PA RT T H R EE

CHAPTER

8 Motivation

CHAPTER OUTLINE
DEFINING MOTIVATION COGNITIVE THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
NEED THEORIES OF MOTIVATION Equity Theory of Motivation
Basic Need Theories Expectancy (VIE) Theory of Motivation
McClelland’s Achievement COMPARING, CONTRASTING, AND COMBINING
Motivation Theory THE DIFFERENT MOTIVATION THEORIES
BEHAVIOR-BASED THEORIES OF MOTIVATION THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION
Reinforcement Theory AND PERFORMANCE
Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Motivation Systems and technology variables

Goal-setting Theory Individual difference variables

JOB DESIGN THEORIES OF MOTIVATION Group dynamics variables
Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory Organizational variables
Job Characteristics Model SUMMARY

Inside Tips
MOTIVATION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF INDUSTRIAL/
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Two areas of I/O psychology involve a tremendous amount of theorizing: motivation and leadership
(the topic of leadership will be discussed in Chapter 12). Because both motivation and leadership are
extremely complex and important topics in the work world, they have historically been given a great deal
of attention by I/O psychologists. This chapter introduces a variety of theories of motivation. Rather than
viewing these as isolated models, consider the ways in which they are similar. Some of these similarities are

188
 Defining Motivation 189

reflected in the grouping of theories into categories, such as need theories and job design theories, as shown
in the chapter outline. Other similarities can also help draw related concepts together. For example, the need
theories emphasize the satisfaction of basic human needs as a key to motivation, whereas reinforcement theory
argues that motivation is caused by work-related rewards, or reinforcers. However, the satisfaction of human
needs can also be seen as the experience of a reward. By understanding similarities such as these, you can begin
to synthesize what at first appears to be an overwhelming mass of abstract and unrelated theories.
Besides looking for similarities among motivation theories and noticing topics that were previously
discussed, pay close attention to the last section of the chapter, which emphasizes that motivation is only one
of the many variables that can affect work outcomes. This is an important point because it reminds us to
consider the “total picture”—the interrelationships among many organizational variables—when studying
work behavior.

I
t’s still the first month of your new job. You have noticed that some of your
colleagues seem to put lots of energy and drive into their work. Others try
to get by with minimal effort. Why is this the case? When we begin to infer
some underlying processes of effort, energy, or drive, we are trying to capture
the elusive construct of motivation. If you surveyed managers and asked them
to list the most difficult aspects of their jobs, odds are that the majority would
mention difficulties in motivating workers as a particular problem.
Motivation is complex and elusive and has historically been of great interest
to the wider field of psychology. As a result, work motivation is one of the most
widely researched topics in I/O psychology.
In this chapter, we will begin by defining motivation. Next, we will examine
the various theories of work motivation and see how some of them have been
applied in attempts to increase worker motivation. Finally, we will look at how
work motivation relates to work performance.

Defining Motivation
According to one definition (Steers & Porter, 1991), motivation is a force that motivation
serves three functions: It energizes, or causes people to act; it directs behavior the force that energizes,
toward the attainment of specific goals; and it sustains the effort expended in directs, and sustains
behavior
reaching those goals.
Because motivation cannot be observed directly, it is very difficult to study.
We can only infer motives either by observing goal-directed behavior or by
using some psychological measurement technique. Throughout its history,
I/O psychology has offered many theories of work motivation (Diefendorff &
Chandler, 2011). We have already touched on the simplistic models put forth
by scientific management and the human relations movement (Chapter 1).
According to Frederick Taylor, workers are motivated by money and material
gains, whereas Elton Mayo stressed the role that interpersonal needs play in
motivating workers. Since these early days, more sophisticated theories of
motivation have been developed. Some stress the importance of specific needs
in determining motivation. Other theories emphasize the connection between
190 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

work behaviors and outcomes—the influence of attaining rewards and achieving

goals. Other theories focus on the role of job design in affecting motivation. Still
another category of theories argues that motivation is a cognitive process and
that workers rationally weigh the advantages and disadvantages of expending
work energy. We will review examples of each of these categories of work
motivation theories.

Need Theories of Motivation

Several motivation theories assert that people have certain needs that are
needs important in determining motivation. Needs involve specific physiological or
physiological or psy- psychological deficiencies that the organism is driven to satisfy. The need for
chological deficiencies food and the drive of hunger is a physiological need and drive inherent in all
that an organism is
compelled to fulfill
living organisms; the need for human contact is a psychological need. Need
theories of motivation propose that motivation is the process of the interaction
among various needs and the drives to satisfy those needs. We will first look
at some basic need theories and then examine one need theory, McClelland’s
achievement motivation theory, in more depth.

BASIC NEED THEORIES

Two basic need theories are those proposed by Abraham Maslow and
Clayton Alderfer. Both of these theories maintain that several different types
or categories of needs play a role in human motivation. Maslow’s theory,
need hierarchy theory called the need hierarchy theory, proposes five categories of needs, which
a motivation theory, form a hierarchy from the more basic human needs to more complex,
proposed by Maslow, higher-order needs (Maslow, 1965, 1970). See Table 8.1 for a description of
that arranges needs in
a hierarchy from lower,
these needs.
more basic needs to According to Maslow, the lower-order needs (physiological needs, safety
higher-order needs needs, and social needs)—what Maslow called “deficiency needs”—must
be satisfied in a step-by-step fashion before an individual can move on to
higher-order needs (esteem and self-actualization needs)—what Maslow
referred to as “growth needs.” Because higher-order needs are unlikely to be

TABLE 8.1
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (arranged from lowest- to highest-order needs)

1. Physiological needs: the basic survival needs of food, water, air, sleep, and sex
2. Safety needs: the needs for physical safety (need for shelter) and needs related to psychological
security
3. Social needs: the need to be accepted by others and needs for love, affection, and friendship
4. Esteem needs: the needs to be recognized for accomplishments and to be admired and respected
by peers
5. Self-actualization needs: the needs to reach one’s highest potential and to attain a sense of
fulfillment; the highest level of needs
 Need Theories of Motivation 191

satisfied in the typical worker, there is also a constant upward striving that
explains why, for example, even successful, high-level executives continue
to exhibit considerable motivation. In other words, they are no longer
motivated by money to provide for subsistence needs, but by a need for esteem,
recognition, or self-growth.
Building in part on Maslow’s theory is Clayton Alderfer’s (1972) ERG theory, ERG theory
which collapses Maslow’s five categories of needs into three: existence needs, Alderfer’s motivation
which are similar to Maslow’s basic physiological and safety needs; relatedness model that categorizes
needs into existence,
needs, which stem from social interaction and are analogous to the social needs relatedness, and growth
in Maslow’s hierarchy; and growth needs, which are the highest-order needs, needs
dealing with needs to develop fully and realize one’s potential. Alderfer made
predictions similar to Maslow’s, that as each level of need becomes satisfied, the
next higher level becomes a strong motivator.
Although both basic need theories have received a great deal of attention
from professionals in psychology, business, and other areas, neither theory has
led to any type of useful application or strategy for improving work motivation
(Miner, 1983). Although both theories do a good job of describing various types
of needs and of distinguishing the lower- from the higher-order needs, both
theories are quite limited. In particular, the predictions made by both theories
about need-driven behavior have not held up (Rauschenberger, Schmitt, &
Hunter, 1980; Wahba & Bridwell, 1976).

MCCLELLAND’S ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION THEORY

A more comprehensive need theory of motivation, and one that deals specifically
with work motivation, is David McClelland’s achievement motivation theory achievement
(McClelland, 1961, 1975). This theory states that three needs are central to motivation theory
work motivation: the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation. According McClelland’s model
of motivation that
to McClelland, people are motivated by different patterns of needs, or motives,
emphasizes the
terms that he uses interchangeably. The factors that lead to work motivation importance of three
may differ from person to person, depending on their particular pattern of needs—achievement,
needs. The three key motives, or needs, in his theory are as follows: power, and affiliation—
in determining worker
1. Need for achievement—the compelling drive to succeed and to get the job done. motivation
Individuals with a very high need for achievement are those who love the
challenge of work. They are motivated by a desire to get ahead in the job, to
solve problems, and to be outstanding work performers. Need for achievement
is also associated with being task oriented, preferring situations offering moder-
ate levels of risk or difficulty, and desiring feedback about goal attainment.
2. Need for power—the need to direct and control the activities of others and
to be influential. Individuals with a high need for power are status oriented
and are more motivated by the chance to gain influence and prestige than to
solve particular problems personally or reach performance goals. McClelland
talks about two sides to the need for power: One is personal power that is
used toward personal ends and the other is institutional power, or power that
is oriented toward organizational objectives (McClelland, 1970).
192 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

3. Need for affiliation—the desire to be liked and accepted by others.

Individuals motivated by affiliation needs strive for friendship. They are
greatly concerned with interpersonal relationships on the job and prefer
working with others on a task. They are motivated by cooperative rather
than competitive work situations.

