Paper: 13, Organization Behaviour

Module: 18, Motivation: Process theories

Prof. S P Bansal
Principal Investigator Vice Chancellor
Maharaja Agrasen University, Baddi

Prof YoginderVerma
Co-Principal Investigator Pro–Vice Chancellor
Central University of Himachal Pradesh. Kangra. H.P.

Prof. A.K Saihjpal

Paper Coordinator

Dr. Pooja Mehta

Content Writer Department of Management
I.K.G. Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala, Punjab
 Items Description of Module
Subject Name Management
Paper Name Organization Behaviour
Module Title Motivation-Process Theories
Module Id Module no.-18
Pre- Requisites Basic knowledge of concept of motivation and content theories of motivation
Objectives To study process theories of Motivation
Keywords Motivation, process theories of motivation

QUADRANT-I

Module 18:Motivation: Process theories

1. Learning Outcome
2. Introduction
3. Classification of process theories of Motivation
4. Expectancy theory
5. Equity theory
6. Porter and Lawler’s performance-satisfaction model
7. Goal setting theory
8. Summary

1. Learning Outcome:
After completing this module the students will be able to:
 Understand the meaning of process theories of motivation.
 Describe the classification of process theories.
 Critically evaluate various process theories of motivation
 2. Introduction
Content theories of motivation focus more on the relevance of intrinsic needs in the process of
motivation. Various researchers like Maslow, Alderfer, Herzberg and McClelland pointed out the
reality of human needs and their role in activating and energising the human behaviour. But,
sadly all content theories treated all employees alike, all situations alike and assumed that there is
only one best way to motivate the employees. The content theories did not take into
consideration individual differences and hence, uniqueness of individual needs. In recent years, a
different approach to understand the concept of motivation has emerged out. This approach
constitutes process theories of motivation which view motivation as an individual’s decision to
act in a particular manner. Process theories of motivation try to identify the variables that
influence an individual’s level of motivation and relationship between such variables.

3. Classification of Process theories of motivation

There are four process theories namely:
 Expectancy theory
 Equity theory
 Performance-satisfaction model
 Goal setting theory

4. Expectancy theory
The expectancy model of motivation was propounded by Victor H. Vroom. This theory is
classified as process theory because the theory attempts to identify the relationship between the
variables which affect individual behaviour. Vroom’s expectancy model established that
motivation of an individual depends upon the strength of his expectation that a certain act will lead
to a desirable outcome and the degree to which that outcome is preferred by that individual. Major
contribution of this theory in the concept of motivation can be described in terms of identification
of various forces that motivate an individual to perform on the job. There are three variables which
are explained by the expectancy model: Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality. This model
postulates that motivation is multiplier of all of these three variables. Therefore, in order to
motivate an individual, all of these three variables must have positive value. If any one of these
three variables becomes zero, motivation will also be zero.
The three variables are explained as follows:
a) Valence: It refers to attraction of the outcome to an individual. Valence is the strength of an
individual’s preference for a particular outcome or reward. Valence is a subjective phenomenon
and therefore it varies from person to person. Value of valence ranges between -1 to +1. If an
individual prefer to achieve some outcome, valence in that case will be positive. If an
individual does not prefer to achieve certain outcome, in that case valence will be negative and
valence will be zero if an individual expresses indifferent attitude towards achieving the
outcome. Therefore, it can be said that in order to motivate an individual for certain outcome,
valence of the reward associated with the outcome must be positive for that individual.

b) Expectancy: Expectancy is also called effort-performance probability. It refers to the extent an

individual believes that certain level of efforts made by him will lead to the achievement of
desired level of outcome or completion of the task. Expectancy is the probability that a
particular amount of effort will lead to desired level of performance (first level outcome). Since
it is a probability, its value will vary from 0 to 1. If an individual believes that probability of
achieving the desired level of performance is zero i.e if an individual feels that he will not be
able to achieve certain level of performance no matter how hard he works, he will not even try
to put efforts. On the other hand, if a person believes that probability of achieving the desired
level of performance is positive, he will try harder to achieve the desired outcome.
For example, a sales agent who has been assigned a task of selling 100 units of cell phones in a
month will put more efforts to achieve desired level of performance if he believes that he will
be able to sell 100 cell phones in a month. But, if he believes that it is impossible to sell 100
mobile phones in a month irrespective of the level of efforts he put in the desired direction, he
will not try to complete the task.

