The Process of Motivation
| Date | 01 March 1985 |
| Pages | 5-8 |
| Published date | 01 March 1985 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb057393 |
| Author | L.J. Mullins |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
The Process of
Motivation
by L.J. Mullins
Portsmouth Polytechnic
Introduction
In order to improve the work of an organisation, managers
and supervisors must give attention to the motivational level
of its members. There are many competing theories which
attempt to explain the nature of motivation at work These
theories of motivation are usually divided into two
con-
trasting approaches: content theories and process theories.
Most managers and supervisors will be familiar with the
work of authors such as Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor,
which can be included under the heading of content
theories of motivation.
These theories attempt to explain those specific things
which motivate people at work. They are concerned with
identifying people's needs, their relative strengths and the
goals they pursue in order to satisfy these needs. Despite
the popularity of the content theories, they tell us little about
the actual process of motivation or the relationships among
the dynamic variables which make up motivation.
Process theories of motivation, however, are concerned
more with how behaviour is initiated, directed and sustain-
ed They include expectancy-based models of motivation
and equity theory of motivation.
Effort and Expectations
The basis of expectancy theory is that people are influenc-
ed by the expected results of their actions. Motivation is a
function of (i) the relationship between effort expended and
the perceived likely outcomes, and (ii) the expectations that
reward will be related to performance. Performance depends
on the perceived expectation regarding effort expended and
the desired outcome For example, the desire for promotion
will result in high performance only if the person believes
there is a strong expectation that this will lead to promo-
tion.
If, however, the person believes promotion to be bas-
ed solely on, say, popularity with the boss, there is no
motivation to achieve high performance
An expectancy theory aimed specifically at work motiva-
tion has been proposed by Vroom[1]. His model is based
on three key variables: valence, instrumentality and expec-
tancy (VIE theory or expectancy/valence theory.) The theory
is founded on the idea that people prefer certain outcomes
from their behaviour over others They anticipate feelings
of satisfaction should the preferred outcome be achieved.
The feeling about specific outcomes is termed valence. This
is the attractiveness of, or preference for, a particular out-
come Valence is the anticipated satisfaction from an out-
come.
This may differ substantially from value, which is the
actual satisfaction provided by an outcome. The valence of
certain outcomes may be derived in their own right, but
more usually they are derived from the other outcomes to
which they are expected to
lead.
An obvious example is
money. Some people may see money as having an intrinsic
worth and derive satisfaction from the actual accumulation
of wealth. Most people, however, see money in terms of the
many satisfying outcomes to which it can lead The valence
of outcomes derive, therefore, from their instrumentality.
This leads to a distinction between first-level outcomes and
second-level outcomes.
First-level outcomes are performance-related. They refer to
the quantity of output or to the comparative level of perfor-
mance. Some people may seek to perform well "for its own
sake"
and without thought to expected consequences of
their actions. Usually, however, performance outcomes ac-
quire valence because of the expectation that they will lead
to other outcomes as an anticipated source of
satisfaction—second-level outcomes. These are need-
related,
for example, praise from superiors, high wages or
promotion.
The strength of the valence of an outcome is dependent
on the extent to which the outcome serves as a means to
other outcomes. This is the instrumentality of the first-level
outcomes, such as increased productivity, in achieving
second-level outcomes, such as higher wages. For exam-
ple,
if it is believed that good work performance always
results in a pay increase, instrumentality will be at its highest.
If the person believes a pay increase is certain to be obtain-
ed without good performance, or impossible even with it,
instrumentality will be at its lowest.
The choice between alternative behaviours which have
uncertain outcomes is affected not only by the preference
for a particular outcome, but also by the probability that such
an outcome will be achieved People develop a perception
of the degree of probability that the choice of a particular
action will actually lead to the desired outcome. This is ex-
pectancy. It is the relationship between a chosen course of
action and its predicted outcome. Expectancy relates effort
expended to the achievement of first-level outcomes.
IMDS • MARCH/APRIL • 1985 5
To continue reading
Request your trial