This approach emphasizes the differences in these basic needs from person
to person. According to McClelland, we all possess more or less of each of
these motives, although in each individual a particular need (or needs) tends
to predominate. In his earlier work, McClelland (1961) emphasized the role
of need for achievement in determining work motivation (hence the name,
“achievement motivation theory”). However, in later analyses, McClelland
(1975) stressed the roles that the needs for power and affiliation also play in
worker motivation. His theory can also be related to leadership, for he argued
that a leader must be aware of and be responsive to the different needs of
Thematic Apperception
Test (TAT)
subordinates to motivate workers successfully (see Chapter 13).
a projective test that To assess an individual’s motivational needs, McClelland used a
uses ambiguous pictures variation of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Respondents are
to assess psychological instructed to study each of a series of fairly ambiguous pictures for a few
motivation moments and then “write the story it suggests” (see below Photo) The brief

Sample Item from a Variation of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) Used by
McClelland
 Need Theories of Motivation 193

stories are then scored using a standardized procedure that measures the
presence of the three basic needs to obtain a “motivational profile” for each
respondent. The TAT is known as a projective test; that is, respondents
project their inner motivational needs into the content of the story they
create. One criticism of McClelland’s theory concerns the use of the TAT,
for its scoring can sometimes be unreliable, with different scorers possibly
interpreting the stories differently. Also, there is a tendency for partici-
pants who write longer “stories” to be given higher scores on achievement
motivation. It is important to note that other measures of motivational
needs exist that do not rely on projective techniques (e.g., Spence &
Helmreich, 1983; Steers & Braunstein, 1976). Despite the criticisms of
McClelland’s version of the TAT and criticisms of the measurement prop-
erties of projective tests in general, meta-analysis shows that the TAT is
a reasonably good measurement tool (Spangler, 1992). It is important to
note that there are alternative, self-report measures of motives, and that
these measures also do a good job of assessing basic underlying motiva-
tional needs.
The majority of research on McClelland’s theory has focused on the need
for achievement (McClelland, 1961; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell,
1953). Evidence indicates that individuals with a high need for achievement
attain personal success in their jobs, but only if the type of work that they
do fosters personal achievement. That is, there must be a match between
the types of outcomes a particular job offers and the specific motivational
needs of the person. For example, people who have a great need for achieve-
ment might do best in a job in which they are allowed to solve problems,
such as a scientist or engineer, or in which there is a direct relation between
personal efforts and successful job outcomes, such as a salesperson working
on commission. For example, need for achievement tends to be positively
correlated with workers’ incomes—high achievers made more money than
those with a low need for achievement (McClelland & Franz, 1993). High
need-achievement individuals are also more attracted to and successful in
entrepreneurial careers (Collins, Hanges, & Locke, 2004). However, persons
high in need for achievement might be less effective in team situations, and
they have a tendency to try to accomplish goals by themselves rather than
delegate to others or work with them as a unit (a reason why, perhaps, many
high-achieving college students prefer individual over group projects and
assignments).
Alternatively, those high in the need for affiliation should do best in a job
in which they work with others as part of a team. However, research suggests
that affiliation-motivated people are only cooperative when they feel secure and
safe (Winter, 2002). Finally, persons with a high need for power should thrive
in jobs that satisfy their needs to be in charge. In fact, research shows that many
successful managers are high in the need for power, presumably because much
of their job involves directing the activities of others (McClelland & Boyatzis,
1982; McClelland & Burnham, 1976).
The work of McClelland and his associates has led to several applications
of the achievement motivation theory toward improving motivation in work
194 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

settings. One strategy is a program that matches workers’ motivational profiles

to the requirements of particular jobs to place individuals in positions that
will best allow them to fulfill their predominant needs (McClelland, 1980).
A second application, effective in positions that require a strong need for
achievement, is an achievement training program in which individuals are
taught to be more achievement oriented by role-playing achievement-oriented
actions and strategies and developing plans for setting achievement-related
goals (Miron & McClelland, 1979). (But see Up Close box for some potential
dangers associated with too much need for achievement.) The achievement
motivation theory thus not only has been fairly well tested but also has led to
these useful intervention strategies (Miner, 1983).

Behavior-Based Theories of Motivation

The next two motivation theories have been categorized as “behavior-based
theories,” because each theory focuses on behavioral outcomes as critical to
affecting work motivation. These two theories are reinforcement theory and
goal-setting theory.

REINFORCEMENT THEORY
reinforcement theory Reinforcement theory draws on principles of operant conditioning and states sim-
the theory that behavior ply that behavior is motivated by its consequences. A consequence that follows a
is motivated by its behavior and serves to increase the motivation to perform that behavior again is
consequences
a reinforcer. These reinforcers can be of two types. Positive reinforcers are events
that are in and of themselves desirable to the person. Receiving praise, money,
positive reinforcers
or a pat on the back are all common positive reinforcers. Negative reinforcers are
desirable events
that strengthen the
events that lead to the avoidance of an existing negative state or condition. Being
tendency to respond allowed to escape the noise and confusion of a busy work area by taking a short
break in a quiet employee lounge or working hard at a task to avoid the wrath of
negative reinforcers
a watchful supervisor are negative reinforcement situations. Negative reinforce-
events that strengthen ment increases the motivation to perform the desired behavior again in an effort
a behavior through the to keep the aversive negative condition from returning. For example, if a clerical
avoidance of an existing worker feels that being behind schedule is a particularly aversive condition, the
negative state individual will be motivated to work hard to avoid the unpleasant state of being
behind schedule. It is important to reemphasize that both negative and positive
reinforcement can increase the motivation to repeat a behavior.
punishment Punishment is the term used to describe any unpleasant consequence that
unpleasant directly follows the performance of a behavior. The effect of punishment is to
consequences that weaken the tendency to perform the behavior again. Punishment is applied to
reduce the tendency to
respond
behaviors that are deemed inappropriate. Receiving a harsh reprimand from
your boss for too much socializing on the job and receiving a demotion because
of sloppy work are examples of punishment. Reinforcement theory argues that
reinforcement is a much better motivational technique than is punishment,
because the goal of punishment is to stop unwanted behaviors, whereas rein-
forcement is designed to strengthen the motivation to perform a particular
desired behavior. In addition, it is important to emphasize that punishment is
 Behavior-Based Theories of Motivation 195

CLO S E What Is a Workaholic?

A ccording to McClelland, the need for achievement

is a continuum ranging from very low to very high
levels of achievement. Typically, we consider a high
5.
6.
7.
Long work days
Little sleep
Quick meals
achievement level to be positive, but can we ever have too 8. An awareness of what one’s own work can accomplish
much need for achievement? The answer appears to be 9. An inability to enjoy idleness
yes. When an individual’s compelling drive to succeed in 10. Initiative
a job becomes so great that all other areas of life (family, 11. Overlapping of work and leisure
health concerns, and leisure) are given little or no concern, 12. A desire to excel
we may label the person a workaholic or “achievement 13. A dread of retirement
addicted” (Burke, 2006; Porter, 1996, 2001). Spence and 14. Intense energy
Robbins (1992) suggested that although workaholics are 15. An ability to work anywhere (workaholics can always
highly involved in work, they do not necessarily enjoy be spotted taking work into the bathroom)
working—they experience high levels of stress and may
It is interesting to note that many workers and work
have related psychological and physical health issues
organizations place a high value on workaholics, and many
(Burke, 2000a). The concept of the workaholic is related
companies actually encourage workaholism. For example,
in many ways to the hard-driving “Type A,” or “coronary-
workaholic bosses may be singled out as role models for
prone,” behavior pattern, a topic we will discuss in the
younger managers, and workaholic supervisors might
chapter on worker stress, Chapter 10.
encourage and reward similar workaholic behaviors in
Based on interviews with workaholics, Machlowitz
subordinates. In addition, as more and more companies
(1976) derived 15 characteristics common to them. Look
downsize and eliminate personnel, it may promote
over the list and see how you match up to the definition:
workaholism because fewer workers must handle all of the
1. An ongoing work style work duties. Recent research suggests that workaholism
2. A broad view of what a job requires does not necessarily lead to stress if the workaholic
3. A sense of the scarcity of time employee is engaged in and enjoys his/her job (van Beek,
4. The use of lists and time-saving gadgets Taris, & Schaufeli, 2011).

