Contemporary Theories

of Motivation

Gonzalo Campuzano
Enrique Flores
 OUTLINE
 Introduction
 Early Theories of Motivation (Overview)
 Goal Setting Theory
 MBO Programs
 Equity Theory
 Expectancy Theory
 Integrating Contemporary Theories of Motivation
 References
 Questions & Answers
55% of U.S. employees have
no enthusiasm for their job.

As cited in D. Jones, “Firms spend Billions to Fire Up Workers – With Little Luck”,
USA Today, May 10, 2001
 INTRODUCTION
 Motivation is the result of the interaction of the
individual and the situation.
 Individuals differ in their basic motivational drive.
 i.e. Texbook Vs. Novel
 The level of motivation varies both between
individuals and within individuals at different
times.
 Motivation: “The process that account for an
individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence
of effort toward attaining a goal.” [1]
 EARLY THEORIES
OF MOTIVATION
 1950’s:
 Hierarchy of needs theory
 Theories X and Y
 The two-factor theory.
 They represent a foundation from which
contemporary theories have grown.
 Practicing managers still regularly use this
theories and their terminology in explaining
employee motivation.
 Contemporary way of thinking
 GOAL-SETTING THEORY
 Goals tell an employee what needs to be done
and how much effort will need to be expended.
 In order to increase performance:
 Set specific goals.
 Difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher
performance than does easy goals.
 Provide feedback.
 An individual is committed to the goal when he
believes he can achieve the goal, and wants to
achieve it.
 MBO PROGRAMS:
Putting Goal-Setting T. Into Practice
 Converting overall organizational objectives into specific
objectives for organizational units and individual
members.

 Four ingredients common to MBO programs:

 Goal specification.
 Participation in decision making.
 An explicit time period.
 Performance feedback.

 Failures may come from:

 Unrealistic expectations regarding results.
 Lack of commitment by top management.
 Cultural incompatibilities.
 Fujitsu
 EQUITY THEORY
 Employees make comparison of their job inputs and
outcomes relative to those of others:

 When employees perceive inequity, the can:

 Change their inputs.
 Change their outcomes.
 Distort perceptions of self.
 Distort perception of others.
 Choose a different referent
 Leave the field
 EQUITY THEORY
 Given payment by time:
 Overrewarded employees will produce more than will
equitably paid employees.
 Underrewarded employees will produce less or poorer
quality of output.
 Given payment by quantity of production:
 Overrewarded employees will produce fewer, but
higher-quality, units than will equitably paid
employees.
 Underrewarded employees will produce a large
number of low-quality units in comparison with
equitably paid employees.
 EQUITY THEORY:
Conclusions
 Motivation is influenced significantly by others’ rewards
as well as by one’s own rewards.
 Inequities created by overpayment do not seem to have
a very significant impact on behaviour.
 Most research has focused on pay, but employees seem
to look for equity in the distribution of other rewards.
 Historically, equity theory focused on distributive justice.
But increasingly equity is thought of from the standpoint
of organizational justice.
 Managers should consider openly sharing information on
how allocation decisions are made, following consistent
and unbiased procedures.
 EXPECTANCY THEORY
 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 the outcome to
the individual.
1 2 3
I n d iv u d u a l I n d iv id u a l O r g a n iz a t io n a l P e rso n a l
E ffo rt P e rfo rm a n c e R e w a rd s G o a ls

 The theory focuses on three relationships:

 1. Effort-performance.
 2. Performance-reward.
 3. Rewards-personal goals.
 EXPECTANCY THEORY
 Giving maximum effort not always means being
recognized.
 Good performance appraisal not always leads to
organizational rewards.
 Rewards are not always found attractive by
employees:
 Managers limited in the rewards they can distribute.
 Managers incorrectly assume that all employees want
the same.
 EXPECTANCY THEORY:
Conclusions

 The key is the understanding of an individual’s

goal and the linkage between the three
relationships.

 There is no universal principle for explaining

everyone’s motivations.
INTEGRATING CONTEMPORARY
THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
 Many theories are complementary.
 Its basic foundation is the expectancy model.
J o b D e s ig n

H i g h A c h ie v e m e n t
Need
E q u i t y C o m p a r is o n /
O r g a n iz a t i o n a l J u s t ic e
O O
:
IA IB

P e rfo rm a n c e
O p p o r t u n it y A b i l it y E v a lu a t i o n
C r it e r ia

In d i v i d u a l O r g a n i z a t io n a l P e rs o n a l
In d iv u d u a l E f f o r t
P e rfo rm a n c e R e w a rd s G o a ls

O b je c t iv e D o m in a n t
P e rfo rm a n c e Needs
E v a lu a t i o n R e in f o r c e m e n t
S y s te m

G o a ls D ir e c t B e h a v io r
 J o b D e s ig n

H ig h A c h i e v e m e n t
Need
E q u it y C o m p a r is o n /
O r g a n iz a t i o n a l J u s t i c e
O O
:
I A IB

P e r fo r m a n c e
O p p o r t u n it y A b il it y E v a lu a t io n
C r it e r i a

In d iv i d u a l O r g a n iz a t i o n a l P e rs o n a l
In d i v u d u a l E f f o r t
P e r fo rm a n c e R e w a rd s G o a ls

O b je c t iv e
D o m in a n t
P e rfo rm a n c e
R e in f o r c e m e n t Needs
E v a l u a t io n
S y s te m

G o a l s D ir e c t B e h a v i o r
 REFERENCES
Robbins and Judge, “Organizational Behavior”, 12th Edition, Pearson
Prentice Hall, 2007.

D. Jones, “Firms spend Billions to Fire Up Workers – With Little Luck”, USA
Today, May 10, 2001

[1] T.R. Mitchell, “Matching Motivational Strategies with Organizational

Contexts”, Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 19, pp 60-62

P.C. Early, P. Wojnaroski, and W. Prest, “Task Planning and Energy

Expended: Explorations of How Goals Influence Performance”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Feb 1987.

J. Greenberg and S. Ornstein, “High Status Job Title as Compensation for

Underpayment: A Test of Equity Theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
May 1983.
Questions & Answers