MOTIVATION CONCEPT OF MOTIVATION Motivation is a set of forces that cause people to behave in certain ways.

It is the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals, conditioned by the efforts and ability to satisfy some individual need. The effort element is a measure of intensity. When someone is motivated, he or she tries hard. But high levels of effort are unlikely to lead to favourable job performance outcomes unless the effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organization. Therefore, we must consider the quality of effort as well as its intensity. Effort that is directed toward, and consistent with, the organisations goals is the kind of effort we should be seeking. Finally, we treat motivation as a need satisfying process. A need is the deficit state. It is an internal state that makes certain outcomes appear attractive. An unsatisfied need creates tension that stimulates drives within the individual. These drives generate a search behaviour to find particular goals that, if attained, will satisfy the need and lead to the reduction of tension. It can therefore, be said that motivated people are in a state of tension. To relieve this tension, they exert effort. The greater the tension, the higher is the effort level. If this effort successfully leads to the satisfaction of the need, tension is reduced. From the managers viewpoint, the objective is to motivate people to behave in ways that are in the organisations best interest. One of the managers primary tasks is to motivate people in the organization to perform at high levels. This means getting them to work hard, come to work regularly, and make positive contributions to the organizations mission. The earlier views on human motivation were dominated by the concept of hedonism: the idea that people seek pleasure and comfort and try to avoid pain and discomfort. It was realized later that there are many kinds of behaviour that it cannot explain. The 1950s were a fruitful period in the development of motivation concepts. Three specific theories were formulated during this time: Hierarchy of Needs Theory : Theory X and Theory Y; and Motivation-Hygiene theory. HIERARCHY OF NEEDS THEORY Psychologist Abraham Maslow influenced by the human relations school of thought, argued that human beings have innate desires to satisfy a given set of needs. Furthermore, Maslow believed that these needs are arranged in a hierarchy of importance with the most basic needs at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Self-actualisation Needs

Esteem Needs

Social Needs

Safety Needs

Physiological Needs The most basic needs in the hierarchy are Physiological needs. They include the needs for food, sex and air. Next in the hierarchy are Security needs: things that offer security and protection from physical and emotional harm. Social needs, third level in the hierarchy, include affection, belongingness, acceptance and friendship. The fourth level Esteem needs include internal esteem factors such as self respect, autonomy and achievement; and external esteem factors such as status, recognition and attention. At the top of the hierarchy are what Maslow termed Self actualization needs, which refer to the drive to become what one is capable of becoming. It includes growth, achieving ones potential, and selffulfilment. Beginning at the bottom of the hierarchy, according to Maslow, each need level must be satisfied before the level above it becomes important. Thus, once physiological needs have been satisfied, their importance diminishes, and security needs emerge as the primary sources of motivation. This escalation up the hierarchy continues until the self actualization needs become the primary motivators. However, whenever a previously satisfied lowerlevel set of needs becomes deficient again, the individual returns to that level. From the standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although no need is ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. So, if you want to motivate someone, according to Maslow, you need to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is currently on and focus on satisfying those needs at or above that level. In most organizational settings, physiological needs probably are the easiest to meet. Adequate wages, rest-rooms, ventilation, and comfortable temperatures are examples of things that can satisfy this most basic level of needs. Security needs in organizational settings can be satisfied by job continuity (no lay offs.), a grievance system (to protect against arbitrary supervisory actions), and an adequate insurance and retirement system (to guard against financial loss from illness and to ensure retirement income). Most employees social needs are satisfied by family ties and group relationship inside and outside the organization. In the workplace for example, people usually develop friendship