generally a poor managerial strategy for several reasons: First, the chronic use
of punishment can create feelings of hostility and resentment in workers and
reduce morale and job satisfaction. Second, punished workers may try to retaliate
and “get back” at punitive supervisors (de Lara, 2006). Third, punishment
tends only to suppress behavior; once the threat of punishment is taken away,
the worker may continue to use the undesirable behavior. Fourth, continual
use of punishment leads to inefficient supervisors—ones who must spend too
much of their time constantly “on watch” to catch workers committing undesir-
Stop & Review
able behaviors and administer the punishment. Finally, there is some evidence What are the three
needs in McClelland’s
that women supervisors who use punishment are evaluated more harshly than
theory? How are they
their male counterparts, and the women’s use of discipline is perceived to be measured?
less effective (Atwater, Carey, & Waldman, 2001).
One way to better understand reinforcement theory is to focus on schedules of
reinforcement. Reinforcement in the work environment typically takes place on a
partial or intermittent reinforcement schedule, which can be of either the inter-
val or ratio type. When interval schedules are used, the reinforcement is based
on the passage of time, during which the individual is performing the desired
behavior. When ratio schedules are used, reinforcement follows the performance
196 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

of a number of desired behaviors. Both interval and ratio schedules can be either
fixed or variable. Thus there are four reinforcement schedules: fixed interval,
variable interval, fixed ratio, and variable ratio. Most typically, in work settings we
think of these four types of schedules as representing different schedules of pay.
fixed-interval In the fixed-interval schedule, the reinforcement occurs after the passage
schedule of a specified amount of time. Employees who are paid an hourly or daily wage
reinforcement that or a weekly or monthly salary are being reinforced on this schedule, which has
follows the passage
of a specified amount
two important characteristics. First, the reinforcement is not contingent on
of time the performance of the desired behavior. Of course, it is assumed that during
the intervening time period, people are performing their jobs. However,
reinforcement follows regardless of whether the rate of performing job-related
behaviors is high or low. Second, the fixed-interval schedule is predictable.
People always know when a reinforcement is coming.
variable-interval A variable-interval schedule is a somewhat rare means of work compensation.
schedule On these schedules, reinforcement is also determined by the passage of time,
reinforcement that but the interval varies. For example, a worker for a small business might be
follows the passage of
a specified amount of
paid on the average of once a month, but the exact time depends on when the
time, with exact time of owner does the payroll. Bonuses that are given on the bosses’ whims are also on
reinforcement varying a variable-interval schedule.
In a fixed-ratio schedule, reinforcement depends on the performance of a set
fixed-ratio schedule number of specified behaviors. Examples include workers who are paid for the
reinforcement that number of components assembled, baskets of fruit picked, or reports written. This
is contingent on the type of fixed-ratio payment is commonly referred to as “piecework.” The strength
performance of a fixed of such a schedule is that reinforcement is contingent on execution of the desired
number of behaviors
behavior. Individuals on ratio schedules have high rates of responding in com-
parison to persons on interval schedules, who are merely “putting in time.”
variable-ratio A variable-ratio schedule also involves reinforcement that is contingent on the
schedule performance of behaviors, but the number of responses required for a particular
reinforcement that reinforcement varies. An example of a variable-ratio schedule is a salesperson
depends on the perfor-
mance of a specified
on commission, who is required to give a number of sales presentations
but varying number of (the work behavior) to make a sale and receive a commission (the reinforcement).
behaviors Variable-ratio schedules usually lead to very high levels of motivation because the
reinforcement is contingent on performance and because of the “surprise element”:
You never know when the next reinforcement is coming. Gambling is reinforced
on a variable-ratio schedule, which is why it is such an addicting behavior.
Research indicates that different types of schedules lead to various patterns
of responding and thus have important implications for the use of reinforcement
in motivating workers. Generally, evidence suggests that ratio schedules result
in higher levels of motivation and subsequent task performance than do fixed-
interval schedules (Pritchard, Hollenback, & DeLeo, 1980; Pritchard, Leonard,
Von Bergen, & Kirk, 1976). These findings are important, especially because
the majority of U.S. workers are paid on fixed-interval reinforcement schedules.
organizational
behavior modification Obviously, reinforcement principles are used informally on a day-to-day
the application of basis to motivate workers through compensation systems and other forms of
conditioning principles rewards for work outcomes. However, when reinforcement theory is applied for-
to obtain certain work mally as a program to increase worker motivation, it most often takes the form
outcomes of organizational behavior modification, in which certain target behaviors are
 Behavior-Based Theories of Motivation 197

specified, measured, and rewarded. For example, one model of organizational

behavior modification takes a four-step approach, involving
1. Specifying the desired work behaviors;
2. Measuring desired performance of these behaviors using trained observers;
3. Providing frequent positive reinforcement, including graphs demonstrat-
ing individual and group performance of desired behaviors; and
4. Evaluation of the program’s effectiveness (Komaki, Coombs, &
Schepman, 1991).
Such programs have been used to motivate workers to be more productive,
to produce higher-quality work, and to cut down on rates of absenteeism,
tardiness, and work accidents by rewarding good performance, attendance,
and/or safe work behaviors (e.g., Mawhinney, 1992; Merwin, Thomason,
& Sanford, 1989). One study found that simply recognizing employees for
improved work attendance led to significant reductions in employee absen- A car salesperson
teeism (Markham, Scott, & McKee, 2002), although it is important that the works on a variable-
employees want the recognition and evaluate the plan favorably. ratio schedule of
compensation: Her
For example, in one study of roofing crews, roofers were offered monetary
earnings depend
incentives (positive reinforcers) for reducing the hours needed to complete on the number of
roofing jobs, and they were provided with feedback and earned time off successful sales
(negative reinforcement) if they maintained high safety standards, using a pitches she makes.
regular checklist evaluation of safe work behaviors. These incentives were very
successful in improving both the productivity and the safety behaviors of the work
crew (Austin, Kessler, Riccobono, & Bailey, 1996). In general, organizational
behavior modification has been a successful strategy for enhancing worker
motivation (Hamner & Hamner, 1976; Luthans, Rhee, Luthans & Avey, 2008).

EXTRINSIC VERSUS INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

One limitation to reinforcement theory is that it emphasizes external, or
extrinsic, rewards. That is, persons are motivated to perform a behavior because
they receive some extrinsic reward from the environment. Yet, theorists such as
Deci and Ryan (1985) emphasize that people are often motivated by internal
or intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic rewards are derived from the workers’ sense of intrinsic motivation
accomplishment and competence at performing and mastering work tasks and the notion that people
from a sense of autonomy or control over one’s own work. According to the are motivated by
internal rewards
notion of intrinsic motivation, workers are motivated by challenges at work, with
the reward being the satisfaction of meeting the challenge or of a job well done.
You have probably experienced firsthand intrinsic motivation at school or work,
when you felt the glow of accomplishment with a particularly challenging assign-
ment. Likewise, people who say they love their work because of its challenge and
opportunity to “stretch” their skills and abilities are intrinsically motivated workers.
According to intrinsic motivation theorists, it is not enough to offer
tangible, extrinsic rewards to workers. To motivate workers intrinsically, jobs
need to be set up so that they are interesting and challenging and so that they
call forth workers’ creativity and resourcefulness (Deci, 1992; Gagne & Deci,
2005; Houkes, Janssen, de Jonge, & Bakker, 2004). Moreover, relying heavily
198 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

on extrinsic rewards tends to decrease intrinsic motivation (parents are told,

for example, that giving a child money for good grades will lower the child’s
intrinsic motivation to work hard at school; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).
It has been suggested that work organizations overemphasize extrinsic rewards
to the detriment of intrinsic motivation (Heath, 1999). Another approach
used to promote intrinsic motivation at work is to allow workers some control,
or autonomy, in deciding how their work should be planned and conducted
(Deci, 1972). As we will see as we discuss additional theories of motivation, many
models of motivation focus on intrinsic rewards as critical for work motivation.