c) Instrumentality: It is also called performance-reward probability. Instrumentality is the

expectation of an individual that his performance will lead to desired reward associated with
the performance. It is probability that first level outcome (performance) will lead to the second
level outcome (reward). The instrumentality also varies from 0 to 1. Instrumentality will be
positive, if an individual believes that after achieving desired level of performance, he will get
 rewards associated with it. Whereas, instrumentality will be zero if a person believes that
desired level of performance will not lead to desired rewards.

As per the Vroom’s expectancy model:

Motivation=Valence*Expectancy*Instrumentality

This relationship explains that motivation level of an individual will be higher if all of these three
elements are higher and motivation level will be decreased if any of these elements will be
lower. This model can help the management to determine the behaviour of employees and take
necessary steps to modify the same.

Vroom’s expectancy model is described in the following figure:

Instrumentality

Second level
First level outcomes
outcomes

Expectancy Outcome 1A
Outcome 1

Outcome 1B

Motivational
Force
Outcome 2A

Outcome 2

Outcome 2B

Source: Aswathappa, K., “Organisational Behaviour”, Himalaya Publishing House, pp. 218.
 Critical analysis of Vroom’s Expectancy Model:

Vroom’s expectancy model was appreciated on the following grounds:

a) This model is very useful in understanding organisational behaviour. The model explains how
individual’s behaviour is influenced by his goals.
b) This is a cognitive theory which assumes that human beings are rational. They can anticipate
their goal achievement and amount of efforts required to achieve the goals.
c) This theory says that motivation is not just about the satisfied and unsatisfied needs of
individuals. Efforts made by an individual can result in achievement of desirable rewards
which in turn will improve the motivation.
Despite of the above mentioned advantages, the model was criticised because:
a) This theory is very complex and hence difficult to practice.
b) The theory assumes the human being to be rational who makes all decisions consciously. But,
in reality so many decisions are taken without conscious thoughts.
c) Managers don’t have enough time implement such a complex model on the job.

5. Equity theory of Motivation

Equity theory proposed by J. Stacey Adam is the most popular and developed version of equity. It
is based on the simple assumption that all individuals expect to be treated fairly. According to this
theory, equity is the perception of employees that we are treated equally as compared to others and
inequity is the perception of employees that we are treated unfairly as compared to others.
Employees assess what they get from the job (salary) against the inputs (experience, education)
they put into the job. They compare their outcome-input ratio with outcome-input ratio of other
relevant individuals. If individuals perceive their ratio to be equal to the ratio of others i.e. if they
feel that they are getting salary equal to others, state of equity exists. But, if an individual perceives
his ratio to be unequal i.e. if they feel that they are overpaid or underpaid, state of inequity prevails.
See the following equations to understand such comparisons:

𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒
(i) 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙′ 𝑠 = 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 ′ 𝑠 State of equity
𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡

𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒
(ii) 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙′ 𝑠 > 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 ′ 𝑠 State of inequity due to overpaid
𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡
 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒
(iii) 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙′ 𝑠 < 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 ′ 𝑠 State of inequity due to underpaid
𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡

As given in the above equations a feeling of equity prevails when output/input ratio of the
individual is equal to the output/input ratio of others to assess the state of equity or inequity. The
theory suggests that there are four possible comparisons which an employee makes with others.
These comparisons are discussed as below:

(i) Self-Inside: When an employee compares himself with his own previous experiences at some
different position in his current organisation.
(ii) Self-outside: When an employee compares himself with his own previous experiences at some
different position outside his current organisation.
(iii) Other-Inside: When an employee compares himself with another individual inside his current
organisation.
(iv) Other-Outside: When an employee compares himself with another individual outside his
current organisation.

