H8. Theories of Employee Motivation. Industrial and organizational Psychology

Even though these various theories view motivation from different perspectives, they do not necessarily lead to

different predictions about behavior. Portions of some of these theories can be complementary, and efforts have been made to integrate features of some of them. For example, Locke and Latham (1990) combined aspects of expectancy and self-efficacy theories with their goal-setting theory. In the remainder of this chapter, the various motivation theories will be discussed in detail.

Control theory extends goal-setting theory by focusing attention on

feedback toward goal attainment. It suggests that people set goals and then seek information about how well they are progressing toward goal achievement. Discrepancies between expected and actual goal progress will motivate individuals to either reassess and modify their goals or change their behaviors to make better progress.

Reinforcement theory takes a situational view and states that behavior is a

function of a person's reinforcement history. According to this theory, job-relevant behaviors that are rewarded are likely to be repeated in the future.

German action theory describes the action process linking

goals to behavior. The process begins with the desire to achieve something, and that desire is translated into a goal. Plans are generated to achieve the goal, and plan execution involves actions. Feedback occurs in response to actions and can result in modification of the prior steps.

Expectancy theory attempts to explain

how rewards lead to behavior. It states that people will perform well if they believe that their efforts will lead to successful performance, that successful performance will lead to rewards and if they want the rewards.

Job aspects relevant to the animal needs are called

hygiene factors and include pay, supervision, coworkers, and organizational policies.

Most of the theories, however, have focused on

job performance because job performance has been a central variable for the I/O field.

The self-efficacy concept itself is concerned with specific tasks or courses of action, and people vary in their self-efficacy across different tasks. Thus, a student might have high self-efficacy for taking essay tests and low self-efficacy for taking multiple-choice tests. This can explain why

many students complain that they are good at one type of test and not the other. The theory would predict that students exert greater effort when taking the type of test for which their self-efficacy is higher.

Taken together, all this research suggests that high self-efficacy contributes to both effective performance and employee well-being. Self-efficacy theory is a useful theory with implications for the work setting. It suggests that

motivation and performance, and perhaps well-being, can be enhanced by raising the self-efficacy of employees.

Research on need hierarchy theory has

not been very supportive. Locke and Henne (1986) noted that at least part of the difficulty is that Maslow's statement of the theory is rather vague, making it difficult to design good tests of it. Despite its lack of empirical support, need hierarchy theory has had a positive impact on organizations. It continues to be taught to both current and future managers. This helps focus attention on the importance of meeting employees' needs at work.

Valence is the value of an outcome or reward to a person. It is the extent to which a person wants or desires something. In the job setting, money is a frequent reward that can have different valence levels for different people. Instrumentality is the

subjective probability that a given behavior will result in a particular reward. For any given situation, there can be more than one reward or outcome for a behavior. For each possible outcome, a valence and instrumentality are multiplied. Then each valence-instrumentality product is summed into a total, and the total is multiplied by expectancy to produce a force score. If the force score is high, the person will be motivated to achieve the outcomes of the job. If the force score is low, the person will not be motivated to achieve the outcomes.

Important Factors for Goal Setting to Improve Job Performance

1. Goal acceptance by the employee. 2. Feedback on progress toward goals. 3. Difficult and challenging goals. 4. Specific goals.

According to Adams (1965), underpayment inequity induces anger and overpayment inequity induces guilt. In either case, the employee will be motivated to reduce the inequity through several possible mechanisms. Three of these mechanisms are particularly relevant to the organizational setting—

-changing inputs, -changing outcomes, and -withdrawing from the situation. -An employee can change inputs by either increasing or decreasing productivity, depending on whether the inequity is over- or underpayment. -An employee can change outcomes by seeking additional rewards from work. For example, he or she can ask for a raise or file a formal grievance. -Withdrawal can be temporary, as in lateness or absence, both of which can be a means of reducing inputs. It can also be permanent turnover.

Equity theory (Adams, 1965) states that people are motivated to achieve a condition of fairness or equity in their dealings with other people and with organizations. According to Adams (1965), employees who find themselves in inequitable situations will experience

dissatisfaction and emotional tension, which they will be motivated to reduce. The theory specifies conditions under which inequity will occur and what employees are likely to do to reduce it.

Expectancy theory, like reinforcement theory, attempts to relate

environmental rewards to behavior. Unlike reinforcement theory, it is concerned with human cognitive processes that explain why rewards can lead to behavior.

Need Hierarchy Theory Maslow's need hierarchy theory (Maslow, 1943) states that

fulfillment of human needs is necessary for both physical and psychological health.

ACTION THEORY Action theory is a comprehensive German theory of work behavior that describes a process linking

goals and intentions to behaviors (Frese & Zapf, 1994). This theory proposes that work motivation theories should focus mainly on goal-oriented or volitional (voluntary) behaviors called actions. Such actions are the product of a conscious intent to accomplish something, which can be as small as finishing one piece on an assembly line or as large as achieving a promotion at work. The major focus of this theory is on the actions themselves and on the processes leading to actions.

