Following on from my post on motivational content theories, this post looks at process theories of motivation. This is a group of theories that attempt to explain how employees choose to act a certain way in order to meet their needs and determine whether their choices were successful. The theories focus on the mental processes used to evaluate cause and effect relationships.
The difference between process theories and content theories is that content theories make the assumption that you will be motivated if your job provides you with rewards or incentives that enable to you meet your needs. There is an underlying assumption when looking at content theories that they apply universally across the board which, of course, we know cannot be true.
People from different backgrounds and cultures are motivated by different things. People may view the same job in different ways, and further, may perceive work differently. Rewards may not necessarily increase effort though, and neither is it a given that an increase in effort equals better performance. So here is where process theories come into play.
EQUITY THEORY
J. S. Adams’ equity theory holds that motivation is moderated by the perceived fairness, or discrepancy between, personal contributions and rewards relative to what others receive. A key point underpinning this theory is that the less people think they get out of work, the less effort they will put into it.
So if you look at your colleagues and perceive inequality, you will take action to ‘right’ that inequality. This might be to reduce your work – or to argue for a better reward.
The theory assumes certain things about the inputs and outcomes of work.
Inputs might include what people think they bring to the job, such as skills, experience and qualifications, as well as motivation and effort.
Outcomes might include pay, benefits, status, interest (e.g. if your job is also your passion or hobby), and other needs.
According to the theory, people simply add up all their inputs and outputs, and compare them to others who they view as doing a similar job. They will perceive equity if:
- They perceive the inputs and outputs as equal, compared to others doing the same or similar work.
- They receive more outcomes for extra inputs.
- They receive fewer outcomes for fewer inputs.
The theory holds that when the following conditions exist, equity IS NOT perceived:
- The person receives fewer outcomes for the same or more inputs.
- The person receives more outcomes for the same or fewer inputs.
Do you think that if nobody gets paid overtime, but everyone receives the same, that is equal and therefore the level of work would likely to stay the same too? This is what I think would happen. Equity theory however makes predictions about peoples’ behaviour and level of motivation when people have been undercompensated for their work, ie. when they receive fewer outcomes for the same or more inputs. These predictions seem to hold true.
On the other hand, when people are overcompensated, the theory makes predictions that don’t accurately reflect how people behave. Sometimes people try to restore equity because they feel guilty about being overpaid but most people deal just fine with overcompensation. Looking at the theory then, it seems likely that the less people get out of work, the less they put in – but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the more people get out of work, the more they put in. Another important point to take away is that people will make comparisons with other people at work, it’s unavoidable – and so we need to be sensitive to that – and that those comparisons relate to perception, not necessarily reality. It’s important to be sensitive to the perceptions, not just the facts.
EXPECTANCY THEORY
The wonderfully named Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory has some parallels to equity theory. It holds that there is an important relationship between EFFORT, PERFORMANCE and REWARD. In order to get someone to exert extra effort, it’s necessary that people believe they will obtain a greater reward.
According to expectancy theory, motivation is determined by three factors:
1. Expectancy – the person’s perception that putting in effort will result in successful performace (E –> P expectancy)
2. Instrumentality – the person’s perception that successful performance will result in achieving valued outcomes (P –> O expectancy)
3. Valence – the extent that the person thinks they will find personal satisfaction in attainment of those outcomes, such as increased pay or job satisfaction.
Expectancy theory will argue that a person is motivated at work as a result of a combination of these three factors, with the highest motivation being achieved when all of the factors are high. Whether or not you like the theory, it does serve to highlight some important management issues:
Ability – you must establish whether the person is capable of the required performance.
Goals – clear, agreed and measurable goals are needed if effort is to be linked to performance – here is a post I wrote on setting SMART goals.
Resources – people must have the resources to be able to do the job, to be able to feel like the performance required depends solely on their efforts.
Time – you must only require performance that can be achieved in the time available, and deadlines must be very specific.
Job design – even if effort is perceived to deliver the desired performance and subsequently help the person meet their needs personally, a poorly designed job may add a chink to the chain – bonuses may not be enough to keep people driven in performing repetitive, mind-numbing tasks for example.
GOAL SETTING THEORY
Goal setting theory, offered by Locke and Latham, proposes that specific, challenging goals increase motivation and performance when those goals are accepted by people and where they receive feedback that enable them to track their progress towards goal achievement. A key element of goal setting theory is that peoples’ goals or intentions play a large part in determining how they will behave.
If a person is working towards a goal and it appears that they are unlikely to achieve it, they will either:
- modify their goals to make them more realistic, or
- modify their behaviour to be able to achieve the goal.
Goals must be real and unambigious in order to direct peoples’ behaviour and maintain motivation. Hard goals will motivate more than easier goals but crucially, they must be achievable. A person’s effort will increase when they are committed to attaining a particular goal. It’s also crucial that the person must accept the goal, so that they can be committed to them. Finally, feedback is an essential part of the theory – this is a continued dialogue so the person always knows where they are in relation to the goal and can make appropriate adjustments.
Goal setting theory goes one step further than motivational content theory because it links motivation directly to job performance.