GOAL-SETTING THEORY
goal-setting theory Goal-setting theory emphasizes the role of specific, challenging performance
the motivational theory goals and workers’ commitment to those goals as key determinants of motivation.
that emphasizes the Typically, goal-setting theory is associated with Edwin Locke (1968; Locke &
setting of specific and
challenging performance
Latham, 1984, 1990a), although theories concerning the establishment of defined
goals performance goals have been around for some time (see, for example, Drucker,
1954; Lewin, 1935). Goal-setting techniques have also been used in nonwork set-
tings to motivate people to lose weight, to exercise regularly, and to study.
Goal-setting theory states that for employees to be motivated, goals must be
clear, specific, attainable, and, whenever possible, quantified. General goals, such
as urging employees to do their best or to work as quickly as possible, are not
as effective as defined, measurable goals. In addition, goal-setting programs may
emphasize taking a large, challenging goal and breaking it down into a series of
smaller, more easily attained goals. For example, as I sat down to write this text-
book, the task seemed overwhelming. It was much easier (and more motivating)
to view the book as a series of chapters, tackle each chapter individually, and feel
a sense of accomplishment each time the first draft of a chapter was completed.
(You may be faced with something similar as you try to study and master the book.
It may be less overwhelming to set smaller study “goals” and take it one chapter or
Stop & Review section at a time.) Difficult or challenging goals will also result in greater levels of
Give examples of the motivation, if the goals have been accepted by the workers (Locke, Shaw, Saari, &
four types of rein- Latham, 1981). For example, there is evidence that if workers participate in goal
forcement schedules. setting, as opposed to having supervisors set the goals, there is increased motiva-
How are punishment
tion as measured by workers setting higher performance goals than those set by
and negative rein-
forcement different?
supervisors (Erez & Arad, 1986). Of course, goals should not be so high that they
are impossible to achieve (Erez & Zidon, 1984).
Research on goal setting has also stressed the importance of getting workers
committed to goals, for without such commitment, it is unlikely that goal
setting will be motivating (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988; Wofford, Goodwin, &
Premack, 1992). A number of strategies have been used to influence employees’
commitment to performance goals. These include the use of extrinsic rewards
(e.g., bonuses), the use of peer pressure via setting both individual and group
goals, and the encouragement of intrinsic motivation through providing workers
with feedback about goal attainment (Sawyer, Latham, Pritchard, & Bennett,
1999). In addition, providing feedback about what goals other high-performing
individuals or groups are achieving can also encourage motivation toward
goal attainment (Vigoda-Gadot & Angert, 2007; Weiss, Suckow, & Rakestraw,
 Job Design Theories of Motivation 199

1999). In one instance, goal commitment was strengthened through the use of
negative reinforcement: Achieving work group goals meant the group would
avoid possible layoffs (Latham & Saari, 1982). Similarly, groups will be more
committed to achieving goals if lack of goal attainment means losing a possible
financial bonus (Guthrie & Hollensbe, 2004).
As you might imagine, goal-setting theory has generated a great deal of
research (Latham & Locke, 2007). Several meta-analyses indicate support for
the effectiveness of goal setting as a motivational technique (Mento, Steele, &
Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986; Wofford et al., 1992).
Research has tried to discover reasons why goal setting is an effective
motivational technique (e.g., Kernan & Lord, 1990; Vance & Colella, 1990).
One study found that the setting of specific, challenging goals may stimulate
high-quality planning on the part of workers. This “planning quality” then
contributes to better performance in achieving goals (Smith, Locke, & Barry,
1990). Feedback accompanying goal attainment may also enhance a worker’s
job performance and ability to become more innovative and creative on the
job, through a trial-and-error learning process (Locke & Latham, 1990b).
In addition, research has looked beyond individual motivation in goal setting,
to the effects of setting group goals on group-level or work-team motivation
(Crown & Rosse, 1995; Locke & Latham, 2006).
Although goal-setting theory has stimulated a great deal of research, there
has been considerable interest from practitioners in applying goal-setting theory
to increase worker motivation. A wide variety of motivational techniques and
programs, such as incentive programs and management by objectives, or MBO
(which we will discuss in Chapter 15), are consistent with goal-setting theory.
Because goal setting is a relatively simple motivational strategy to implement, it
has become quite popular.

Job Design Theories of Motivation

The need theories emphasize the role that individual differences in certain types
of needs play in determining work motivation. The behavior-based theories focus
on behavioral outcomes as the key to motivation. By contrast, two job design the-
ories, Herzberg’s two-factor theory and the job characteristics model, stress the
structure and design of jobs as key factors in motivating workers. They argue that
if jobs are well designed, containing all the elements that workers require from
their jobs to satisfy physical and psychological needs, employees will be motivated.

HERZBERG’S TWO-FACTOR THEORY

Influenced greatly by the human relations school of thought, Frederick Herzberg
developed a theory of motivation that highlighted the role of job satisfaction in
determining worker motivation (we will discuss job satisfaction in great depth
in Chapter 9, but we are here looking at job satisfaction as one element in the
motivation “equation”) (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959). He stated that the traditional, single-dimension approach to job satisfaction,
with its continuum ends ranging from job dissatisfaction to job satisfaction, is
200 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

wrong, and that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are actually two separate
and independent dimensions. Herzberg arrived at these conclusions, called the
two-factor theory two-factor theory, after analyzing the survey responses of many white-collar,
Herzberg’s motivational professional workers who were asked to describe what made them feel espe-
theory that proposes cially good or bad about their jobs. What he found was that the factors clustered
that two factors—
motivators and
into one of two categories. Certain factors, when present, seemed to cause job
hygienes—are important satisfaction, and Herzberg labeled them motivators. Other factors, when absent,
in determining worker tended to cause job dissatisfaction, and he called them hygienes. Motivators are
satisfaction and factors related to job content; they are inherent in the work itself. The type of
motivation work, the level of responsibility associated with the job, and the chances for rec-
ognition, advancement, and personal achievement are all motivators. Hygienes
motivators are related to the context in which people perform their jobs. Common hygienes
elements related to include benefits, working conditions (including both physical and social condi-
job content that, when
present, lead to job
tions), type of supervision, base salary, and company policies (see Table 8.2).
satisfaction To illustrate Herzberg’s concepts of hygienes and motivators, consider
the jobs of high school teacher and paramedic. Neither job is particularly well
hygienes
paid, and the working conditions of the paramedic, with odd hours out in the
elements related to field working under high pressure to save lives, are not too appealing. In other
job context that, when words, the hygienes in the two jobs are low to moderate. And, as you might
absent, cause job expect with reduced hygienes, teachers and paramedics might often voice
dissatisfaction their dissatisfaction over low pay and poor working conditions. However, the
positions of teacher and paramedic have high levels of responsibility, shaping
young minds and saving lives, respectively. Moreover, both teachers and
paramedics consider themselves to be professionals, doing work that has value
to society. These are the motivators that, according to Herzberg, will lead to job
satisfaction and keep levels of motivation high for people in these professions.
Herzberg’s theory indicates that if managers are to keep workers happy
and motivated, two things must be done. First, to eliminate job dissatisfaction,
workers must be provided with the basic hygiene factors. That is, they must
be compensated appropriately, treated well, and provided with job security.
However, furnishing these hygienes will only prevent dissatisfaction; it will not
necessarily motivate workers. To get workers to put greater effort and energy
into their jobs, motivators must be present. The work must be important, giving
the workers a sense of responsibility, and should provide chances for recognition
and upward mobility.

TABLE 8.2
Profile of Herzberg’s Motivators and Hygienes

Motivators Hygienes

Responsibility Company policy and administration

Achievement Supervision
Recognition Interpersonal relations
Content of work Working conditions
Advancement Salary
Growth on job
 Job Design Theories of Motivation 201

Unfortunately, research has not been very supportive of Herzberg’s theory.

In particular, the two-factor theory has been criticized on methodological
grounds because subsequent research did not replicate the presence of the two
distinct factors (Schneider & Locke, 1971). There also have been difficulties
in clearly distinguishing hygienes and motivators. For example, salary, which
should be a hygiene because it is external to the work itself, may sometimes act
as a motivator because pay can be used to recognize outstanding employees and
indicate an individual’s status in the organization. It has also been suggested
that Herzberg’s theory applies more to white-collar than to blue-collar workers
(Dunnette, Campbell, & Hakel, 1967). As a result, some scholars do not
consider it to be a viable theory of motivation, although it continues to be
used as a theory to explain worker motivation in a number of jobs (Lundberg,
Gudmundson, & Andersson, 2009; Sachau, 2007; Udechukwu, 2009).
Despite criticisms and a lack of supportive research, Herzberg’s theory Stop & Review
helped stimulate the development of an innovative strategy used to increase
Under what condi-
worker motivation known as job enrichment. We will discuss job enrichment
tions is goal setting
shortly, but first we must consider our second job design theory of motivation: most effective?
the job characteristics model.

JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL

The job characteristics model emphasizes the role of certain aspects or job characteristics
characteristics of jobs in influencing work motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, model
1980). According to Hackman and Oldham (1976), employees must experience a theory that empha-
three important psychological states to be motivated: Workers must perceive their sizes the role that
certain aspects of jobs
work as meaningful, associate a sense of responsibility with the job, and have some
play in influencing work
knowledge of the results of their efforts. Five core job characteristics contribute to motivation
a worker’s experience of the three psychological states:
1. Skill variety—the degree to which a job requires the worker to use a variety
of abilities and skills to perform work-related tasks. A job that demands a
range of skills is likely to be perceived as challenging and meaningful.
2. Task identity—the degree to which a job requires the completion of an
entire job or function. The worker needs to see the observable outcome or
product of work efforts.
3. Task significance—the degree to which a job has a substantial impact on
other people within the organization, such as coworkers, or persons
outside of the organization, such as consumers.
4. Autonomy—the degree to which the job gives the worker freedom and
independence to choose how to schedule and carry out the necessary tasks.
5. Feedback—the degree to which the job allows the worker to receive direct
and clear information about the effectiveness of performance.
Skill variety, task identity, and task significance all affect the experience
of meaningfulness in work; autonomy influences the sense of responsibility
associated with the job and with work outcomes; and feedback influences the
worker’s experience of work results.
202 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

These five core job characteristics can be assessed and then combined into
a single motivating potential score (MPS) using the following formula:

Skill Task Task

Variety + Identity + Significance
MPS = * Autonomy * Feedback
3

Hackman and Oldham used this formula to show that motivation is not a
simple combination of the five job characteristics. In the formula, skill variety,
task identity, and task significance are averaged, which means that jobs can
have low levels of one or two of these characteristics, which are compensated
for by a high score on the third. This average score is then multiplied by the
core characteristics of autonomy and feedback. However, if any of the levels
of autonomy, feedback, or skill variety plus task identity plus task significance
are zero, the MPS will be zero—no motivating potential! For a job to have any
motivating potential, it must have both autonomy and feedback and at least one
of the other three characteristics.
To summarize the basic job characteristics model, the five core job
characteristics influence the three critical psychological states—meaningfulness,
responsibility, and knowledge of results—that in turn lead to motivation and cer-
tain work outcomes, such as the motivation to work, improve performance, and
grow on the job (Figure 8.1). Actually, the job characteristics model is more com-
plex. According to Hackman and Oldham, certain “moderators” can affect the
success of the model in predicting worker motivation. One such moderator is
growth need strength growth need strength, or an individual’s need and desire for personal growth and
the need and desire development on the job. In other words, some workers desire jobs that are chal-
for personal growth on lenging, responsible, and demanding, whereas others do not. According to the
the job
theory, improving the dimensions of the five core job characteristics should have
motivating effects only on those workers who are high in growth need strength.
Workers low in this moderator are not likely to be motivated by jobs that offer
enriched opportunities for responsibility, autonomy, and accountability.
Job Diagnostic Survey To validate their theory, Hackman and Oldham (1975) developed a
(JDS) questionnaire to measure the five core characteristics, called the Job Diagnostic
a questionnaire that Survey (JDS). The JDS and alternative tools, such as the Job Characteristics
measures core job
Inventory (Fried, 1991; Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976), have stimulated a great
characteristics
deal of research on the job characteristics model. Generally, the results have
been favorable (see, for example, De Varo, Li, & Brookshire, 2007; Graen,
Scandura, & Graen, 1986), although there have been some results that are
not supportive of the model (Tiegs, Tetrick, & Fried, 1992). A meta-analysis
of nearly 200 studies of the model found general support for its structure and
for its effects on job motivation and related work outcomes (Fried & Ferris,
1987). The job characteristics model has been found to predict motivation
to come to work, with workers who have enriched, “motivating” jobs having
better attendance records than workers whose jobs lack the critical job
characteristics (Rentsch & Steel, 1998). Workers in enriched jobs also have
greater psychological “well-being” (de Jonge et al., 2001).
 Job Design Theories of Motivation 203

Core Critical Personal

Job Psychological and Work
Dimensions: States: Outcomes:

Skill Variety
Experienced High Internal
Task Identity Meaningfulness Work Motivation
of Work
Task Significance
Experienced High-quality
Responsibility Work Performance
Autonomy
for Outcomes
High Satisfaction
of Work
with Work
Knowledge of
Feedback Actual Results of Low Absenteeism
Work Activities and Turnover

Employee
Growth
Need Strength

FIGURE 8.1
The Job Characteristics Model of Work Motivation
Source: Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 256.

One important difficulty with the use of the JDS (and other, similar
self-report measures of job characteristics) to test the job characteristics model
relates to the old problem with correlation and causality that we discussed in
Chapter 2. Research has found a positive correlation between the presence of
core job characteristics and employee satisfaction and self-reported motivation.
However, because most of this research is based on self-report measures of both
job characteristics and job satisfaction/motivation, we cannot be sure of the
direction of causality. Is it the presence of motivating job characteristics that
causes job satisfaction and motivation, as the job characteristics model predicts,
or is it the case that motivated, satisfied workers see their jobs as being rich in
key job characteristics? Some researchers have criticized the use of self-report
measures of job characteristics, advocating instead the use of job analysis job enrichment
methods to determine if jobs have “motivating” job characteristics (Spector, a motivational
program that involves
1992; Spector & Jex, 1991; Taber & Taylor, 1990).
redesigning jobs to
These two job design theories of motivation—Herzberg’s theory and the give workers a greater
job characteristics model—have led to the development and refinement of role in the planning,
a strategy used to motivate workers through job redesign. This intervention execution, and evalua-
strategy is called job enrichment, and it involves redesigning jobs to give workers tion of their work
204 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

greater responsibility in the planning, execution, and evaluation of their

work. (Note that job enrichment is not the same as job enlargement, because
job enrichment raises the level of responsibility associated with a job, whereas
job enlargement does not.) When job enrichment is used as a motivational
strategy, workers may actually take on some of the tasks that were previously
performed by higher-level supervisors, such as allocating work tasks, apprais-
ing their own work performance, setting output quotas, and making their
own personnel decisions (including hiring, firing, giving raises, and the
like). These programs typically include the following elements:
Increasing the level of responsibility associated with jobs, as well as the
workers’ sense of freedom and independence.
Wherever possible, allowing workers to complete an entire task or function.
Providing feedback so that workers can learn to improve their own
performance.
This physical therapist Encouraging workers to learn on the job by taking on additional, more chal-
experiences at least lenging tasks, and by improving their expertise in the jobs they perform.
two of the psychologi-
cal states identified by As you can see, these elements of job enrichment programs are quite similar
the job characteristics to the job characteristics outlined in the Hackman and Oldham model. (For an
model: She knows her illustration of job enrichment programs in action, see Applying I/O Psychology.)
work is meaningful, Although job enrichment programs have been implemented in quite a few
and she sees the large companies in the United States and Europe, their effectiveness is still in
results. question. Because job enrichment usually takes place at an organizational or
departmental level, it is very difficult to conduct a well-controlled evaluation of
the effectiveness of the program. Specifically, because the unit of analysis—the
participant—is usually the organization or department, it is very difficult to com-
pare the success of various job enrichment programs. Most often, support for or
against job enrichment is based on the results of a series of case studies. Although
many of these case studies find job enrichment programs to be successful, other
case studies illustrate failed job enrichment programs. It is clear, however, that
some of these failures may be due more to faulty implementation of the program
(e.g., management does not support the program; jobs aren’t truly enriched)
rather than to any weakness in the concept and theory of job enrichment. In
addition, the idea from the job characteristics model that workers vary in growth
need strength indicates that some workers (those high in growth need) will ben-
efit and be motivated by enriched jobs, and some will not. Thus, levels of growth
need strength in the workforce may also play a role in the success or failure of job
enrichment. It has also been suggested that job enrichment might help improve
motivation and morale for employees who remain following organizational down-
sizing (Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, & Fuller, 2001).

equity theory
a theory that workers
Cognitive Theories of Motivation
are motivated to reduce
perceived inequities This category, labeled “cognitive theories of motivation,” presents two theories
between work inputs that view workers as rational beings who cognitively assess personal costs and
and outcomes benefits before taking action: equity theory and expectancy theory.
 Cognitive Theories of Motivation 205

APPLYING I/O PSYCHOLOGY

Job Enrichment in a Manufacturing and a Service Organization

I n 1971, a decision was made to implement a job

enrichment program in a Volvo automobile assembly
plant in Kalmar, Sweden, that was suffering from
serviced the company’s credit card account activity,
collected on overdue accounts, and dealt with any credit-
related difficulties experienced by cardholders, such as
extremely high levels of absenteeism and turnover. First, changes of address, lost cards, and credit inquiries. In
the traditional assembly-line workers were separated the existing situation, each type of work was handled by
into teams with 15 to 25 members. In keeping with the a specialist, so that an inquiry on a single account might
general principles of job enrichment, each team was made be handled by several workers. This often led to confusion
responsible for an entire auto component or function (for and to frustration on the part of cardholders, who felt as
example, upholstery, transmission assembly, or electrical if they were being passed from worker to worker for even
system wiring). Each team was given the freedom to simple service requests. On the employee side, jobs were
assign members to work tasks, to set their own output repetitive and monotonous, which led to high rates of
rates, to order supplies, and to inspect their own work, all absenteeism and turnover.
of which had previously been performed by supervisors. The job enrichment program involved dividing
To encourage team spirit, each group was given carpeted the department into two distinct operating units, each
break rooms, and job rotation (rotating workers composed of a number of two-member teams. One
periodically from one task to another) was encouraged to unit dealt solely with actions on current accounts and
alleviate boredom. The results of the program indicated a the other unit only with past due accounts. Rather than
significant decline in both absenteeism and turnover along assigning work based on the type of task that needed
with improved product quality, although there was a slight to be performed, each team was now given complete
decline in productivity and the costs of implementing the responsibility for certain accounts. This restructuring
program were great. It was also discovered that some increased the level of responsibility required of each
workers did not adapt well to the enriched jobs and worker and reduced the routine nature of the jobs. Also,
preferred the more traditional assembly line (Goldman, workers were able to receive feedback about their work
1976). However, management proclaimed the program because they dealt with an action on an account from
a success and implemented the strategy in several other start to finish. Nine months after the implementation of
plants (Gyllenhammer, 1977; Walton, 1972). the job enrichment program, productivity had increased
In another job enrichment program, a large U.S. without any increase in staff, collection of past due
financial institution decided to introduce job enrichment accounts was more efficient, absenteeism was down 33%,
into their credit and collections department, which and the 9-month turnover rate was zero (Yorks, 1979).