Job aspects relevant to growth needs are called

motivator factors and include achievement, recognition, responsibility, and the nature of the work itself.

These theories can be described along a continuum from distal to proximal (Kanfer, 1992). -Distal motivation theories deal with ...... -Proximal motivation theories deal with .....

-Distal motivation theories deal with processes that are far removed from the behavior. -Proximal motivation theories deal with processes that are close to the behavior. Need theories are distal because they deal with general needs that can be translated into behavior in many ways. Goal-setting theory is more proximal because it deals with goals that lead to specific behaviors, such as a goal by a salesperson to sell a particular amount of product.

Eden and his associates conducted a series of studies in the workplace in which they manipulated self-efficacy to see its effects on job performance. These experimental studies controlled for ability and initial motivation by randomly assigning subjects to have their self-efficacy raised or not by providing information or training. Eden refers to this as the

Galatea effect, in which people's beliefs about their own capabilities lead them to perform better, as in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Eden and Aviram (1993) successfully applied this approach to increase the job search success of unemployed people.

From another perspective, motivation is concerned with the desire to acquire or achieve some goal. That is, motivation derives from

a person's wants, needs, or desires. Some people, for example, are highly motivated to acquire money. It is presumed that a high level of motivation to have money affects the behavior relevant to acquiring it.

Research has also tended to support some of the predictions made from action theory. For example, Sonnentag (1998) studied the cognitive processes underlying the task behavior of high- and average-performing computer software programmers, making some predictions based on action theory. As expected, high performers were

able to understand the problem more quickly so they could move on to the planning stage (step 3 of the action sequence) and to make better use of feedback (step 5). The study of high-performing individuals within an action theory framework can be potentially useful in suggesting ways to train employees to be more effective.

The next step after goals are set is to translate those goals into plans. Plans are specific steps chosen to

accomplish the goals and are specifications of actions and sequences of actions. Next, the plan is executed, and execution involves actions. Finally the person receives feedback either from the environment itself or from other people. This feedback informs the employee about whether progress is being made toward the goal. Positive feedback can help maintain actions that are part of plans, and negative feedback can lead to modification of goals, plans, or actions.

theory also contains personality variables. One of the most important is

action versus state orientation. A person who is action oriented is one who tends to follow the action process. He or she sets goals, formulates plans, and then sticks with them until the goals are achieved. State-oriented people are the opposite. They have difficulty committing to a course of action, are easily distracted, and give up when faced with setbacks (Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994). Research has shown that action-oriented people tend to perform better on the job (Diefendorff, Hall, Lord, & Strean, 2000; Jaramillo, Locander, Spector, & Harris, 2007), perhaps in part due to the fact that state-oriented people have a tendency to procrastinate (Van Eerde, 2000).

Action theory describes the action process linking a hierarchy of cognitions to both actions and feedback from the environment. It begins with

an initial desire to accomplish or have something, and that desire leads to specific goals and objectives to achieve or acquire it. These goals in the workplace are often tied to tasks (similar to tasks in a job analysis) that define the nature of what the individual employee is supposed to accomplish at work.

Although research has shown that goal setting can be effective, some researchers discussed its limitations. Yearta et al. (1995) noted that most goal-setting studies involved single goals, such as increased production in a factory. They showed that with more complex jobs and multiple goals, performance was lower when goals were

difficult.

SELF-EFFICACY THEORY Self-efficacy theory states that motivation and performance are determined in part by how

effective people believe they can be (Bandura, 1982). In other words, people with high self-efficacy believe they are capable of accomplishing tasks and will be motivated to put forth effort. People with low self-efficacy do not believe they are capable of accomplishing tasks and will not be motivated to put forth effort. In a way, this is like a self-fulfilling prophecy in which a person behaves in a manner that fulfills his or her initial belief. Of course, people with high self-efficacy can be effective only if they have the necessary ability and constraints on performance at work are not insurmountable.

Cognitive control theory is also concerned with goals but focuses attention on

feedback toward goal attainment and how discrepancies between goals and the current situation motivate behavior.

In a way, it is an expanded form of both goal-setting and control theories. The American goal-setting theory we discussed above is mainly concerned with how the setting of goals translates into job performance (Farr, Hofmann, & Ringenbach, 1993). Control theory focuses on how feedback concerning goal progress affects behavior. Action theory ....

goes further than each of these theories in examining the cognitive processes that intervene between goals and performance.

According to need theories, people are

motivated to acquire certain categories of things, such as food or recognition. Need hierarchy theory classifies all human needs into a small number of categories, and it presumes that people's behavior is directed toward fulfilling their needs.

Subjective probability means that

people can vary in the certainty of their beliefs. A subjective probability of zero means that the person is certain that he or she is incapable of performing successfully. A subjective probability of 1.0 means that the person is absolutely convinced, without the slightest doubt, that he or she can perform successfully. A subjective probability of. 50 means that the person believes there is a 50/50 chance of success.