that provide a basis for social interaction and can play a major role in satisfying social needs. Managers can enhance satisfaction of these needs by fostering a sense of group identity and interaction among employees. At the same time, managers can be sensitive to the probable effects (such as low performance and absenteeism) on employees of family problems, or lack of acceptance by co-workers. Esteem needs in the workplace are met by job titles, choice offices, merit pay increases, awards, and other forms of recognition. Self actualization needs perhaps are the hardest to understand and the most difficult to satisfy. Few people ever become all they could become. In most cases, a person who is doing well on Maslows hierarchy will have satisfied his or her esteem needs and will be moving toward self-actualisation. Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Physiological and safety needs were described as lower order and social, esteem and self-actualisation as higher order needs. The differentiation between the two orders was made on the premise that higher order needs are satisfied internally (within the person), whereas lower order needs are predominantly satisfied externally (by pay, Union contacts, and tenure, for example). The natural conclusion to be drawn from Maslows classification is that in times of economic plenty, almost all permanently employed workers have their lower order needs substantially met. Maslows theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. This can be attributed to the theorys intuitive logic and ease of understanding. However, research does not generally validate the theory. Little support is found for the prediction that need structures are organized alongwith the dimensions proposed by Maslow, that unsatisfied needs motivate, or that a satisfied need activates movements to a new need level. Five levels of needs are not always present; the actual hierarchy of needs does not always conform to Maslow model; and need structures are more unstable and variable than the theory would lead us to believe. THEORY X AND THEORY Y Douglas McGregor proposed two distinct views of human beings; one basically negative, labeled Theory X, and the other basically positive, labeled Theory Y. After viewing the way in which managers dealt with employees. McGregor concluded that a mangers view of the nature of human beings is based on a certain grouping of assumptions and that he or she tends to mould his or her behaviour toward subordinates according to these assumptions. According to Theory X, the four assumptions held by managers are as follows :2 1. Employees inherently dislike work and, whenever possible will attempt to avoid it. Since employees dislike work, they must be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment to achieve goals. 3 Employees will avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction whenever possible. 4 Most workers place security above all other factors associated with work and will display little ambition.

In contrast to these negative views about the nature of human beings, McGregor listed four positive assumptions, which he called Theory Y: 1. 2. Employees can view work as being as natural as rest or play. People will exercise self-discretion and self-control if they are committed to the objectives. 3. The average person can learn to accept even seek, responsibility. 4. The ability to make innovative decisions is widely dispersed throughout the population and is not necessarily the sole province of those in management positions. What are the motivational implications if we accept McGregors analysis ? The answer is best expressed in the framework presented by Maslow. Theory X assumes that lower order needs dominate individuals. Theory Y assumes that higher order needs dominate individuals. McGregor himself held the belief that Theory Y assumptions were more valid than Theory X. Therefore, he proposed such ideas as participative decision making, responsible and challenging jobs, and good group relations as approaches that would maximize an employees job motivation. Unfortunately, no evidence confirms that either set of assumptions is valid and that accepting Theory Y assumptions and altering ones actions accordingly will lead to more motivated workers. Motivation-Hygiene Theory This theory was proposed by psychologist Frederic Herzberg. He investigated the question, what do people want from their jobs? He asked people to describe, in detail, situations when they felt exceptionally good and bad about their jobs. From the categorized responses, Herzberg concluded that the replies people gave when they felt bad. Certain characteristics tend to be consistently related to job satisfaction (factors on the right side of the figure 1), and others to job dissatisfaction (the left side of the figure 1). Intrinsic factors, such as achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth seem to be related to job satisfaction. On the other hand, extrinsic factors, such as company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, and working conditions seem to be related to job dissatisfaction. Herzberg observed that opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, as was traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed that his findings indicate the existence of a dual continuum (figure 2). The opposite of satisfaction is no satisfaction and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction. The factors leading to job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Therefore, managers who try to eliminate factors that create job dissatisfaction can bring about peace, but not necessarily motivation. As a result, such characteristics as company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, working conditions, and salary have been characterized by Herzberg as hygiene factors. When they are adequate, people will not be dissatisfied;

however, will they be satisfied? If we want to motivate people on their job, Herzberg suggests emphasizing achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and growth. These are the characteristics that people find intrinsically rewarding. Factors that lead to extreme dissatisfaction Company Policy and Administration Supervision Relationship with Superior Work Conditions Salary Relationship with Peers Personal Life Relationship with Subordinates Status Security The motivation-hygiene theory is not without its crisis. The criticisms of the theory include the following: 1. 2. The procedure that Herzberg used is limited by its methodology. When things are going well, people tend to take credit on themselves. Contrarily, they blame failures on the external environment. The reliability of Herzbergs methodology is questioned. Since raters have to make interpreting, it is possible they may contaminate the findings by interpreting one response in one manner while treating another similar response differently. The theory, to the degree it is valid, provides an explanation of job satisfaction. It is not really a theory of motivation. The theory does not define the relationship between satisfaction and motivation. No overall measure of satisfaction is utilized. In other words, a person may dislike part of his or her job, yet still think the job is acceptable. Factors that lead to extreme satisfaction Achievement Recognition Work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth

3. 4.

