citizenship behavior is significantly influenced by perceptions of fairness. Specifically, evidence indicates that although distributive justice issues such as pay are important, perceptions of procedural justice are particularly relevant to Organization Citizenship Behavior. So another plus from employees\' perceptions of fair treatment is that they\'ll be more satisfied and reciprocate by volunteering for extra job activities, helping others, and engaging in similar positive behaviors. In conclusion, equity theory demonstrates that, for most employees, motivation is influenced significantly by relative rewards as well as by absolute rewards, but some key issues are still unclear. For instance, how do employees handle conflicting equity signals, such as when unions point to other employee groups who are substantially *better off;* while management argues how much things have *improved?* How do employees define inputs and outcomes? How do they combine and weigh their inputs and outcomes to arrive at totals? When and how do the factors change over time? Yet, regardless of these problems, equity theory continues to offer us some important insights into employee motivation. 6. **Expectancy Theory** Currently, one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation is Victor Vroom\'s expectancy theory. Although it has its critics, most of the research evidence is supportive of the theory. 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 that outcome to the individua**l. In more practical terms, expectancy theory says that an employee will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when he or she believes that effort will lead to a good performance appraisal; that a good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards such as a bonus, a salary increase, or a promotion; and that the rewards will satisfy the employee\'s personal goals. The theory, therefore, focuses on three relationships 1. ***Effort-performance relationship**.* The probability perceived by the individual that exerting a given amount of effort will lead to performance. 2. ***Performance-reward relationship**.* The degree to which the individual believes that performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome. 3. ***Rewards-personal goals relationship**.* 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 explain why a lot of workers aren\'t motivated on their jobs and merely do the minimum necessary to get by. This is evident when we look at the theory\'s three relationships in a little more detail. We present them as questions employees need to answer in the affirmative if their motivation is to be maximized. First, ***if I give a maximum effort, will it be recognized in my performance appraisal?*** For a lot of employees, the answer is No. Why? Their skill levels may be deficient, which means that no matter how hard they try, they\'re not likely to be high performers. The organization\'s performance appraisal system may be designed assess nonperformance factors such as loyalty, initiative, or courage, which means more effort won\'t necessarily result in a higher evaluation. Still another possibility is that employee rightly or wrongly, perceives that her boss doesn\'t like her. As a result, she expects to get a poor appraisal regardless of her level of effort. These examples suggest that one possible source of low employee motivation is the belief, by the employee, that no matter how hard she works, the likelihood of getting a good performance appraisal is low. Second, ***if I get a good performance appraisal**, will it lead to organizational rewards?* Many employees see the performance-reward relationship in their job as weak. The reason, as we elaborate upon in the next chapter, is that organizations reward a lot of things besides performance. For example, when pay is allocated to employees based on factors such as seniority, being cooperative, or for \"kissing up\" to the boss, employees are likely to see the performance-reward relationship as being weak and de-motivating. Finally, ***if I\'m rewarded, are the rewards ones that I find personally attractive**?* The employee works hard in hope of getting a promotion but gets a pay raise instead. Or the employee wants a more interesting and challenging job but receives only a few words of praise. Or the employee puts in extra effort to be relocated to the company\'s Paris office but instead is transferred to Singapore. These examples illustrate the importance of the rewards being tailored to individual employee needs. Unfortunately, many managers are limited in the rewards they can distribute, which make **it** difficult to individualize rewards. Moreover, some managers incorrectly assume that all employees want the same thing, thus overlooking the motivational effects of differentiating rewards. In either case, employee motivation is sub maximized. 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 the rewards and individual goal satisfaction. As a contingency model, expectancy theory recognizes that there is no universal principle for explaining everyone\'s motivations. Additionally, just because we understand what needs a person seeks to satisfy does not ensure that the individual perceives high performance as necessarily leading to the satisfaction of these needs. Does expectancy theory work? Attempts to validate the theory have been complicated by methodological, criterion, and measurement problems. As a result, many published studies that purport to support or negate the theory must be viewed with caution. Importantly, most studies have failed to replicate the methodology as it was originally proposed. For example, the theory proposes to explain different levels of effort from the same person under different circumstances, but almost all replication studies have looked at different people. Correcting for this flaw has greatly improved support for the validity of expectancy theory. Some critics suggest that the theory has only limited use, arguing that it tends to be a more valid predictor in situations in which effort-performance and performance-reward linkages are clearly perceived by the individual. Since few individuals perceive a high correlation between performance and rewards in their jobs, the theory tends to be idealistic. If organizations actually rewarded individuals for performance rather than according to such criteria as seniority, effort, skill level, and job difficulty, then the theory\'s validity might be considerably greater. However, rather than invalidating expectancy theory, this criticism can be used in support of the theory, for it explains why a significant segment of the workforce exerts low levels of effort in carrying out job responsibilities. **3.4 Summary and Implications for Managers** We've presented a number of motivation theories and applications in this and the previous chapter. While it's always dangerous to synthesize a large number of complex ideas into a few simple guide lines, the following suggestions summarize the essence of what we know about motivating employees in organizations. **Recognize Individual Differences:** Employees have different needs. Don't treat them all alike. Moreover, spend the time necessary to understand what's important to each employee. This will allow you to individualize goals, level of involvement, and rewards to align with individual needs. **Use Goals and Feedback:** Employees should have hard, specific goals, as well as feedback on how well they are faring in pursuit of those goals. **Allow Employees To Participate In Decisions That Affect Them:** Employees can contribute to a number of decisions that affect them: setting work goals, choosing their own benefits pack-ages, solving productivity and quality problems, and the like. This can increase employee productivity, commitment to work goals, motivation, and job satisfaction. **Link Rewards To Performance:** Rewards should be contingent on performance. Importantly, employees must perceive a clear link-age. Regardless of how closely rewards are actually correlated to performance criteria, if individuals perceive this relationship to be low, the results will be low performance, a decrease in job satisfaction, and an increase in turnover and absenteeism statistics. **Check the System for Equity:** Rewards should also be perceived by employees as equating with the inputs they bring to the job. At a simplistic level, this should mean that experience, skills, abilities, effort, and other obvious inputs should explain differences in performance and, hence, pay, job assignments, and other obvious rewards.