Justice theories are quite different from the other theories in that they are concerned with

people's values rather than needs, beliefs, or reinforcements. These theories presume that people universally value fairness in their social relations at work. Situations in which unfairness or inequity exists are presumed to motivate employees to remedy the unfairness.

According to Herzberg, the way to motivate employees and make them satisfied with their jobs is to

provide appropriate levels of motivator factors. Hygiene factors, no matter how favorable, cannot lead to motivation or satisfaction with work.

The theory posits that employees make

psychological comparisons of their own outcome/input ratios to those of other employees. That is, employees psychologically evaluate how much they receive from the job (outcomes) in relation to their contributions (inputs), which is represented as the ratio Outcomes/Inputs

Although the principles of reinforcement theory can be useful, the theory itself has fallen out of favor among most I/O psychologists, as well as psychologists in general. The major reason is probably that

reinforcement theory gives little insight into moti- vational processes (Locke, 1980). It merely describes relations between reinforcement and behavior. In addition, some people object to the idea of using rewards to regulate behavior. They believe that these programs represent an unethical form of manipulation. Many of those who hold this position are assuming that the techniques of reinforcement have more power over people than they actually do. Under the proper circumstances, people will voluntarily work harder for rewards that they want. Reinforcement theory says nothing about whether or not a person will want a reward. This issue is addressed by expectancy theory, which we discuss next.

Evidence has been provided in support of control theory predictions. For example, Donovan and Williams (2003) studied the goals and performance of university track and field athletes during an 8-week season. Before the season, each athlete set goals for the first meet and the entire season. Each week the athletes completed progress reports that included their weekly performance and goals for the following week. They tended to

revise their future goals based on discrepancy between their performance and prior goals, and the amount of goal adjustment was greater for the proximal next week goals than the distal season goals. This showed that feedback did result in adjustment to goals rather than just increased effort toward meeting the goals originally set.

The most important are that employees sometimes focus

so much on the goals that they ignore other equally important aspects of the job and that goals can conflict, so that working on one prevents achieving another. Finally, Drach-Zahavy and Erez (2002) discussed how difficult goals can actually lead to worse performance when stress is high. Putting all this together suggests that difficult goals work best when situations are relatively simple (single goals and simple jobs) and there are low levels of stress.

For any given situation, there can be more than one reward or outcome for a behavior. For each possible outcome, a valence and instrumentality are multiplied. Then each valence-instrumentality product is

summed into a total, and the total is multiplied by expectancy to produce a force score. If the force score is high, the person will be motivated to achieve the outcomes of the job. If the force score is low, the person will not be motivated to achieve the outcomes.

Most researchers consider Herzberg's theory to be invalid (Locke & Henne, 1986). The major problem with the theory is that

the two-factor structure has not been supported by research. Despite shortcomings in the theory, Herzberg has been influential. His work helped focus the field on the important issue of providing meaningful work to people. It led to the application of job enrichment in many organizations. It also was the basis for Hackman and Oldham's (1976) job characteristics theory, which is discussed in Chapters 9 and 10.

The basic idea is that people will be motivated when they believe that

their behavior will lead to rewards or outcomes that they want. If they do not believe that rewards will be contingent on their behavior, they will not be motivated to perform that behavior. If they do not want the contingent rewards, they will not be motivated to perform a behavior.

However, goal strategies that might be effective for one orientation will not necessarily be optimal for the other. Kozlowski and Bell (2006) noted that

there can be an incompatibility between the two orientations in that focusing on performance directs attention away from learning. Most of the research on goal setting has focused on performance and does not necessarily apply to learning goals.

Few people work as hard as Bill Gates did. Furthermore, not everyone works for the challenge as he did. A variety of factors motivate people to work hard. The necessity to make money is certainly one of them, but there are others, which can be tangible, such as an insurance benefit, or intangible, such as a sense of accomplishment. Theories of motivation explain

why people work hard. They also explain other types of work behavior that do not involve job performance. Most of the theories, however, have focused on job performance because job performance has been a central variable for the I/O field.

This chapter discusses job performance in terms of several popular theories, with a focus on

motivation rather than ability. It also covers explanations for other forms of work behavior, such as turnover. The chapter begins by defining motivation in the context of the work environment. It then introduces work motivation theories and provides a brief overview of the nine theories to be covered.

Action theory is a complex cognitive-based theory that sees the individual as

the initiator of action, or the cause of his or her own behavior, unlike reinforcement and other motivation theories, which emphasize how a person responds to the environment.

Two-Factor Theory Herzberg's (1968) two-factor theory states that motivation comes from

the nature of the job itself, not from external rewards or job conditions.

From one perspective, it has to do with the direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior over time.

-Direction refers to the choice of specific behaviors from a large number of possible behaviors. For example, an employee might decide to volunteer for an extra work project that will require him or her to work overtime instead of going home on time and watching television. -Intensity refers to the amount of effort a person expends at doing a task. If an employee is asked to sweep a floor, the person can exert a lot of effort by sweeping hard and fast or exert a little effort by sweeping softly and slowly. -Persistence refers to the continuing engagement in a behavior over time. An employee might try to accomplish something over an extended period of time, such as studying to pass the CPA exam to become a certified public accountant, even though it might take several attempts.