5. 6.

The theory is inconsistent with previous research. It ignores situational variables. Herzberg assumes a relationship between satisfaction and productivity. But the research methodology he used looked only at satisfaction, not at productivity. To make such research relevant, one must assume a high relationship between satisfaction and productivity.

Regardless of criticisms, Herzbergs theory has been widely read, and most managers are familiar with his recommendations. McClellands Theory of Needs David McClellands theory of needs focuses on three needs; achievement, power and affiliation. Need for achievement refers to the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive to succeed. Need for power is to make others behave in a way they would not have behaved otherwise. Need for affiliation is the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships. Some people have a compelling drive to succeed. They are striving for personal achievement rather than the rewards of success per ce. They have a desire to do something better or more efficiently than it has been done before. This drive is the achievement need (aAch). High achievers differentiate themselves from others by their desire to do things better. They seek situations where they can attain personal responsibility for finding solutions to problems, where they can receive rapid feedback on their performance so they can tell easily whether they are improving or not, and where they can set moderately challenging goals. High achievers are not gamblers; they dislike succeeding by chance. They avoid what they perceive to be very easy or very difficult tasks. They want to overcome obstacles, but they want to feel their success or failure which is due to their own actions. When there is an approximately equal chance of success or failure, there is the optimum opportunity to experience feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction from their efforts. The need for power (nPow) is the desire to have impact, to be influential, and to control others. Individuals high in nPow enjoy being in charge, strike for influence over others, prefer to be placed into competitive and status-oriented situations, and tend to be more concerned with prestige and gaining influence over others, prefer to be placed into competitive and status-oriented situations, and tend to be more concerned with prestige and gaining influence over others than with effective performance. The third need isolated by McClelland is affiliation (nAff). This need has received the least attention from researchers. Individuals, with a high affiliation motive strive for friendship, prefer cooperative situations rather than competitive ones, and desire relationships involving a high degree of mutual understanding. Individuals with a high need to achieve prefer job situations with personal responsibility, feedback, and an intermediate degree of risk. When these characteristics are prevalent, high achievers will be strongly motivated.

Personal Responsibility Achievers prefer Jobs that offer Feedback Moderate Risks High achievers are successful in entrepreneurial activities, such as running their own business and managing a self-contained unit within a large organization. A high need to achieve does not necessarily lead to being a good manager, especially in a large organization. People with a high achievement need are interested in how well they do personally and not in influencing others to do well. The needs for affiliation and power tend to be closely related to managerial success. The best managers are high in their need for power and low in their need for affiliation. In fact, a high-power motive may be a requirement for managerial effectiveness. Employees have been successfully trained to stimulate their achievement need. Trainers have been effective in teaching individuals to think in terms of accomplishments, winning and success; and then helping them to learn how to act in a high achievement way by preferring situations where they have personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risks. EXPECTANCY THEORY Currently, one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation is Victor Vrooms expectancy theory. Although it has its critics, most of the research evidence is supportive of the theory. Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual. In more practical terms, expectancy theory says an employee is motivated to exert a high level of effort when he or she believes effort will lead to a good performance appraisal; a good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards like a bonus, a salary increase, or a promotion; and the rewards will satisfy the employees personal goals. The theory, therefore, focuses on three relationships. 1. 2. 3. Effort-performance relationship : The probability perceived by the individual that exerting a given amount of effort will lead to performance. Performance-reward relationship : The degree to which the individual believes that performing at a particular level will lead to the attainment of a desired outcome. Rewards-personal goals relationship: The degree to which organizational rewards satisfy an individuals personal goals or needs and the attractiveness of these potential rewards for the individual.

