Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
MANAGEMENT MOTIVATION
2. Establish goal
4. Attain goal
This model describes how individual motivation process takes place. It is based on the
motivational theories related to needs (achievements), goals, equity, behaviour modelling
(reactance) and expectancy, as described later in this chapter. It is also influenced by
three concepts relating to motivation and behaviour: reinforcement (Hull, 1951),
homeostasis, intrinsic and extrinsic theories. The model can be used to illustrate a
process of motivation which involves setting of corporate goals that are likely to meet
individual and organisational
needs and wants, and encourage the behaviour required to achieve those goals.
4.1.3 Reinforcement th eory and motivation
As experience is gained in taking action to satisfy needs, people perceive that
certain actions help them to achieve their goals while other actions are less likely.
Some actions bring rewards;
others result in failure or even punishment. Reinforcement theory, as developed by
Hull (1951), suggests that successes in achieving goals and rewards act as positive
incentives and reinforce the successful behaviour, which is repeated the next time a
similar need emerges (Daniels, 1989).
The degree to which experience shapes future behaviour does, of course, depend, on
two main factors. Firstly, on the extent to which individuals correctly perceive the
connection between behaviour and its outcome. Secondly, on the extent to which they
are able to recognise the resemblance between the previous situation and the one that
now confronts them. Perceptive ability varies between people, as does the ability to
identify a correlation between events. For these reasons, some people are better off at
learning from experience than others; just as some people are more easily motivated
than others.
Motivation at work can take place in two ways. First, people can motivate themselves
by seeking and carrying out work (or being given work), which satisfies their needs or
at least leads them to expect that their goals will be achieved. Secondly, management
can motivate people through such methods as pay, promotion, praise, recognition etc.
Respectively, these two types of motivation can be described as intrinsic and extrinsic
motivating factors
The main difference between these two types of motivation is that extrinsic
motivators can have an immediate and powerful effect, but it will not necessarily last
long. Intrinsic motivators, which are concerned with the ‘quality of working life’ (a
phrase and movement which emerged from this concept), are likely to have a deeper
and longer-term effect because they are inherent in individuals and not imposed from
outside.
The process theories embrace the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), goal-setting theory
(Locke and Ladham, 1968, 1990), reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) and the equity theory
(Adams, 1965). Others included are Herzberg’s (1957) - two factor (motivation-hygiene)
theory; behavioural theory (Skinner, 1974); and social-learning theory - as developed by
Bandura (1977). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to review all of these theories in
detail. However, but for their relevance to the conceptual framework of this study,
process theories of motivation are briefly reviewed in the next subsections. Process
motivation theories which are also known as cognitive theories are most important
because they are concerned with people’s perceptions of their working environment and
the ways in which they interpret and understand them. Process theories are certainly more
useful to managers than needs theories because they provide realistic guidance on
motivation techniques.
Motivation is only likely when a clearly perceived and usable relationship exists
between performance and outcome, and the outcome is seen as a means of satisfying
needs. This explains why extrinsic financial motivation - for example, an incentive
or bonus scheme - works only if the link between effort and reward is clear and the
value of the reward is worth the effort. It also explains why intrinsic motivation
arising from the work itself can be more powerful than extrinsic motivation; intrinsic
motivation outcomes are more under the control of individuals, who can place
greater reliance on their past experiences to indicate the extent to which positive and
advantageous results are likely to be obtained by their behaviour.
Porter and Lawler (1968) developed this theory into a model, which follows
Vroom’s ideas by suggesting that there are two factors determining the effort people
put into their jobs:
a) The value of the rewards to individuals in so far as they satisfy their needs for
security, social esteem, autonomy, and self-actualisation; and.
b) The probability that rewards depend on effort, as perceived by individuals - in
other words, their expectations about the relationships between effort and
reward. Thus, the greater the value of a set of awards and the higher the
probability that receiving each of these rewards depends upon effort, the
greater the effort that will be put forth in a given situation.
These are good from the viewpoint of the organisation if they correspond with
what it thinks the individual ought to be doing. They are poor if the views of the
individual and the organisation do not coincide. This shows how important it is to
apply a PM model, which attempts to match both individual and organisational
goals and needs, and sets forth a balanced strategic action plan necessary to
achieve both of them.
This theory is based on three basic arguments. First, individuals have different
goals. Secondly, that people only act to achieve their goals if there is a chance of
success. Thirdly, that the value of the goal affects the level of motivation. The goal
theory is in line with the 1960s concept of management by objectives (MBO). The
MBO approach, however, often failed because it was tackled bureaucratically
without gaining the real support of those involved and, most importantly, without
ensuring that managers were aware of the significance of the processes of
agreement, reinforcement and feedback, and were skilled in practising them. In the
contrary, the goal theory plays a vital role in the PM processes, which were
evolved from the largely discredited MBO approach.
Goal setting theory focuses on the nature of the objectives laid down or agreed to
in the first step of the performance management process. More generally, goal
setting theory predicts that performance management systems are more likely to
enhance employee motivation if they result in goals that are well-defined rather
than vague, specific rather than general, and challenging rather than easy to attain.
Remember the SMART acronym, which emphasises that goals or objectives should
be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound. Consequently, goal
setting theory suggests that a multiplicity of goals is likely to cause problems,
because it reduces goal clarity. Being under pressure to meet many goals,
especially where some of them are ambiguous, makes it difficult for employees to
focus their efforts properly.