Locke and Henne (1986) noted four ways in which goals affect behavior.

-First, goals direct attention and action to behaviors that the person believes will achieve the goal. A student who has the goal of making an "A" on an exam will engage in studying behavior, such as reading the assigned material and reviewing class notes. -Second, goals mobilize effort in that the person tries harder. The student with the goal of an "A" will concentrate harder to learn the material. -Third, goals increase persistence, resulting in more time spent on the behaviors necessary for goal attainment. The student who wants an "A" will spend more time studying. -Finally, goals can motivate the search for effective strategies to attain them. The conscientious student will attempt to learn effective ways of studying and good test-taking strategies.

Human needs are arranged in a hierarchy that includes physical, social, and psychological needs.

-The lowest level, physiological needs, includes the physical necessities for survival, such as air, food, and water. -The second level consists of safety needs, those things that protect us from danger. This level includes the need for security and shelter. -The third level is the love needs, which include the need for love, affection, and affiliation with others. -The fourth level is esteem needs, which involve self-respect and the respect of others. -Finally, there is self-actualization, which Maslow did not define precisely. It refers to fulfilling personal life goals and reaching one's potential, or as Maslow stated, "the desire to become ... everything that one is capable of becoming" .

There have been many studies relating both distributive and procedural justice perceptions by employees to many organizationally relevant outcomes. Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of these studies and found, as might be expected from equity theory, that both forms of justice are related to job performance, job satisfaction, and intention of quitting the job. Injustice has been shown to be related to

both positive behaviors, such as volunteering to do extra work (Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008), and negative behaviors that harm organizations, such as excessive absence (Jones, 2009). Interestingly Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) found that procedural justice is more important for women, but distributive justice is more important for men. Apparently for women the procedure by which rewards are allocated is more important, but for men the results are what matter most.

Goal-setting theory posits that people's behaviors are directed by

conscious goals and objectives. The theory underscores several factors that are important determinants of how well goal setting can improve job performance. Four are particularly important: goal commitment by employees, feedback about progress toward goals, goal difficulty, and specificity of goals.

Although these various theories view motivation from different perspectives, they are not necessarily incompatible, and in fact elements of various theories have been inte- grated. Locke and Latham (1990) discussed

consistencies between features of expectancy theory, self-efficacy theory, and goal-setting theory. In particular, they saw self-efficacy as an important ingredient in goal commitment. A person with low self-efficacy concerning the achievement of a goal is not likely to become committed to that goal.

This rather simple idea that behavior increases if it is rewarded is the basis of incentive systems, such as piece rates for factory workers and commissions for salespeople. With incentive systems, rewards are contingent on individual units of productivity, such as attaching the door of a refrigerator or selling an automobile. For jobs with countable output, it can be relatively easy to institute incentive systems. For other jobs, there can be specific, measurable performance-relevant behaviors that can be quantified. For example, telephone operators can be rewarded for answering the phone within a specified number of rings. With many jobs, however, it is

not feasible to develop incentive systems as discussed here. For example, it would be quite difficult to design a piece-rate system for public school teachers. Good performance for a teacher is not easy to divide into individual units of productivity or individual behaviors that can be rewarded.

Another distinction from equity theory is that fairness theory doesn't assume that perceptions of injustice necessarily come from a social comparison with others. Rather, it suggests that

people perceive injustice when something negative happens and they perceive it to have been done purposefully by another person in an unfair way. For example, suppose a company fails to give employees an annual raise. This would be a negative event which employees will see as unfair if they perceive that management has withheld the raise purposefully and that the basis for doing so is unreasonable. If the company has announced financial problems, employees might see this as beyond manage- ment's control and might not perceive the situation as unfair. However, if management fails to provide a convincing explanation, employees will likely feel the situation is unfair.

Similar results with self-efficacy have been found in other training studies. Mathieu, Martineau, and Tannenbaum (1993) found that self-efficacy assessed before a bowling class was related to students' subsequent performance at the end of class. Locke and Latham (1990) conducted a meta-analysis of 13 studies relating self-efficacy to performance in both laboratory and field settings. They found a mean correlation of. 39, with correlations as high as .74. Whereas at least some of the observed relation between people's self-efficacy and their performance can be attributed to motivational effects of self-efficacy, some of the relation might also be due to the effects of

successful performance on self-efficacy. W. D. Davis, Fedor, Parsons, and Herold (2000) studied self-efficacy in aircraft pilot training. Those students who performed well in simulation training developed high self-efficacy for actual subsequent flying. In the McIntire and Levine (1991) study, course grade related to self-efficacy at the end of the class but not the beginning, suggesting that students who achieved better grades enhanced their self-efficacy. Karl, O'Leary-Kelly, and Martocchio (1993) found that positive feedback on a speed reading task raised the self-efficacy of people who were initially low in self-efficacy.

