Motivation and Theories

Motivation:
Motivation is derived from Latin word mover which means “to move” motivation is the process that account for an individual’s intensity direction and persistence of efforts toward attaining a goal. While general motivation is concerned with effort to word any goal we will 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 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 effort motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve their goal.

MEANING OF MOTIVATION:
The term “motivation” has been derived from the word “motive”, which means the urge to do or not to do something. Motivation may, therefore, be defined as the process of stimulating or inducing people to take the desired course of action. The process of motivation begins with the awareness of a need. When a person feel hungry, for example, he takes measures to satisfy his hunger. He works to earn money to buy food. Once his need for food satisfied, he may feel a new need and will again act in order to satisfy it.

Concept of Motivation:
•A need must be felt by an individual in such a way that it drives him/her to satisfy it.
•The force underlying this behavior may be called motivation.
•This force may vary depending upon the intensity and importance of the need to the individual. People’s behavior is determined by what motivates them. Their performance is a product of both ability level and motivation.
Needs: a physiological or psychological imbalance leads to the creation of a need Drives/motives: propel individual to attain their goals or satisfy their needs.–Incentives: that can fulfill a need and decrease the intensity of a drive is called incentives.

Two Factor theory or Herzberg theory:
The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory and dual-factor theory) states that there are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of factors cause dissatisfaction. It was developed by Frederick Herzberg, a psychologist, who theorized that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction act independently of each other. Two-factor theory fundamentals: Attitudes and their connection with industrial mental health are related to Maslow's theory of motivation. His findings have had a considerable theoretical, as well as a practical, influence on attitudes toward administration. According to Herzberg, individuals are not content with the satisfaction of lower-order needs at work, for example, those associated with minimum salary levels or safe and pleasant working conditions. Rather, individuals look for the gratification of higher-level psychological needs having to do with achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and the nature of the work itself. So far, this appears to parallel Maslow's theory of a need hierarchy. However, Herzberg added a new dimension to this theory by proposing a two-factor model of motivation, based on the notion that the presence of one set of job characteristics or incentives lead to worker satisfaction at work, while another and separate set of job characteristics lead to dissatisfaction at work. Thus, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not on a continuum with one increasing as the other diminishes, but are independent phenomena. This theory suggests that to improve job attitudes and productivity, administrators must recognize and attend to both sets of characteristics and not assume that an increase in satisfaction leads to decrease in unpleasable dissatisfaction.
The two-factor, or motivation-hygiene theory, developed from data collected by Herzberg from interviews with a large number of engineers and accountants in the Pittsburgh area. From analyzing these interviews, he found that job characteristics related to what an individual does — that is, to the nature of the work he performs — apparently have the capacity to gratify such needs as achievement, competency, status, personal worth, and self-realization, thus making him happy and satisfied. However, the absence of such gratifying job characteristics does not appear to lead to unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Instead, dissatisfaction results from unfavorable assessments of such job-related factors as company policies, supervision, technical problems, salary, interpersonal relations on the job, and working conditions. Thus, if management wishes to increase satisfaction on the job, it should be concerned with the nature of the work itself — the opportunities it presents for gaining status, assuming responsibility, and for achieving self-realization. If, on the other hand, management wishes to reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus on the job environment — policies, procedures, supervision, and working conditions. If management is equally concerned with both, (as is usually the case), then managers must give attention to both sets of job factors.
The theory was based around interviews with 203 American accountants and engineers in Pittsburgh, chosen because of their professions' growing importance in the business world. The subjects were asked to relate times when they felt exceptionally good or bad about their present job or any previous job, and to provide reasons, and a description of the sequence of events giving rise to that positive or negative feeling.

Two-factor theory distinguishes between:
• Hygiene factors- Hygiene factors are those job factors which are essential for existence of motivation at workplace. These do not lead to positive satisfaction for long-term. But if these factors are absent / if these factors are non-existent at workplace, then they lead to dissatisfaction. In other words, hygiene factors are those factors which when adequate/reasonable in a job, pacify the employees and do not make them dissatisfied. These factors are extrinsic to work. Hygiene factors are also called as dissatisfies or maintenance factors as they are required to avoid dissatisfaction. These factors describe the job environment/scenario. The hygiene factors symbolized the physiological needs which the individuals wanted and expected to be fulfilled. Hygiene factors include:
|Pay - The pay or salary structure should be appropriate and reasonable. It must be equal and competitive to those in the same industry in | |
|the same domain. | |
|Company Policies and administrative policies - The company policies should not be too rigid. They should be fair and clear. It should | |
|include flexible working hours, dress code, breaks, vacation, etc. | |
|Fringe benefits - The employees should be offered health care plans (medical aim), benefits for the family members, employee help | |
|programs, etc. | |
|Physical Working conditions - The working conditions should be safe, clean and hygienic. The work equipment’s should be updated and | |
|well-maintained. | |
|Status - The employees’ status within the organization should be familiar and retained. | |
|Interpersonal relations - The relationship of the employees with his peers, superiors and subordinates should be appropriate and | |
|acceptable. There should be no conflict or humiliation element present. | |
|Job Security - The organization must provide job security to the employees. | |