Expectancy theory helps explain why a lot of workers are not motivated on their jobs and merely do the minimum necessary to get by. This is evident when we look at the theorys three relationships in a little more detail. One possible source of low employee motivation is the belief, by the employee that no matter how hard he works, the likelihood of getting a good performance appraisal is low. Many employees see the performance reward relationship in their job as weak. The reason is that organizations reward a lot of things besides just performance. For example, when pay is allocated to employees based on factors such as seniority, being cooperative, employees are likely to see the performance reward relationship as being weak and demotivating. The employee works hard in the hope of getting a promotion, but gets a pay raise instead. Or the employee wants a more interesting and challenging job, but receives only a few words of praise. Or the employee puts in extra effort to be relocated to the companys Mumbai office but instead is transferred to Bangalore. These examples illustrate the importance of the rewards being tailored to individual employee needs. Unfortunately, many managers are limited in the rewards they can distribute, which makes it difficult to individualize rewards. Moreover, some managers incorrectly assume that all employees want the same thing, thus overlooking the motivational effects of differentiating rewards. In either case, employee motivation is submaximised. In summary, the key to expectancy theory is the understanding of an individuals goals and the linkage between effort and performance, between performance and rewards, and finally, between the rewards and individual goal satisfaction. As a contingency model, expectancy theory recognizes that there is no universal principle for explaining everyones motivations. Additionally, just because we understand what needs a person seeks to satisfy does not ensure that the individual himself perceives high performance as necessarily leading to the satisfaction of these needs. Individual Effort Individual performance Organisational rewards Personal goals

1. 2. 3.

Effort-performance relationship Performance-reward relationship Rewards-personal goals relationship Figure 1 : Expectancy Theory APPLICATIONS OF MOTIVATION CONCEPTS

How to apply motivation concepts? How to link theories to practice?

Management by Objectives (MBO) Management by objectives emphasizes participatively set goals that are tangible, achievable and verifiable. It is not a new idea. In fact, it was originally proposed by Peter Drucker more than 45 years ago as a means by using goals to motivate people rather than to control them. MBOs appeal undoubtedly lies in its emphasis on converting overall organizational objectives into specific objectives for organizational units and individual members. MBO operationalizes the concept of objectives by devising a process by which objectives cascade down through the organisation. The organisations overall objectives are translated into specific objectives for each succeeding level i.e. divisional, departmental, individual in the organisation. But because lower unit managers jointly participate in setting their own goals, MBO works from the bottom up as well as from the top down. The result is a hierarchy of objectives that links objectives as one level to those at the next level. And for the individual employee, MBO provides specific personal performance to make to his or her units performance. If all the individuals achieve their goals, then their units goals will be attained and the organisations overall objectives become a reality. Four ingredients are common to MBO programs; goal specificity, participative decision making, an explicit time period, and performance feedback. The objectives in MBO should be concise statements of expected accomplishments. It is not adequate, for example, to merely state a desire to cut cost, improve service, or increase quality. Such desires have to be converted into tangible objectives that can be measured and evaluated. To cut departmental costs by 9 percent, to improve service by ensuring that all telephone orders are processed within 24 hours of receipt, or to increase quality by keeping returns to less than 1 percent of sales are examples of specific objectives. MBO replaces imposed goals with particularly determined goals. The superior and subordinate jointly choose the goals and agree on how they will be measured. Managers and subordinates not only have specific objectives, but also stipulated time periods in which to accomplish them. The final ingredient in a MBO program is feedback on performance. MBO seeks to give continuous feedback on progress towards goals. Ideally, this is accomplished by giving ongoing feedback to individuals so they can monitor and correct their own actions. This is supplemented by periodic managerial evaluations, when progress is reviewed. This applies at the top of the organization as well as at the bottom. Formal appraisal meetings take place at which superiors and subordinates can review progress toward goals and further feedback can be provided. Linking MBO and goal setting theory : Goal setting theory demonstrates that hard goals result in a higher level of individual performance than do easy goals, that specific hard goals result in higher levels of performance than do no goals at all or the generalized goal of do your best, and that feedback on ones performance leads to higher performance.