The major tenet of reinforcement theory is

the law of effect (Thorndike, 1913). This states that the probability of a particular behavior increases if it is followed by a reward or reinforcement. Conversely, the probability of a behavior decreases if it is followed by a punishment. Behaviors become established through the pairing or associating of behavior with reinforcement. In other words, rewards are contingent on a particular behavior occurring. In a job context, this means that performance-relevant behaviors will increase in frequency if they are rewarded.

Two-factor theory says that various aspects of work address one of two categories of need. One category concerns

the nature of the job itself, and the other concerns rewards such as pay.

CONTROL THEORY Control theory (Klein, 1989) builds upon goal-setting theory by focusing on how feed- back affects motivation to maintain effort toward goals. The process explained by the theory begins with

a goal that the person is intending to accomplish. The goal might be assigned by a supervisor or chosen by the individual, but the theory says that the person must believe the goal is attainable and accept it. Over time, as the person works toward the goal, feedback about performance will be given. The person will evaluate the feedback by comparing current goal progress to some internal standard or expected progress. If progress is insufficient, the person will be motivated to take action, which might include goal reevaluation and modification or adoption of different strategies to improve performance. This might be simply exerting more effort (working harder) or adopting new approaches that might be more effective (working smarter).

CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter discussed nine theories that consider motivation from very different perspectives. The two need theories—need hierarchy and two-factor—view motivation as

arising from internal needs. Need hierarchy theory classifies human needs into five categories. Needs are rather broad, and the theory's predictions are imprecise, as it cannot identify very well what specific behaviors are likely to arise. A person with a high level of achievement need, for example, might work hard on the job to achieve success. On the other hand, he or she might direct most of his or her efforts to achievement outside of work. Two-factor theory states that motivation comes from two categories of needs that are addressed by work.

According to the theory, a goal is what a person consciously wants to attain or achieve. Goals can be specific, such as "receive an 'A' on the next exam," or general, such as "do well in school." General goals such as doing well in school are often associated with a number of more specific goals such as receiving an "A" in a particular course. People can vary in their goal orientation —that is, in whether they focus their efforts on...

-learning (learning orientation) or -on achieving certain levels of job performance (performance orientation). A person with a learning orientation is primarily concerned with enhancing knowledge and skill, whereas a person with a performance orientation focuses efforts on enhancing performance on specific job tasks (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).

Goal-setting theory predicts that people will exert effort toward accomplishing their goals and that job performance is a function of the goals set. From an organizational standpoint, goal setting can be an effective means of maintaining or increasing job per- formance, and many organizations have used goal setting to do so. According to Locke (2000), several factors are necessary for goal setting to be effective in improving job per- formance (Table 8.2).

-First, employees must have goal commitment , which means that they accept the goal. An organizational goal is not necessarily an individual employee goal, and only goals of the individual person will motivate behavior. -Second, feedback is necessary because it allows people to know whether or not their behavior is moving them toward or away from their goals. It is difficult for goals to direct behavior unless the person receives feedback. -Third, the more difficult the goal, the better the performance is likely to be. A goal of a 4.0 GPA is likely to result in better performance than a goal of 3.5, which is likely to result in better performance than a goal of 3.0. Although people will not always reach their goals, the harder the goal, the better the performance, at least until the point at which the person is working at the limit of his or her capacity. -Fourth, specific hard goals are more effective than vague "do your best" goals. Vague goals can be effective, but specific goals that allow the person to know when they are met are best. -Finally, self-set goals are usually better than organizationally assigned goals. It is gener- ally best to either allow employees to set their own goals or at least allow them input into setting goals rather than having supervisors assign goals without employee involvement. This leads to better goal acceptance, which is necessary for goals to be effective.

WHAT IS MOTIVATION? Motivation is generally defined as an internal state that induces a person to engage in particular behaviors. -From one perspective, it has to do with ..... -From another perspective, motivation is concerned with ...

-From one perspective, it has to do with the direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior over time. Direction refers to the choice of specific behaviors from a large number of possible behaviors. -From another perspective, motivation is concerned with the desire to acquire or achieve some goal.

The theories covered in this chapter view employee motivation from very different perspectives.

-Need theories Need hierarchy theory Two-factor theory -Reinforcement theory -Expectancy theory -Self-efficacy theory -Justice theories -Goal-setting theory -Cognitive control theory -Action theory

The theory points out that there is an important distinction between

-external tasks and -internal tasks. An external task is assigned by the organization to the employee, whereas an internal task is chosen by the employee himself or herself. An important element is the redefinition process whereby the employee translates an external task into an internal one. In other words, the employee changes the assigned task to suit himself or herself.

Recent research on fairness in the workplace has replaced equity theory with the somewhat different perspective of fairness theory (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). Rather than focusing on the fair allocation or distribution of rewards, fairness theory distinguishes between

-the distribution of rewards and -the procedures by which rewards are allocated. -Distributive justice is similar to equity and concerns the fairness with which rewards are found among people. -Procedural justice is concerned with the fairness of the reward distribution process as opposed to the results of that distribution.