• Motivational factors- According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors cannot be regarded as motivators. The motivational factors yield positive satisfaction. These factors are inherent to work. These factors motivate the employees for a superior performance. These factors are called satisfiers. These are factors involved in performing the job. Employees find these factors intrinsically rewarding. The motivators symbolized the psychological needs that were perceived as an additional benefit. Motivational factors include: • Recognition - The employees should be praised and recognized for their accomplishments by the managers. • Sense of achievement - The employees must have a sense of achievement. This depends on the job. There must be a fruit of some sort in the job. • Growth and promotional opportunities - There must be growth and advancement opportunities in an organization to motivate the employees to perform well. • Responsibility - The employees must hold themselves responsible for the work. The managers should give them ownership of the work. They should minimize control but retain accountability. • Meaningfulness of the work - The work itself should be meaningful, interesting and challenging for the employee to perform and to get motivated.
David McClelland
David c McClelland’s motivational needs theory:
American David Clarence McClelland (1917-98) achieved his doctorate in psychology at Yale in 1941 and became professor at Wesleyan University. He then taught and lectured, including a spell at Harvard from 1956, where with colleagues for twenty years he studied particularly motivation and the achievement need. He began his McBer consultancy in 1963, helping industry assess and train staff, and later taught at Boston University, from 1987 until his death. McClelland is chiefly known for his work on achievement motivation, but his research interests extended to personality and consciousness. David McClelland pioneered workplace motivational thinking, developing achievement-based motivational theory and models, and promoted improvements in employee assessment methods, advocating competency-based assessments and tests, arguing them to be better than traditional IQ and personality-based tests. His ideas have since been widely adopted in many organizations, and relate closely to the theory of Herzberg. David McClelland is most noted for describing three types of motivational need, which he identified in his 1961 book, The Achieving Society. • achievement motivation (n-ach) • authority/power motivation (n-pow) • affiliation motivation (n-affil)
David McClelland’s needs-based motivational model:
These needs are found to varying degrees in all workers and managers, and this mix of motivational needs characterizes a person's or manager's style and behavior, both in terms of being motivated, and in the management and motivation others.
The need for achievement (n-ach):
The n-ach person is 'achievement motivated' and therefore seeks achievement, attainment of realistic but challenging goals, and advancement in the job. There is a strong need for feedback as to achievement and progress, and a need for a sense of accomplishment.
The need for authority and power (n-pow):
The n-pow person is 'authority motivated'. This driver produces a need to be influential, effective and to make an impact. There is a strong need to lead and for their ideas to prevail. There is also motivation and need towards increasing personal status and prestige.

The need for affiliation (n-affil):
The n-affil person is 'affiliation motivated', and has a need for friendly relationships and is motivated towards interaction with other people. The affiliation driver produces motivation and need to be liked and held in popular regard. These people are team players. McClelland said that most people possess and exhibit a combination of these characteristics. Some people exhibit a strong bias to a particular motivational need, and this motivational or needs 'mix' consequently affects their behavior and working/managing style. McClelland suggested that a strong n-affil 'affiliation-motivation' undermines a manager's objectivity, because of their need to be liked, and that this affects a manager's decision-making capability. A strong n-pow 'authority-motivation' will produce a determined work ethic and commitment to the organization, and while n-pow people are attracted to the leadership role, they may not possess the required flexibility and people-centered skills. McClelland argues that n-ach people with strong 'achievement motivation' make the best leaders, although there can be a tendency to demand too much of their staff in the belief that they are all similarly and highly achievement-focused and results driven, which of course most people are not. McClelland's particular fascination was for achievement motivation, and this laboratory experiment illustrates one aspect of his theory about the effect of achievement on people's motivation. McClelland asserted via this experiment that while most people do not possess a strong achievement-based motivation, those who do, display a consistent behavior in setting goals.
Volunteers were asked to throw rings over pegs rather like the fairground game; no distance was stipulated, and most people seemed to throw from arbitrary, random distances, sometimes close, sometimes farther away. However a small group of volunteers, whom McClelland suggested were strongly achievement-motivated, took some care to measure and test distances to produce an ideal challenge - not too easy, and not impossible. Interestingly a parallel exists in biology, known as the 'overload principle', which is commonly applied to fitness and exercising, i.e., in order to develop fitness and/or strength the exercise must be sufficiently demanding to increase existing levels, but not so demanding as to cause damage or strain. McClelland identified the same need for a 'balanced challenge' in the approach of achievement-motivated people. McClelland contrasted achievement-motivated people with gamblers, and dispelled a common pre-conception that n-ach 'achievement-motivated' people are big risk takers. On the contrary - typically, achievement-motivated individuals set goals which they can influence with their effort and ability, and as such the goal is considered to be achievable. This determined results-driven approach is almost invariably present in the character make-up of all successful business people and entrepreneurs.