People have the natural tendency to compare themselves with their friends, relatives and
colleagues working in the other organisations or they may compare their present jobs with their
own past jobs. Which person an employee will select for comparison depends upon the type of
information employee has about the referent and the attractiveness of the referent.

The theory postulates that when an individual perceives the feeling of inequity, he will be
motivated to reduce it. Not only those who experience inequity feel motivated to reduce it, but
even those who experience equity will be motivated to maintain it. In order to reduce the feeling of
equity, an individual may choose the following alternatives:

a) Change input: A person can change the level of inputs he is putting in his job depending upon
the feeling of equity or inequity.
b) Change outcome: A person may request the management to increase his outcomes if he feels
it inequitable.
c) Change the perception of self: Instead of altering the inputs or outcomes, individuals may
change their perception about themselves. If they are overpaid, they can feel as if they are paid
more because their tasks and assignments are more challenging.
 d) Change the perception about others: In order to reduce the feeling of inequity, people can
change their perception about others. For example: if a person feels that he is getting more
salary than others, he may start thinking like the other person’s job is not contributing much in
the organisation.
e) Choose a different person for comparisons: If comparing one with a specific person results
in the feeling of inequity, one may choose someone else for comparisons.
f) Leave the situation: A person may withdraw from the situation which produces the feeling of
inequity.

Critical analysis of Equity Theory:

Equity theory adopted the realistic approach of motivation in an organisational context. The theory
proposed that individuals are not only concerned with the rewards they get for their efforts but also
fair treatment they get in comparison to others. The theory recognised the importance of self and
social comparisons in the process of motivation. It assumes that motivation is not just based on the
actual circumstances but, perceived circumstances also matter a lot. The theory revolves around
the feeling of equity and fair treatment. But, in reality this concept of equity is not preferred by all.
Many difficulties may have to be countered while implementation of equity theory. For example:
How does a person will choose referent person for comparisons? How can management evaluate
an individual’s perception regarding input-outcome ratio? Due to such difficulties this theory
becomes very complex and difficult to implement.

6. Porter and Lawler’s Performance-Satisfaction Model of Motivation

Porter and Lawler gave an inclusive theory of motivation. The theory explained that an individual’s
motivation, performance and satisfaction are separate variables but are related to each other in
different ways. Porter and Lawler’s model of motivation matches with Vroom’s expectancy model
to large extent. The model is explained in the following figure:
 Value of Ability and Perceived
Reward Traits equitable rewards

Intrinsic
rewards

Performance Satisfaction
Efforts
Accomplishment

Extrinsic
rewards

Perceived Role
Effort Reward Perception
Probability

Source: Aswathappa, K., “Organisational Behaviour”, Himalaya Publishing House, pp. 227.

The figure given above clearly shows that this multivariate model of motivation explains the
relationship between effort, performance and satisfaction. It is important to point out here that effort
leads to performance but this relationship is not direct. The relationship between effort and
performance is influenced by individual’s abilities, traits and his perception about the role he is
performing. Further, the desired level of performance results in the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
associated with the performance. But perceived equitable rewards determine the level of satisfaction
of an individual. This model is based on the following assumptions:

a) The model assumes employees to be rational who take conscious decisions about their
behaviour in the organisations.
b) All employees have different needs, desires and goals.
c) Individual behaviour is determined by combination of situational factors, environment
and employees’ traits and perception about the role.
The variables explained by this model are discussed as follows:

1) Effort: Effort refers to the energy which an individual put to perform his job.
2) Value of reward: This is what was explained by Vroom’s expectancy model as Valence.
It refers to the degree of attractiveness of reward associated with the performance.
3) Perceived Effort Reward probability: This refers to the probability that certain level of
effort will lead to desired level of performance and further probability that the
performance will lead to certain kinds of rewards. If the probability is positive only then
individuals will decide to put certain level of efforts.
4) Performance: Performance is the outcome of efforts made by an individual. The level of
performance is influenced by abilities, traits and individual’s perception about his role.
Abilities of an individual include knowledge, skills and intellect to perform the job.
5) Rewards: Performance leads to two types of rewards: intrinsic rewards and extrinsic
rewards. Intrinsic reward is inner feeling of achievement and accomplishment associated
with the performance. Extrinsic rewards are given by the organisation in the form of
incentives, recognition, promotion etc.
6) Satisfaction: Satisfaction will result from both intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards. But
the level of satisfaction will be determined by perception of an individual that he is
getting the rewards which he actually values or needs.