The human needs that work addresses are divided into two categories—

-those deriving from the animal nature of human beings, such as the physiological needs, and -those relating to the higher-level, uniquely human ability for psychological growth. Job aspects relevant to the animal needs are called hygiene factors and include pay, supervision, coworkers, and organizational policies. Job aspects relevant to growth needs are called motivator factors and include achievement, recognition, responsibility, and the nature of the work itself. According to Herzberg, the way to motivate employees and make them satisfied with their jobs is to provide appropriate levels of motivator factors. Hygiene factors, no matter how favorable, cannot lead to motivation or satisfaction with work.

Several somewhat different versions of expectancy theory have been adapted to the I/O domain. The oldest and most well known is Vroom's (1964) theory that motivation or force is a mathematical function of three types of cognitions. The equation relating force to cognitions is

Force = Expectancy × (Valences × Instrumentalities) In this equation, force represents the amount of motivation a person has to engage in a particular behavior or sequence of behaviors that is relevant to job performance. It could be thought of as the motivation to perform. Expectancy is the subjective probability that a person has about his or her ability to perform a behavior. It is similar to selfesteem or self-confidence in that a person believes he or she can perform the job at a particular level. Subjective probability means that people can vary in the certainty of their beliefs. A subjective probability of zero means that the person is certain that he or she is incapable of performing successfully. A subjective probability of 1.0 means that the person is absolutely convinced, without the slightest doubt, that he or she can perform successfully. A subjective probability of. 50 means that the person believes there is a 50/50 chance of success.

Outcomes are ...... Inputs are ......

Outcomes are the rewards or everything of personal value that an employee gets from working for an organization, including pay, fringe benefits, good treatment, enjoyment, and status. Inputs are the contributions made by the employee to the organization. They include not only the work that the employee accomplishes but the experience and talents that he or she brings to the job as well. Thus an employee with many years of job experience would have greater inputs than an employee just starting out in a career.

Expectancy theory can also predict a person's choice of behavior from two or more options.

Suppose that you have a dinner date, and you must choose between working overtime and going on the date. For each possible course of action, there will be an expectancy, valences, and instrumentalities. Thus there will be a force to work overtime and a force to go on the date. The course of action with the greater force is the one in theory that you will take.

In most situations, more than one outcome is possible, so that the situation is more complex because the valence-instrumentality for each outcome is combined. The way this works is best illustrated with an example.

Suppose you are at work on a Friday afternoon and your boss asks for a volunteer to work overtime for extra pay. You find your job rather boring and view the prospect of working extra hours as somewhat aversive. In this case, there are two outcomes —receiving extra money and enduring several hours of boredom. If you believe that you are capable of working overtime, your expectancy will be high. Assuming that you believe both that you will get the overtime pay and that you will be bored, both instrumentalities will be high. The final factor that determines your motivation to work overtime will be the relative valences of the two outcomes. If the positive valence or desire for money is greater than the negative valence or desire to avoid the boredom, then you will be motivated to volunteer. If the positive valence for money is less than the negative valence for boredom, then you will be motivated to avoid volunteering.

Research has shown that rewards can be effective in enhancing job performance. Stajkovic and Luthans (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 72 studies of the effects of rewards, both monetary and nonmonetary, on job performance. They found that on average reward systems result in

a 16% increase in performance, but monetary rewards have a bigger impact on performance (23%) than nonmonetary rewards. Although rewards can enhance job performance under some conditions, such conditions do not always exist in organizations (Coch & French, 1948). Additional influences by other employees, constraints in the environment (e.g., inadequate equipment), and the indifference of individuals to particular rewards can result in the failure of incentive systems.

Many organizations have applied reinforcement theory principles to influence the behavior of employees. These efforts have involved not only job performance but other behaviors as well. The control of employee absence, for example, has been the focus of reinforcement programs. Some organizations allow employees a certain number of sick leave days in a year. To encourage attendance,

employees are paid for the sick leave days they do not use. Other organizations reward each employee who meets a criterion of attendance for a given period of time (e.g., no absences in a month). A rather unusual absence control program was a lottery system studied by Pedalino and Gamboa (1974). With this system, all employees present at work each day were allowed to draw a card from a standard deck of playing cards. At the end of a week, each employee with perfect attendance had a five-card poker hand. The eight employees with the best poker hands won a prize of $20. This system was found to reduce absence frequency by about 18%.

According to Maslow, a need must be unmet to be motivating, and people are motivated by the lowest-level need that is unmet at the moment. That is, if two levels of needs are unmet, the lower-level need will dominate. Thus a hungry person would not be concerned with danger and might risk stealing food even though the punishment for theft is severe. A person with unmet safety needs would not be concerned with going to a party and having a good time with friends. Maslow recognized, however, that there can be

exceptions to the hierarchy and that some individuals can find certain higher-order needs to be more important than lower-level ones. Furthermore, many individuals in Western society have the first four needs met and may never have experienced depri- vations of one or more of them, especially food. Therefore, the basic needs are not motivating.