McClelland suggested other characteristics and attitudes of achievement-motivated people: • Achievement is more important than material or financial reward. • Achieving the aim or task gives greater personal satisfaction than receiving praise or recognition. • Financial reward is regarded as a measurement of success, not an end in itself. • Security is not prime motivator, nor is status. • Feedback is essential, because it enables measurement of success, not for reasons of praise or recognition (the implication here is that feedback must be reliable, quantifiable and factual). • Achievement-motivated people constantly seek improvements and ways of doing things better. • Achievement-motivated people will logically favor jobs and responsibilities that naturally satisfy their needs, i.e. offer flexibility and opportunity to set and achieve goals, e.g., sales and business management, and entrepreneurial roles.
McClelland firmly believed that achievement-motivated people are generally the ones who make things happen and get results, and that this extends to getting results through the organization of other people and resources, although as stated earlier, they often demand too much of their staff because they priorities achieving the goal above the many varied interests and needs of their people.
Goal Setting Theory:
Goals have a pervasive influence on employee behavior and performance in organizations and management practice (Locke & Latham, 2002). Nearly every modern Organization has some form of goal setting in operation. Programs such as management by objectives (MBO), high-performance work practices (HPWPs), management information systems (MIS), benchmarking, stretch targets, as well as systems thinking and strategic planning, include the development of specific goals. Furthermore, goal setting is the underlying explanation for all major theories of work motivation—whether that be Vroom’s (1994) VIE theory, Maslow’s (1970) or Herzberg’s (2009) motivation theories, Bandura’s(1986)social cognitive theory, or operant-based behaviorism (Skinner, 1979).Managers widely accept goal setting as a means to improve and sustain performance (DuBrin, 2012). Based on hundreds of studies, the major finding of goal setting is that individuals who are provided with specific, difficult but attainable goals perform better than those given easy, nonspecific, or no goals at all. At the same time, however, the individuals must have sufficient ability, accept the goals, and receive feedback related to performance (Latham, 2003)
1. Goals should be specific:
Goals such as "Become a top sales" or "Sell as many products as I can" are too vague and therefore have no effect on motivation. Instead, you should set more specific goals. Specific means quantitative. For example, you may set a goal such as "sell 500 products per month". This is a specific target. You will use the specific result as a source of motivation and you will perform better.
2 Goals Should Be Challenging:
Make each goal a challenge to you. If the goal you can easily achieve, without difficulty, it is not very motivational. Hard goals are more motivating than easy goals, because when you are challenging a goal, you will try your best and generate enough enthusiasm to get it done. When the goal has been accomplished, you will feel very happy and you will get high rewards too.
3. Goals should be achievable:
Goals can't be unattainable, of course. If the goals are not realistic for you to achieve, you may lose confidence in the end. So when you set a goal, make sure that you can achieve it. The goal should be challenging and difficult, and you believe that you can achieve it too.
We can use goal setting theory to motivate ourselves. When developing goals, make sure the goals are not only specific, challenging, and achievable, but also are measurable and have a target date for attainment. You can learn more of these in smart goals.
Finally, make sure that you provide feedback on goal performance. You measure your progress and see how you are doing. If the goal is too hard, adjust the goal's difficulty.
If you follow these simple rules, your goal setting process will be much more successful, and your overall performance will improve.
Goal must be Acceptable:
Goals need to be accepted. Simply assigning goals to organization members may not result in their commitment to those goals, especially if the goal will be difficult to accomplish. A powerful method of obtaining acceptance is to allow organization members to participate in the goal-setting process. In other words, participation in the goal-setting process tends to enhance goal commitment. Participation helps organization members better understand the goals, ensure that the goals are not unreasonable, and helps them achieve the goal. The factor of self-efficacy mentioned above also may come into play regarding imposed goals. Some individuals may reject imposed goals, but if they have self-efficacy, they may still maintain high personal goals to accomplish the imposed goals (Bandura, 1997).