Over and above these properties of goals, however, goal setting theory also
predicts that employee motivation will be enhanced only if people not only accept,
or are committed to, the goals that are set, but also if they participate in the whole
process of setting them. This requires them to believe that their goals are attainable
and legitimate. The relevance of this theorem for this study is that for local
government officers, this must mean that the objectives should make sense to them
as professional public service managers and not violate their professional
judgments. It also means that an employee should trust the person setting the goals;
externally imposed goals may be rejected as illegitimate (for a more extended
treatment of goal setting theories, and the other theories discussed here, see Arnold
et al, 1995).
c. Achievement theory
Another refinement of the process theory of motivation is that of McClelland
(1975). He argues that the need for achievement is strongly associated with the
success of the manager. The implication of the McClelland’s argument is that the
ideal manager would always want to work more effectively, would want to come
up with new ideas and to get things done! McClelland (ibid) suggests that
managers with a high need to achieve shared certain attributes. These include: a
preference for situations where they can take responsibility; they were moderate
risk takers; and they needed clear objectives and tasks with regular feedback.
The success of the manager is a function of the need for achievement. Therefore,
effectiveness of a manager, innovative ideas and passionate to achieve targets are
all main features of the achievement theorem. In other words, we could say that an
ideal manager would always want to achieve and cultivate the ‘achievement
culture’ within his/her organisation.
d. Reactance theory of motivation
Reactance theory is a behavioural modelling concept and was formulated by
Brehm (1966). It is based on the premise that to the extent that people are aware of
their needs and the kinds of behaviours necessary to satisfy these needs, and
providing they have the appropriate freedom, they can choose behaviour patterns
so as to maximise need satisfaction. If, however, this freedom to act is threatened,
people will be motivationally aroused and react in accordance with the principle of
homeostasis, to avoid any further loss of freedom. In essence, as Brehm says:
“Given that a person has a set of free behaviours, he (she) will experience
reactance whenever any of these behaviours is eliminated or threatened with
elimination, and when a free behaviour of an individual is eliminated (or
threatened) his desire for that behaviour or for the object of it will increase
(1966:122).”
The implication of this theory for this research is that individuals are not passive
receivers and responders. Instead, they actively strive to make sense of their
environment and to reduce uncertainty by seeking to control factors influencing
rewards. “You may take a horse to the water but you can not force it to drink!”. So
are human beings. Management may have all sorts of brilliant ideas about
motivating employees, but they will not necessarily work unless they make sense
to the people concerned in terms of their own values and orientations. People will
also be motivated to increase performance when social comparisons
arefavourable. This is the concern of the equity theory as reviewed below.
e. The equity theory of motivation
Adams (1965) derived the equity theory after observing the tendencies of people
making ‘social comparisons’ about their earnings. An employee compares his/her
job's inputs:outcomes ratio with that of referents’. The equity theory then argues
that if the employee perceives inequity, he/she will act to correct that inequity,
which may be in terms of lower productivity; reduced quality; increased
absenteeism; and voluntary resignation (Adams, ibid.).
The main motivational forces of the Equity theory are the ‘income:outcome’ ratio;
over compensation; and under-compensation. Other important fairness ratios of
the equity theory are the contribution:reward ratio, and the effort:reward ratio.
Therefore the designing of any compensation and reward system should take these
ratios into account for such an incentive scheme to be effective.
Equity theory stresses the importance of relative wages. This might refer to wages
of some employees relative to others, or of managers relative to other professions.
Therefore, the theoretical implication of this study is that individual PRP systems
inevitably change the distribution of wages within a profession, which may raise
inequity issues leading to some degree of de-motivation for those who think the
new distribution is unjust.
In effect, the practical implication of the equity theory is that people will be better
motivated if they are treated equitably and de-motivated if they are treated
inequitably. This theory explains only one aspect of the processes of motivation
and job satisfaction, although it may be significant in terms of morale. Jaques
(1961) also emphasises the need for such systems to be perceived as being fair and
equitable. In other words, the reward should be clearly related to effort or level of
responsibility and people should not receive less money than they deserve
compared with their fellow workers. Jaques (ibid.) calls this the ‘felt-fair’
principle. The next section attempts to examine the relationship between
motivation theories and performance because it is this linkage, which underpins
the nature of this research.
These theories raise at least four fundamental questions about the structure and
mechanics of PRP regimes in general, and about those other issues of addressed in
this study in particular. First, is goal clarity likely to be secured? Second, is goal
commitment likely to be secured? Third, are people likely to be confident that they
will be given the rewards if they deliver on their objectives? Fourth, are the
rewards on offer sufficiently attractive?
Locke and Henne (1986) argue that there is a strong link between an employee’s
performance, pay and motivation. This linkage can be perfected by the building
blocks as illustrated in Figure above.
As noted by Goldthorpe, et al (1968) from their research into the ‘affluent
worker’, pay is the dominant factor in the choice of employer and considerations
of pay seem most powerful in binding people to their present jobs. Financial
incentives do motivate people who are strongly motivated by money and whose
expectations that they will receive a financial reward are high.
But less confident employees may not respond to incentives, which they do not
expect to achieve. It can also be argued that extrinsic rewards may erode intrinsic
interest - people who work just for money could find their tasks less pleasurable
and may not, therefore, do them so well. What we do know is that a multiplicity of
factors is involved in performance improvements and many of those factors are
interdependent. Money can therefore provide positive motivation in the right
circumstances not only because people need and want money but also because
serves as a highly tangible means of recognition. But badly designed and managed
compensation and reward systems can demotivate.