Self-efficacy is much like the concept of expectancy. The major difference is that

expectancy is concerned with a specific activity at a particular point in time, whereas self- efficacy is concerned with the general feeling that a person is or is not capable in some domain of life, such as playing tennis. For example, a person might have a high level of expectancy that if he or she makes the effort, he or she can win a tennis game. A high level of self-efficacy is the belief that one is a good player. Obviously, these two concepts are closely related, for the person with high self-efficacy should have a high expectancy, but they are not the same. The person who believes he or she is good at tennis might not be confident about winning if he or she is playing one of the best professional players in the world. Self-efficacy theory and expectancy theory are compatible in predicting that people will do well at tasks when they believe they can succeed. Expectancy theory also considers the influence of rewards on motivation, a subject that is not addressed by self-efficacy theory.

Action theory has also proven useful in the design of an organizational intervention intended to enhance employee motivation. Raabe, Frese, and Beehr (2007) designed an intervention that was used in a German company to increase the extent to which employees enhanced their job skills and managed their own careers. Whereas a goal theory-based intervention would have focused only on goals, this action theory approach focused on

helping employees devise plans that would enable them to meet goals. Raabe et al. found that this intervention was successful in increasing goal attainment.

Self-efficacy theory is concerned with

how people's beliefs about their own capabilities can affect their behavior. According to this theory, motivation to attempt a task is related to whether or not the person believes he or she is capable of successfully accomplishing the task.

EXPECTANCY THEORY Expectancy theory attempts to explain

how rewards lead to behavior by focusing on internal cognitive states that lead to motivation. Reinforcement theory states that reinforcement will lead to behavior; expectancy theory explains when and why this will occur.

REINFORCEMENT THEORY Reinforcement theory describes

how rewards or reinforcements can affect behavior. The theory does not deal with internal states such as motivation, so in a sense it is a nonmotivational theory. It explains behavior as a function of prior reward experiences or "reinforcement history." Behavior is seen as a response to the environment.

Doerr, Mitchell, Klastorin, and Brown (1996) showed that group goals were better than individual goals for

increasing speed of production in a fish-processing plant (see the Research in Detail box). Ambrose and Kulik (1999) listed several drawbacks of goal setting.

Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of expectancy theory studies that looked not only at predictions of job performance but at effort and preferences as well. Although the study showed that the force score related to measures of job performance as expected, it related more strongly to measures of effort. Similarly, the force score related more strongly to an individual's preference for something other than their actual choice—for example, wanting to quit a job versus actually quitting. These findings demonstrate that

motivation is only one element in the processes that lead to behavior at work. A person might be motivated to work harder, but this doesn't necessarily produce better job performance. Having a preference for something is not the same as making an actual choice, for other factors can be important, such as not being able to find another job when you want to quit your present one.

JUSTICE THEORIES A different approach to motivation is provided by justice theories, which focus on

norms for fair treatment of employees by their organizations. The underlying assumption of these theories is that people value fairness and that they are motivated to maintain fairness in relationships between themselves and organizations.

Although in many cases it might be expected that procedural justice would lead to distributive justice, this is

not always the case. For example, past reward poli- cies may have created a situation in which some people are paid more than others for similar inputs, a case that represents distributive injustice. A new procedure that gives the underpaid a small salary adjustment each year to make up for it might be seen as procedural justice, even though it might take years to make up the difference.

Justice theories state that

people value fair and equitable treatment by their organizations. Equity theory states that people compare themselves to others on the ratio of outcomes to inputs at work, and discrepancies in ratios can motivate people to take action. This might include changing the level of contribution to the organization, changing the rewards obtained from work, or quitting. More-modern justice theories focus on both the distribution of rewards (distributive justice) and the fairness of procedures by which rewards are allocated among people (procedural justice).

Self-efficacy theory states that

people's beliefs about their own capabilities are an important component of motivation. A person who believes that he or she is incapable of performing on the job is not likely even to try. A high level of self-efficacy or belief in one's own capability is a necessary component in work motivation and subsequent job performance.

Goal-setting theory explains how

people's goals and intentions can result in behavior. Like need theories, it notes that motivation begins inside the person, but it also shows how environmental influences can shape motivation and behavior.

WORK MOTIVATION THEORIES Work motivation theories are most typically concerned with the reasons, other than ability, that some people perform their jobs better than others. Depending on the situation, these theories can

predict people's choice of task behavior, their effort, or their persistence. Presuming that people have the necessary ability and that constraints on performance are relatively low, high levels of motivation should lead to good job performance.

Inequity is a psychological state that arises from employees' comparisons of themselves with others. What is specifically compared are

ratios of outcomes to inputs.

NEED THEORIES The two need theories discussed here view motivation as deriving from people's desires for certain things. It is implied that needs can differ both within the same person over time and across different people. Need theories were quite popular in the psychological literature at one time. In recent years, I/O researchers have turned their attention to more cognitively oriented theories, such as the control, goal-setting, and self-efficacy theories. Perhaps the major reason for the declining interest in need theories is that

research on needs has failed to find strong relations with job performance, possibly because needs are distal constructs that are far removed from job performance. That is, the rather general needs in these theories can be satisfied in many ways and with many different behaviors. Thus, a particular need is not likely to be strongly associated with any particular behavior. A per- son who has a high need to accomplish challenging tasks, for example, can fulfill that need either on or off the job. Nevertheless, need theories have contributed to our understanding of work motivation by showing how people can vary in the rewards they want out of work.