MBO directly advocates specific goals and feedback. MBO implies, rather than explicitly states, that goals must be perceived as feasible. Consistent with goal setting, MBO would be most effective when the goals are difficult enough to require the person to do some stretching. The only idea of possible disagreement between MBO and goal setting theory relates to the issue of participation : MBO strongly advocates it whereas goal setting demonstrates that assigning goals to subordinates frequently works just as well. The major benefit of using participation, however, is that it appears to induce individuals to establish more difficult goals. MBOs popularity should not be construed to mean that it always works. In a number of documented cases MBO has been implemented but failed to meet managements expectations. A close look at these cases, however, indicates that the problems rarely lie with MBOs basic components. Rather, the culprits tend to be factors such as unrealistic expectations regarding results, lack of top management commitment, and an inability or unwillingness by management to allocate rewards based on goal accomplishment. Nevertheless, MBO provides managers with the vehicle for implementing goal setting theory. Behaviour Modification Behaviour modification program, more popularly called OB Mod program, follows a five step problem solving model : 1. Identification of performance related behaviours; 2. Measurement of the behaviours; 3. Identification of behavioural contingencies; 4. Development and implementation of an intervention strategy; and 5. Evaluation of performance improvement. Everything am employee does on his or her job is not equally important in terms of performance outcomes. The first step in OB Mod, therefore, is to identify the critical behaviours that make a significant impact on the employees job performance. These are, those 5 to 10 percent of behaviours that may account for upto 70 to 80 percent of each employees performance. The second step requires the manager to develop some baseline performance data. This is obtained by determining the number of times the identified behaviour is occurring under present conditions. The third step is to perform a functional analysis to identify the behavioural contingencies or consequences of performance. This tells the manager the antecedent cues that emit the behaviour and the consequences currently maintaining it. Once the functional analysis is complete, the manager is ready to develop and implement an intervention strategy to strengthen desirable performance behaviours and weaken undesirable behaviours. The appropriate strategy will entail changing some element of the performance reward linkage structure , processes, technology, groups, or the task with the goal of making high level performance more rewarding. The final step in OB Mod is to evaluate performance improvement.

Linking OB Mod and reinforcement theory : Reinforcement theory relies on positive reinforcement, shaping, and recognizing the impact of different schedules of reinforcement on behaviour. OB Mod uses these concepts to provide managers with a powerful and proven means for changing employee behaviour.OB Mod has been used by a number of organizations to improve employee productivity and to reduce errors, absenteeism, tardiness, and accident rates. Organisations like General electric, Dayton-Hudson Stores, and Xerox report impressive results using OB Mod. Despite the positive results that OB Mod has demonstrated, it is not without its critics. Is it a technique for manipulating people ? Does it decrease an employees freedom? There are no easy answers to the questions such as these. Flexible Benefits Rakshit Chowdhary and Sanjana Bhatt both work for Larsen and Toubro, but they have very difficult needs in terms of fringe benefits. Rakshit is married, has three young children, and a wife who is at home full time. Sanjana, too, is married, but her husband has a high paying job with the State Government, and they have no children. Rakshit is concerned about having a good medical plan and enough life insurance to support his family if he was not around. In contrast, Sanjanas husband already has her medical needs covered on his plan, and life insurance is a low priority for both her and her husband. Sanjana is more interested in extra-vacation time and long term financial benefit like a tax deferred savings plan. Flexible benefits allow employees to pick and choose from among a menu of benefit options. The idea is to allow each employee to choose a benefit package that is individually tailored to his or her own needs and situation. It replaces the traditional One-benefit-planfits-all programs that have dominated organizations for more than 50 years. The average organization provides fringe benefits worth approximately 40 percent of an employees salary. But traditional benefit programs were designed for the typical employee of the 1950s- a male with a wife and two or three children at home. Less employee now fit this stereotype. Traditional programs do not meet the needs of todays more diverse work force. Flexible benefits however, do meet these diverse needs. An organization sets up a flexible spending account for each employee, usually based on some percentage of his or her salary, and then a price tag is put on each benefit. Options might include inexpensive medical plans with high deductibles; expensive medical plans with low or no deductibles; hearing, dental, and eye coverage; vacation options; extended disability; a variety of savings and pension plans; life insurance; college tuition reimbursement plans; and extended vacation time. Employees then select benefit options until they have spent the dollar amount in their account. Linking flexible benefits and expectancy theory : Giving all employees the same benefits assumes all employees have the same needs. Of course, we know this assumption is false. So flexible benefits turn the benefits expenditure into a motivator. Consistent with expectancy theorys thesis that organizational rewards should be linked to each individual employees goals, flexible benefits individualize rewards by allowing each employee to

choose the compensation package that best satisfies his or her current needs. That flexible benefits can turn the traditional homogeneous benefit program into a motivator was demonstrated at one company: Eighty percent of the organisations employees changed their benefit packages when a flexible plan was put into effect. For employees, flexibility is attractive because they can tailor their benefits and levels of coverage to their own needs. The major drawback, from the employees standpoint, is that the costs of individual benefits often go up, so fewer total benefits can be purchased.