EQUITY THEORY OF MOTIVATION

Equity theory states that workers are motivated by a desire to be treated equitably
or fairly. If workers perceive that they are receiving fair treatment, their motivation
to work will be maintained, and steady performance can be expected. If, on the inputs
elements that a worker
other hand, they feel that there is inequitable treatment, their motivation will be invests in a job, such as
channeled into some strategy that will try to reduce the inequity. experience and effort
Equity theory, first proposed by J. Stacey Adams (1965), has become
quite popular. According to this theory, the worker brings inputs to the job, outcomes
such as experience, education and qualifications, energy, and effort, and those things that a
expects to receive certain outcomes, such as pay, fringe benefits, recogni- worker expects to
tion, and interesting and challenging work, each in equivalent proportions. receive from a job, such
To determine whether the situation is equitable, workers make some social as pay and recognition
206 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

comparison others comparisons between their own input–outcome ratio and those of comparison
persons used as a basis others, who can be coworkers, people with a similar job or occupation, or the
for comparison in workers’ own experiences. It must be stressed that equity theory is based on
making judgments of
workers’ perceptions of equity/inequity. In certain instances, workers may per-
equity/inequity
ceive that an inequity exists when there is not one, but equity theory’s predictions
are still valid because they operate on worker perceptions.
According to equity theory, lack of motivation is caused by two types of
underpayment inequity perceived inequity. Underpayment inequity results when workers feel they are
worker’s perception receiving fewer outcomes from the job in ratio to inputs. Imagine that you have
that inputs are greater been working at a particular job for over a year. A new employee has just been
than outcomes
hired to do the same type of job. This person is about your age and has about
the same background and level of education. However, your new coworker has
much less work experience than you. Now imagine that you find out that this
new employee is making $1.50 per hour more than you are. Equity theory pre-
dicts that you would experience underpayment inequity and would be moti-
vated to try to balance the situation by doing one of the following:
Stop & Review Increasing outcomes—You could confront your boss and ask for a raise, or
Define Herzberg’s con- find some other way to get greater outcomes from your job, perhaps even
cepts of motivators through padding your expense account or taking home office supplies
and hygienes and give (see Greenberg, 1990).
examples of each. Decreasing inputs—You might decide that you need to limit your work
production or quality of work commensurate with your “poor” pay.
Changing the comparison other—If you find out that the new employee is
actually the boss’s daughter, she is clearly not a similar comparison other
(Werner & Ones, 2000).
Leaving the situation—You might decide that the situation is so inequitable
that you are no longer motivated to work there (Van Yperen, Hagedoorn, &
Geurts, 1996).
Now imagine that you are on the receiving end of that extra $1.50 per hour.
In other words, compared to your comparison others, you are receiving greater
overpayment inequity outcomes from your average-level inputs. This is referred to as overpayment
worker’s perception inequity, which also creates an imbalance. In this case, equity theory
that outcomes are predicts that you might try doing one of the following:
greater than inputs
Increasing inputs—You might work harder to try to even up the input–
outcome ratio.
Decreasing outcomes—You might ask for a cut in pay, although this is
extremely unlikely.
Changing comparison others—An overpaid worker might change comparison
others to persons of higher work status and ability. For example, “Obviously
my boss sees my potential. I am paid more because she is grooming me for
a management position.”
Distorting the situation—A distortion of the perception of inputs or outcomes
might occur. For example, “My work is of higher quality and therefore
deserves more pay than the work of others.”
 Cognitive Theories of Motivation 207

It is this last outcome, the possibility of psychological distortions of

the situation, that weakens the predictive power of this cognitive theory of
motivation. Equity theory has difficulty predicting behavior when people act
nonrationally, as they sometimes do.
Although most of the research on equity theory has used pay as the primary
outcome of a job, other factors may constitute outcomes. For example, one study
found that workers would raise their inputs in response to receiving a high-status
job title (Greenberg & Ornstein, 1983). In other words, the prestige associated
with the title served as compensation, even though there was no raise in pay.
There was one catch, however; the workers had to perceive the higher job title
as having been earned. An unearned promotion led to feelings of overpayment
inequity. Another study looked at Finnish workers who felt inequity because they
were putting too much effort and energy into their work compared to the norm.
The greater the felt inequity, the more likely these workers reported being
emotionally exhausted and stressed (Taris, Kalimo, & Schaufeli, 2002).
Although equity theory has been well researched, the majority of these studies
have been conducted in laboratory settings (Greenberg, 1982; Mowday, 1979;
although see Bretz & Thomas, 1992; Carrell, 1978; Martin & Peterson, 1987). As
you might imagine, there is greater support for equity theory predictions in the
underpayment inequity than in the overpayment inequity condition (Campbell
& Pritchard, 1976; Pritchard, Dunnette, & Jorgenson, 1972).
Research has also examined the role of individual differences as moderators
of equity. In particular, this research has focused on the construct of equity
sensitivity. It has been suggested that individuals vary in their concern over the
equity of input–outcome ratios. In other words, some people are quite sensitive
to equity ratios and prefer balance, whereas others may be less concerned with
Stop & Review
equitable relationships, and still other individuals may prefer to have either an
outcome advantage or an input advantage, preferring to be overcompensated According to the
MPS, which job
or undercompensated for their work (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987;
characteristics are
Sauley & Bedeian, 2000; see Table 8.3). Obviously, if only certain individu- most important in
als are motivated by equity, it will limit the theory’s ability to predict which motivating workers?
employees are influenced through equity.
It has been suggested that there may be cultural differences that can impact
equity theory (Bolino & Turnley, 2008). For example, there may be cultural
differences in how people evaluate inputs and outcomes, and in whom they
choose as comparison others.
Despite the voluminous research, no particular applications have been devel-
oped directly from the equity theory. As Miner (1983, p. 48) stated, “The theory
has tremendous potential insofar as applications are concerned, but these have
not been realized, even though the theory itself has stood the test of research well.”
expectancy theory
a cognitive theory of
EXPECTANCY (VIE) THEORY OF MOTIVATION motivation that states
that workers weigh
One of the most popular motivation theories is expectancy theory, which is also expected costs and
known as VIE theory, referring to three of the theory’s core components: valence, benefits of particular
instrumentality, and expectancy. Expectancy theory is most often associated with courses before they are
Vroom (1964), although there were some later refinements and modifications of motivated to take action
208 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

TABLE 8.3
Equity Sensitivity: Three Types of Individuals

Benevolents—These individuals are “givers.” They are altruistic and are relatively content with
receiving lower outcomes for their inputs.
Entitleds—These individuals are “takers.” They are concerned with receiving high outcomes,
regardless of their levels of inputs.
Equity Sensitives—These individuals adhere to notions of equity. They become distressed when
feeling underpayment inequity, and guilt when overrewarded.
Individual differences in equity sensitivity can be measured via self-report instruments (Huseman,
Hatfield, & Miles, 1987; Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). Only the motivation of individuals in the third cate-
gory, the equity sensitives, should adhere to the predictions made by the equity theory of motivation.