Reinforcement theory views behavior as the result of

rewards or reinforcements. As opposed to need theories, reinforcement theory describes motivation as the result of environmental influences rather than internally generated motives.

Bandura (1982) discussed how self-efficacy can develop through a series of successes with increasingly difficult tasks. An organization can apply this principle by

structuring the assignments of employees in such a way that they succeed at increasingly challenging tasks. This strategy can be particularly important with new employees, who may take some period of time to become adept at all aspects of the job. Relatively simple assignments can be given to new employees, with more difficult tasks introduced slowly to allow the person to experience few, if any, failures. As the person experiences success on more and more difficult tasks, his or her self-efficacy should increase. Karl et al. (1993) suggested using this approach in training programs. Morin and Latham (2000) showed that training can successfully raise self-efficacy (see the International Research box).

Each employee compares his or her ratio to the ratios of people chosen for comparison. These comparison people or others might be employees doing the same job inside or outside the organization. They might also be people who have different types of jobs. The comparison involves

the entire ratio and not the individual outcomes or inputs. Thus a person may believe a situation is equitable even though his or her outcomes are less than inputs. It is only when the employee believes that his or her ratio is different from other people's that inequity exists. This difference can be in either direction. That is, an employee can experience underpayment inequity if he or she believes that other people get more outcomes for their inputs. Overpayment inequity exists when an employee believes he or she is getting more outcomes for his or her inputs than other people are getting.

There has been research support for the predictions of expectancy theory. Studies have shown that performance is related to

the individual components of expectancy theory, as well as to the multiplicative combination (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). In the typical study, a sample of employees is surveyed and asked to indicate their expectancies that they can perform the job, as well as their valences and instrumentalities for each of a number of possible outcomes. In addition, supervisors are asked to provide job performance ratings for each employee. The total force score is then correlated with performance.

GOAL-SETTING THEORY The theory of motivation that has been

the most useful for I/O psychologists is goal- setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990). Principles of goal setting have been widely used in organizations, although this is not necessarily based on the theory. For example, Yearta, Maitlis, and Briner (1995) noted that 79% of British organizations use some form of goal setting. Various goal-setting programs have been widely used throughout the industrialized world.

The theory of self-efficacy has been well tested, and research has been quite supportive inside and outside of the workplace (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Studies in the training domain have shown that self-efficacy for particular tasks relates to performance in training on those tasks. For example, McIntire and Levine (1991) conducted a longitudinal study of self-efficacy and performance among students taking college-level typing courses. They assessed self-efficacy before the course began and at the end of the course. They also assessed the number of words per minute typed and the grade at the end of the course. Finally, each student was asked to set a goal for the number of words per minute he or she would be able to type by the end of the course. The results were that self-efficacy before the class predicted....

the number of words per minute typed at the end of the course but not the grade in the course. Self-efficacy was also related to the goal set, with greater self-efficacy associated with setting a higher goal. These results suggest that self-efficacy can be a factor in future performance. The results with goals suggest that self-efficacy might operate through the setting of goals, so that students with high self-efficacy set harder goals, which results in better performance. Goal setting is discussed in detail later in this chapter.

Rewards can be tangible (money) or intangible (praise). They can be given by

the organization or be a by-product of tasks themselves. Thus the organization can provide a bonus for good performance, or good performance can provide a sense of accomplishment by itself. Both can be equally reinforcing and lead to continued good performance.

There has been good research support for the expected underpayment effect of lowered performance but not

the overpayment effect of raised performance (Bolino & Turnley, 2008). A study conducted by Greenberg (1990) showed that a pay cut was associated with increased stealing by factory workers. Greenberg argued in equity theory terms that employees who experienced inequity because of the pay cut increased their outcomes by stealing. In an Australian study, Iverson and Roy (1994) found that employee perceptions of inequity correlated with their intentions to quit the job and with job search behavior. Both of these variables have been found to predict turnover.

Expectancy is

the subjective probability that a person has about his or her ability to perform a behavior. It is similar to selfesteem or self-confidence in that a person believes he or she can perform the job at a particular level.

The basic idea of this theory is that people's behavior is motivated by their internal intentions, objectives, or goals —the terms are used here interchangeably. Goals are quite "proximal" constructs, for they can be

tied quite closely to specific behaviors. For example, a salesperson might have the goal of selling a certain amount of product in a given month. Because goals can be tied closely to particular behaviors relevant for performance, goal-setting theory has been strongly tied to behavior.

Action theory was developed in Germany to explain

volitional (self-motivated and voluntary) behavior at work. It is another cognitive theory that explains how goals are translated into behaviors that persist until the person reaches his or her objective.