Feedback Must Be Provided on Goal Attainment:
Feedback helps organization members attain their performance goals. Feedback helps in two important ways. First, it helps people determine how well they are doing. For example, sports teams need to know the score of the game; a sharpshooter needs to see the target; a golfer needs to know his score. The same can be said for a work team, department, or organization. Performance feedback tends to encourage better performance. Second, feedback also helps people determine the nature of the adjustments to their performance that are required to improve. For example, sports teams watch video reproductions of a game and adjust their play; a sharpshooter can adjust his shot; a golfer can adjust her swing; and a CEO of an organization can gage the growth, profitability, and quality of a product line.
Goals Are More Effective When They Are Used to Evaluate Performance:
When employees know that their performance will be evaluated in terms of how well they attained their goals, the impact of goals increases. Salespeople, for example, have weekly and monthly sales goals they are expected to attain. Telephone operators have goals for the number of customers they should assist daily. Quarterbacks are judged on the completion percentages of passes thrown and the number of yards the offense generates per game. Coaches are assessed on their win-loss record. CEOs of organizations such as IBM, General Motors, and Microsoft Corporation are evaluated on meeting growth, profitability, and quality goals.

Deadlines Improve the Effectiveness of Goals:
For most employees, goals are more effective when they include a deadline for completion. Deadlines serve as a time-control mechanism and increase the motivational impact of goals. Being aware that a deadline is approaching, the typical employee will invest more effort into completing the task. In contrast, if plenty of time remains for attaining the goal, the employee is likely to slow down his or her pace to fill the available time. However, when deadlines are too tight, particularly with complex tasks, the quality of work may suffer.

Group Goal-Setting is As Important As Individual Goal-Setting:
Today, many organization members work in groups, teams, or committees. Having employees work as teams with a specific team goal, rather than as individuals with only individual goals, increases productivity. Furthermore, the combination of compatible group and individual goals is more effective than either individual or group goals alone. A related consideration is that when a team member perceives that other team members share his or her personal goals, the individual will be more satisfied and productive. A recent study of project teams indicated that a perceived fit between individual and group performance goals resulted in greater individual satisfaction and contribution to the team (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001).

Self-Efficacy Defined:
Self-efficacy(also known as social cognitive theory or social learning theory) is a person’s belief that she is capable of performing a particular task successfully (Bandura, 1977, 1997).Think of self-efficacy as a kind of self-confidence (Kanter, 2006) or a task-specific version of self-esteem (Brockner, 1988). Self-efficacy has three dimensions: magnitude, the level of task difficulty a person believes she can attain; strength, the conviction regarding magnitude as strong or weak; and generality, the degree to which the expectation is generalized across situations. An employee’s sense of capability influences his perception, motivation, and performance (Bandura, 1997). We rarely attempt to perform a task when we expect to be unsuccessful. Following is an example. One professor may believe that she can learn how to teach graduate courses online on her own. Another professor may have strong doubts about his ability to learn how to teach graduate courses online without taking some formal training. Self-efficacy has powerful effects on learning, motivation, and performance, because people try to learn and perform only those tasks that they believe they will be able to perform successfully.

Self-efficacy affects learning and performance in three ways (Bandura, 1982):

1. Self-efficacy influences the goals that employees choose for themselves. Employees with low levels of self-efficacy tend to set relatively low goals for themselves. Conversely, an individual with high self-efficacy is likely to set high personal goals. Research indicates that people not only learn but also perform at levels consistent with their self-efficacy beliefs.
2. Self-efficacy influences learning as well as the effort that people exert on the job. Employees with high self-efficacy generally work hard to learn how to perform new tasks, because they are confident that their efforts will be successful. Employees with low self-efficacy may exert less effort when learning and performing complex tasks, because they are not sure the effort will lead to success.
3. Self-efficacy influences the persistence with which people attempt new and difficult tasks. Employees with high self-efficacy are confident that they can learn and perform a specific task. Thus, they are likely to persist in their efforts even when problems surface. Conversely, employees with low self-efficacy who believe they are incapable of learning and performing a difficult task are likely to give up when problems surface. In an extensive literature review on self-efficacy, Albert Bandura and Edwin Locke (2003) concluded that self-efficacy is a powerful determinant of job performance.

Albert bandura, argues that there are four ways self-efficacy can be increased.