the theory (Graen, 1969; Porter & Lawler, 1968). Like equity theory, expectancy
theory assumes that workers are rational, decision-making persons whose behav-
ior will be guided by an analysis of the potential costs and benefits of a particular
course of action. Also like equity theory, expectancy theory focuses on the par-
ticular outcomes associated with a job, which refer not only to pay, but also to
any number of factors, positive or negative, that are the potential results of work
behavior. For example, positive outcomes include benefits, recognition, and job
satisfaction, and negative outcomes include reprimands, demotions, and firings.
valence As mentioned, the three core components of expectancy theory are valence,
the desirability of which refers to the desirability (or undesirability) of a particular outcome to
an outcome to an an individual; instrumentality, which is the perceived relationship between
individual
the performance of a particular behavior and the likelihood that a certain
outcome will result—in other words, the link between one outcome (the work-
instrumentality
er’s behavior) and another outcome (obtaining recognition or a pay raise, for
the perceived relation-
ship between the per-
example); and expectancy, which is the perceived relationship between the indi-
formance of a particular vidual’s effort and performance of the behavior. Both the expectancy and the
behavior and the instrumentality components are represented as probabilities (for example, “If
likelihood of receiving a I expend X amount of effort, I will probably complete Y amount of work”—
particular outcome the expectancy component; “If I complete Y amount of work, I will likely get
promoted”—the instrumentality component). Expectancy theory states that the
expectancy motivation to perform a particular behavior depends on a number of factors:
the perceived rela- whether the outcome of the behavior is desirable (valence); whether the indi-
tionship between the
individual’s effort
vidual has the ability, skills, or energy to get the job done (expectancy); and
and performance of a whether the performance of the behavior will indeed lead to the expected out-
behavior come (instrumentality). In research and applications of expectancy theory, each
of the components is measured, and a complex predictive formula is derived.
Consider as an example the use of expectancy theory in studying how
students might be motivated, or not motivated, to perform exceptionally well in
college courses. For this student, the particular outcome will be acceptance into
a prestigious graduate (Ph.D.) program in I/O psychology. First, consider the
valence of the outcome. Although it may be a very desirable outcome for some
(positively valent), it is not for others (negative or neutral valence). Therefore,
only those students who view being admitted to a graduate program as desirable
 Cognitive Theories of Motivation 209

are going to be motivated to do well in school to achieve this particular outcome.

(Note: This does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing well in
school, nor that good grades are the only requirements for admission to graduate
school.) For those who desire the graduate career, the next component to consider
is expectancy. Given what you know about your own abilities, study habits, and
effort, what is the probability that you will actually be able to achieve the required
grades? Here you might consider your willingness to sacrifice some of your social
life to study more, as well as considering your past academic performance. Should
you say, “Yes, I have the ‘right stuff’ to get the job done,” it is likely that you will be
highly motivated. For those individuals unwilling to expend the time and energy
required, motivation will be much less. Finally, what about instrumentality? It is
well known that there are many more qualified applicants to graduate programs
than there are openings. Therefore, the probability of actually achieving the
desired outcome, even if you perform at the required level, is less than certain.
It is here that motivation might also potentially break down. Some people might
believe that the odds are so poor that working overtime to get good grades is
simply not worth it. Others might figure that the odds are not so bad, and thus the
force of their motivation, in expectancy theory terms, will remain strong.
At work, expectancy theory might be applied using promotions, the
performance of special work projects, or avoidance of a supervisor’s displeasure
as potential outcomes. For example, if an employee’s goal is to avoid her
supervisor’s criticism (which is negatively valent), she might consider the
expectancy (“Can I perform the job flawlessly to avoid my supervisor’s
displeasure?”) and the instrumentality (“Even if I do an error-free job, will my
supervisor still voice some displeasure?”) of that goal before being motivated
even to try to avoid having the boss become displeased. If the supervisor is
someone who never believes that an employee’s performance is good enough,
it is unlikely that the employee will exhibit much motivation to avoid her or his
displeasure, because it is perceived as inevitable.
Expectancy theory illustrates the notion that motivation is a complex
phenomenon, affected by a number of variables. This theory looks at factors such
as individual goals, the links between effort and performance (expectancy), the
links between performance and outcomes (instrumentality), and how outcomes
serve to satisfy individual goals (valence). It is one of the most complicated yet
thorough models of work motivation. The theory has generated a considerable
amount of research, with evidence both supporting (Matsui, Kagawa, Nagamatsu, &
Ohtsuka, 1977; Muchinsky, 1977a) and criticizing certain aspects of the theory
(Pinder, 1984; Stahl & Harrell, 1981; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). In addition,
researchers have noted problems in the measurement of the VIE components of
valence, instrumentality, and expectancy in several studies (Schmidt, 1973; Schwab,
Olian-Gottlieb, & Heneman, 1979; Wanous, Keon, & Latack, 1983). Expectancy
theory continues to be a popular cognitive model for understanding work motiva-
tion. Although there is no single agreed-upon strategy for its application, it does
lead to many practical suggestions for guiding managers/leaders in their attempts
to motivate workers (e.g., Isaac, Zerbe, & Pitt, 2001), including the following:
Managers should try to define work outcomes—potential rewards and costs
associated with performance—clearly to all workers.
210 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

The relationships between performance and rewards should also be made

clear. Workers need to know that if they achieve certain goals, rewards are
sure to follow.
Any performance-related goal should be within the reach of the employee
involved.
In sum, both expectancy theory and equity theory are based on cognitive
models of motivation. They assume that individuals are constantly aware of
important elements in their work environment and that motivation is deter-
mined by a conscious processing of the information received. The problem
is that some people may simply be more rational than others in their usual
approaches to work. The effectiveness of these cognitive models of motivation is
also weakened by the fact that in some situations, individuals, regardless of their
usual rational approach, may behave in a nonrational manner (for example,
when workers become so upset that they impulsively quit their job without con-
sidering the implications). Moreover, there is some evidence that even when
people are using rational means to evaluate a particular situation, individuals
vary in the ways that they process information (see Zedeck, 1977).

Comparing, Contrasting, and Combining the Different

Motivation Theories
Work motivation is an important topic. The importance of the construct is
reflected in the many theories that have been constructed to try to “capture”
motivational processes and predict when workers will and will not be motivated.
In reviewing the various motivational models, it is important to examine the
ways in which the theories are similar and how they are different. (See Table 8.4
for a summary of the motivation theories we have discussed.)
The early need theories of motivation, those of Maslow and Alderfer, are
primarily descriptive models that explain that people’s motivation is rooted in
different levels of needs. Reinforcement theory, on the other hand, focuses on the
role of the environment in “drawing out” a person’s motivation. Need theories can
be viewed as the “push” from within, whereas reinforcement represents the “pull”
from without. Yet, more complex versions of need theories, like McClelland’s, go
beyond the simple categorization of needs. In McClelland’s model, the needs for
achievement, power, and affiliation interact with how a worker views the job and the
work environment. For example, someone with a high need for achievement will
be concerned with how the job can meet her achievement-related goals. Someone
with high power needs will seek out ways to direct others’ activities. In other words,
there is an interaction between needs from within the individual and what the
work environment, external to the person, has to offer. Of course, the fact that
workers evaluate how their needs can be achieved suggests that rational, cognitive
factors also come into play. Thus, there is some overlap between McClelland’s
need theory and aspects of the cognitive models of motivation.
Similar connections can be made between the behavior-based theories
of motivation and the cognitive models. For example, the notion of intrinsic
rewards suggests that workers think rationally about their accomplishments,
 The Relationship Between Motivation and Performance 211

TABLE 8.4
Summary of Theories of Motivation

Theory Elements/Components Applications

Need Theories
Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Levels of needs arranged in a (no direct intervention
hierarchy from lower- programs)
to higher-order needs
Alderfer’s ERG Theory Three levels of needs: existence,
relatedness, growth
Behavior-based Theories
Reinforcement Theory Consequences of behavior: Organizational behavior
reinforcers and punishment modification
Goal-setting Theory Setting of challenging goals Various goal-setting
and commitment to goals programs (e.g., MBO)
Job Design Theories
Herzberg’s Two-factor Jobs must provide hygienes Job enrichment
Theory and motivators
Job Characteristics Model Jobs must provide five key Job enrichment
job characteristics
Cognitive Theories
Equity Theory Inputs = outcomes; (various applications
emphasizes drive to but no agreed-upon
reduce inequities intervention programs)
Expectancy (VIE) Theory Valence, instrumentality,
expectancy

and the setting and achieving of performance goals is an important component

of both goal-setting theories and the expectancy/VIE model of motivation
(see Mento, Locke, & Klein, 1992; Tubbs, Boehne, & Dahl, 1993).
Why are there so many different theories of motivation? It has been argued
that these different perspectives represent the complexity and the multifaceted
nature of human motivation (Locke & Latham, 2004). For example, some
elements of motivation come from within the worker, some elements are exter-
nal to the person, some involve rational, cognitive decision making, and some
elements are more emotional (Seo, Feldman Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). A very
interesting experiment found that both equity theory and needs theory explained
worker motivation on a tedious task (Lambert, 2011), so it may be that different
theories can be applied to predict and explain worker motivation.