Critical analysis of Porter and Lawler’s model:

Porter and Lawler’s model is very important for managers as it provides following guidelines to
motivate the employees:

a) Before assigning the job to an individual, his abilities and traits must be matched with the
requirements of the job.
b) This model suggests that role of an individual should be carefully defined to them and
ensure that they understand their role clearly.
c) The level of performance expected by the employee should be conveyed to him in
concrete terms and it should be ensured that expectations are realistic and attainable.
d) Ensure that rewards associated with the performance are valuable to the employee.
 Porter and Lawler model has significantly contributed to the better understanding of motivation
and the relationship between performance and satisfaction.

7. Goal Setting Theory

Goal setting theory of motivation was given by Edwin Locke. This theory proposed that an
individual’s intentions to work towards a goal are the major source of motivation to an individual.
Goals motivate an individual to a great extent than any other variable. Goals define in concrete
terms what an employee is suppose to do and how much efforts are required to put. The theory
suggests that specific goals increase the performance than generalised goals. In addition to this,
difficult goals if accepted by an individual result in higher level of performance than the easy
goals. This theory also recommends that feedback about the performance leads to improved
performance of an individual. Therefore, feedback constitutes the significant element in goal
achievement. Goal-setting theory emphasises on the following points:
a) If an individual accepts the difficult task, he will work harder to achieve high level of
performance.
b) Individuals perform better when feedback is given to them regarding how well they are
progressing towards their goals. This is because feedback helps in identifying gap between the
desired performance and actual performance.
c) If employees are allowed to participate in the process of goal setting, they will be committed
more to their goals. This is because people express high level of commitment to the tasks which
are assigned to them with their consent rather than arbitrarily.

The goal setting theory further suggests that in addition to the feedback, following factors influence
goal-performance relationship:

a) Goal Commitment: Goal setting theory assumes that employee is committed to the goal i.e he
believes that he will be able to attain the goal and he wants to attain the goal. The commitment
will be higher when the goals are made public and when goals are assigned with the consent of
the employee rather than arbitrarily assigned by the boss.
b) Self efficacy: It refers to the belief of an individual that he is competent enough to perform the
task. More will be the self efficacy, more will be the confidence of an individual that he will be
able to accomplish the task.
 c) Task characteristics: The goal setting theory cannot be implemented on all type of tasks. The
goals substantially affect the performance when tasks are simple, well learned and independent.

It may be summarised that difficult and specific goals are a good source of motivation and can lead
to higher level of performance. But, while implementing the theory, managers must ensure that
goals assigned to the individuals are aligned with the organisational goals.

8. Summary
In recent years, a different approach to understand the concept of motivation has emerged out. This
approach constitutes process theories of motivation which view motivation as an individual’s
decision to act in a particular manner. Process theories of motivation try to identify the variables
that influence an individual’s level of motivation and relationship between such variables. Process
theories of motivation include Vroom’s expectancy theory, Adam’s equity theory, Porter and
Lawler’s performance-satisfaction model and Goal setting theory. Vroom’s expectancy theory
explained that motivation is the function of three variables: valence, expectancy and
instrumentality. Adam’s equity theory explained that individuals have a basic desire to be treated
fairly and their level of motivation depends upon the perception of equity. Porter and Lawler’s
model of performance satisfaction discussed the role of individual’s abilities, traits and role
perception in the relationship between efforts, performance and satisfaction. Goal setting theory
explained that difficult and specific goals are a good source of motivation and can lead to higher
level of performance.