Past Performance:
According to Bandura, the most important source of self-efficacy is past performance. Employees who have succeeded on job-related tasks are likely to have more confidence to complete similar tasks in the future (high self-efficacy) than employees who have been unsuccessful (low self-efficacy).Managers or supervisors can boost self-efficacy through careful hiring, providing challenging assignments, professional development and coaching, goal setting, supportive leadership, and rewards for improvement.

Vicarious Experience:
A second source of self-efficacy is through vicarious experience. Seeing a co-worker succeed at a particular task may boost your self-efficacy. For example, if your co-worker loses weight, this may increase your confidence that you can lose weight as well. Vicarious experience is most effective when you see yourself as similar to the person you are modeling. Watching LeBron James dunk a basketball might not increase your confidence in being able to dunk the basketball yourself if you are 5 feet, 6 inches tall.
But if you observe a basketball player with physical characteristics similar to yourself, it can be persuasive.

Verbal Persuasion:
The third source of self-efficacy is through verbal persuasion. Essentially this involves convincing people that they have the ability to succeed at a particular task. The best way for a leader to use verbal persuasion is through the Pygmalion effect. The Pygmalion effect is a form of a self-fulfilling prophesy in which believing something to be true can make it true. Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) classic study is a good example of the Pygmalion effect. Teachers were told by their supervisor that one group of students had very high IQ scores (when in fact they had average to low IQ scores), and the same teacher was told that another group of students had low IQ scores (when in fact they had high IQ scores). Consistent with the Pygmalion effect, the teachers spent more time with the students they thought were smart, gave them more challenging assignments, and expected more of them—all of which led to higher student self-
Efficacy and better student grades. A more recent experiment conducted by Harvard researchers in a ghetto community produced similar results (Rist, 2000). The Pygmalion effect also has been used in the workplace. Research has indicated that when managers are confident that their subordinates can successfully perform a task, the subordinates perform at a higher level. However, the power of the persuasion would be contingent on the leader’s credibility, previous relationship with the employees, and the leader’s influence in the organization (Eden, 2003).

Emotional Cues:
Finally, Bandura argues that emotional cues dictate self-efficacy. A person who expects to fail at some task or finds something too demanding is likely to experience certain physiological symptoms: a pounding heart, feeling flushed, sweaty palms, headaches, and so on. The symptoms vary from individual to individual, but if they persist may become associated with poor performance. Self-efficacy has been related to other motivation theories. Edwin Locke and Gary Latham suggest that goal- setting theory and self-efficacy theory complement each other.
When a leader sets difficult goals for employees, this leads employees to have a higher level of self-efficacy and also leads them to set higher goals for their own performance.
Why does this happen? Research has shown that setting difficult goals for people communicates confidence (Locke & Latham, 2002).For example, suppose that your supervisor sets a high goal for you. You learn that it is higher than the goal she has set for your colleagues. How would you interpret this? You would probably think that your supervisor believes you are capable of performing better than others. This sets in motion a psychological process in which you are more confident in yourself (higher self-efficacy) and then you set higher personal goals for yourself causing you to perform better. Self-efficacy also may be related to effort-performance relationships in expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964).

Implications of Self-Efficacy in the Workplace:
Bandura devotes considerable attention to the workplace in his groundbreaking book, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. More recently, he provided an extensive review of the growing body of research dealing with the direct and indirect influence of self-
Efficacy on work-related personal and organizational effectiveness (Bandura, 2004).This research review of the impact of self-efficacy includes a wide range of topics such as training and development, teaming (i.e., collective efficacy), change and innovation, leadership, and stress. From this considerable body of theory and research on self-efficacy, the following managerial and organizational implications are provided (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2011; Luthans, Yuussef, & Avolio, 2007).
Selection/Promotion Decisions:
Organizations should select individuals who have high levels of self-efficacy. These people will be motivated to engage in the behaviors that will help them perform well in the workplace. A measure of self-efficacy can be administered during the Hiring/promotion process.

Training and Development:
Organizations should consider employee levels of self-efficacy when choosing among candidates for training and development programs. If the training budget is limited, then greater return (i.e., job performance) on training investment can be realized by sending only those employees high in self-efficacy. These people will tend to learn more from the training and, ultimately, will be more likely to use that learning to enhance their job performance.

Goal Setting and Performance:
Organizations can encourage higher performance goals from employees who have high levels of self-efficacy. This will lead to higher levels of job performance from employees, which is critical for many organizations in an era of high competition.

-----------------------
11

CUSIT PESHAWAR

11