The Relationship Between Motivation and Performance

Motivation is central to any discussion of work behavior because it is believed
that it has a direct link to good work performance. In other words, it is assumed
that the motivated worker is the productive worker.
212 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

ON THE CUTTING EDGE

Motivating Through Team-based Rewards

T raditionally, organizations reward, through pay and

bonuses, the performance of individual workers.
However, in keeping with the trend toward greater
work is highly interdependent so that they must rely on
one another to get the job done, when workers are fully
informed about the incentive system and how it works,
use of work teams, there has been growing interest and when the system is perceived as fair (Blanchard, Poon,
in team-based strategies for motivating workers. This Rodgers, & Pinel, 2000; DeMatteo, Eby, & Sundstrom,
involves both making pay contingent on team, rather than 1998). Furthermore, team rewards are most appropriate
individual, performance, as well as payment of bonuses when the group performance is easily identified, but when
and other financial incentives. Although team-based it is difficult to determine specific individual contributions
rewards should, in theory, foster greater cooperation and to the team output. Researchers have also begun exploring
teamwork, how is individual motivation affected when team-based rewards in virtual work teams (Bamberger &
rewards are based on group rather than individual efforts? Levi, 2009; Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004). Despite
Research indicates that team-based rewards can be as the growing interest in team-based rewards, they are still
motivating as individual rewards in many cases, especially the exception rather than the rule in work organizations
if the work team is not too large (Honeywell-Johnson & (McClurg, 2001). In addition, there have been calls for
Dickinson, 1999; Kim & Gong, 2009). In addition, organizations to do more evaluation of the effectiveness
research suggests that team-based rewards work best of team-based reward systems (Milne, 2007). We will
when members are committed to the team, when their discuss team rewards in more detail in Chapter 9.

Yet this may not always be true because many other factors can affect
productivity independent of the effects of worker motivation. Furthermore,
having highly motivated workers does not automatically lead to high levels of
productivity. The work world is much more complex than that. As mentioned
at the beginning of the chapter, many managers consider motivation to be
the primary problem when they see low levels of productivity. However, a
manager must approach a productivity problem as a social scientist would.
Before pointing the finger at worker motivation, a detailed assessment of all
the other variables that could affect productivity must first be undertaken.
These variables can be divided into four categories: systems and technology
variables, individual difference variables, group dynamics variables, and orga-
nizational variables.

Systems and technology variables

Regardless of the level of motivation, if workers are forced to work with
inadequate work systems, procedures, tools, and equipment, productivity
will suffer. Poor tools and systems will affect work productivity independent
Stop & Review of employee motivation. This is often seen in the low agricultural production
Explain the three of some developing countries. A common mistake is to assume that these
components of the
disadvantaged nations suffer from a lack of worker motivation. A more
expectancy theory of
reasonable (and accurate) explanation is that they lack the appropriate
motivation.
agricultural technology to be as productive as other countries.
 The Relationship Between Motivation and Performance 213

Lack of technology, not motivational problems, often limits agricultural production

in developing countries.

Individual difference variables

A variety of factors within the individual can affect work productivity regardless
of motivation. For example, lacking the basic talents or skills to get the job
done will hamper productivity, even in the most motivated worker. Perhaps
the least-productive workers in any work setting are also the most moti-
vated: new employees. At least initially, the novice employee is energized and
determined to make a good impression on the boss. Unfortunately, a total
lack of knowledge about the job makes this person relatively inefficient and
unproductive, despite high motivation. Other workers, because of a lack of
basic abilities or education, or perhaps because of being placed in a job that is
incompatible with their own interests and talents, may be particularly unpro-
ductive. What may appear on the surface to be a motivational problem is actu-
ally a problem of individual abilities. We have already touched on some of
these individual factors that affect performance when we looked at employee
screening, selection, and placement.

Group dynamics variables

Rather than working by themselves, most workers are a part of a larger unit.
For the group to be efficient and productive, individual efforts must be
coordinated. Although most members may be highly motivated, group
productivity can be poor if one or two key members are not good team workers.
In these situations, the influence of motivation on productivity becomes
secondary to certain group dynamics variables. We will discuss the group
processes that come into play in affecting work performance in Chapter 12.
214 CHAPTER 8 Motivation

Organizational variables
The productivity of an organization requires the concerted and coordinated
efforts of a number of work units. High levels of motivation and output
in one department may be offset by lower levels in another department.
Organizational politics and conflict may also affect the coordination among
groups, thus lowering productivity despite relatively high levels of motivation
in the workforce. We will look at the effects of such variables as organizational
politics and conflict in upcoming chapters.
As you can see, the role of motivation in affecting work outcomes is important,
but limited. The world of work is extremely complex. Focusing on a single vari-
able, such as motivation, while ignoring others leads to a narrow and limited view
of work behavior. Yet, motivation is an important topic, one of the most widely
researched in I/O psychology. However, it is only one piece of the puzzle that
contributes to our greater understanding of the individual in the workplace.

Summary
Motivation is the force that energizes, directs, Job design theories of motivation stress the
and sustains behavior. The many theories structure and design of jobs as key factors in
of work motivation can be classified as need motivating workers. Herzberg’s two-factor theory
theories, behavior-based theories, job design focuses on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
theories, and cognitive theories. Maslow’s and as two independent dimensions important
Alderfer’s basic need theories propose that in determining motivation. Motivators are
needs are arranged in a hierarchy from the low- factors related to job content that, when
est, most basic needs, to higher-order needs present, lead to job satisfaction. Hygienes are
such as the need for esteem or self-actualization. elements related to job context that, when
McClelland’s achievement motivation theory absent, cause job dissatisfaction. According
proposes that the three needs important in to Herzberg, the presence of hygienes will
work motivation are needs for achievement, prevent job dissatisfaction, but motivators
power, and affiliation, which can be measured are needed for employee job satisfaction and
with a projective test known as the Thematic hence, motivation. Hackman and Oldham have
Apperception Test. Unlike Maslow’s and Alderfer’s proposed the job characteristics model, another
need theories, McClelland’s theory has been job design theory of motivation, which states
used extensively in work settings to encourage that five core job characteristics influence three
worker motivation. critical psychological states that in turn lead to
Behavior-based theories include both motivation. This model can be affected by cer-
reinforcement and goal-setting approaches to tain moderators, including growth need strength,
motivation. Reinforcement theory stresses the role the notion that certain workers feel a need to
that reinforcers and punishments play in motivation. grow on their jobs. Workers must be high in
Reinforcement theory is evident in the various growth need strength if programs such as job
schedules used to reward workers. The theory is enrichment are indeed going to produce moti-
applied to increase motivation through organiza- vation. Job enrichment, which involves redesigning
tional behavior modification programs. Goal-setting jobs to give workers greater responsibility in the
theory emphasizes setting challenging goals for planning, execution, and evaluation of their
workers and getting workers committed to those work, is the application that grew out of the job
goals as the keys to motivation. design model of motivation.
 Suggested Readings 215

Cognitive theories of motivation emphasize concerning effort–performance–outcome

the role that cognition plays in determining relationships.
worker motivation. Equity theory states that Motivation is indeed a complex construct.
workers are motivated to keep their work inputs Yet, despite the importance given to worker
in proportion to their outcomes. According to motivation in determining work performance,
equity theory, workers are motivated to reduce numerous variables related to systems and
perceived inequities. This perception of equity/ technology, individual differences, group
inequity is determined by comparing the worker’s dynamics, and organizational factors may all
input– outcome ratio to similar comparison affect work performance directly, without
others. Expectancy (VIE) theory (with its three core regard to worker motivation. Thus, although
components of valence, instrumentality, and motivation is important, it is only one
expectancy) is a complex model, which states determinant of work behavior.
that motivation is dependent on expectations

Study Questions and Exercises

1. Motivation is an abstract concept, one that motivation at school or at work. Which
cannot be directly observed. Using your model gives the best explanation for your
knowledge of research methods, list some personal motivation?
of the methodological issues/problems that 4. Basic need theories, goal-setting theory, and
motivation researchers must face. reinforcement theory are very general mod-
2. Some theories of motivation have led to suc- els of work motivation. What are the strengths
cessful strategies for enhancing work moti- and weaknesses of such general theories?
vation, whereas others have not. What are 5. How would you design a program to improve
some of the factors that distinguish the more motivation for a group of low-achieving high
successful theories from the less successful? school students? What would the elements
3. Apply each of the various theories to of the program be? What theories would
describing/explaining your own level of you use?

Web Links
www.accel-team.com/motivation/
This consulting organization’s site contains an overview of classic motivation theories.

Suggested Readings
Harder, J. W. (1991). Equity theory versus expectancy New York: Routledge. An edited book covering all as-
theory: The case of major league baseball free pects of work motivation in I/O psychology. [This and
agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 458–464. For the next reference would be good starting points for a
you baseball fans, this is an interesting study that applied term paper on work motivation.]
both equity and expectancy theories to performance of free Latham, G. P. (2012). Work motivation: History, the-
agent major league baseball players. A nice example of ory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand
using existing, “real world” data to study motivation. Oaks, CA: SAGE. A thorough examination of work
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.). motivation from one of the leading scholars in the
(2008). Work motivation: Past, present, and future. field.