Critical Analysis on Motivational Theories

1. GULSHAN CAMPUS
Assignment
Critical Analysis on Motivational Theories
MudassarIqbal

2. Table of Contents
 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
a. Physiological Needs
b. Safety Needs
c. Social Needs
d. Esteem Needs
e. Self-Actualization Needs
Critical Analysis on Needs Theories
I. ERG Theory
II. McClelland's Theory of Needs
III. Criticism Two: Gratification/Activation Paradigm
IV. Criticism One: Deprivation/Domination Paradigm
V. Criticism Three: Measurement of Self-Actualization
VI. Criticism Four: Ability to Achieve Self-Actualization
VII. Criticism Five: Applicability of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Organizations
 McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y
a. Theory X workers
b. Theory Y workers
Critical analysis on X& Y Theories
 Herzberg’s Motivation- Hygiene theory
a. Hygiene Factors
b. Motivator
Criticisms of Herzberg et all’s., (1959) Theory
I. Criticism One: Evaluation of Results
II. Criticism Two: The Interview Method
III. Criticism Three: Ambiguous Hypotheses and Criterion Measures
 Three-Need Theory
a. Need of achievement
b. Need of power
c. Need of affiliation
Critical analysis Three Need theory
 Goal-Setting Theory
Critical analysis goal Setting theory
 Reinforcement Theory

3. a. Positive reinforcement
b. Negative reinforcement
c. Punishment
d. Extinction
Critical Analysis on reinforcement theory
I. Disregards internal motivation
II. Difficult to identify rewards/punishments
III. Hard to apply to complicated forms of behavior
IV. Imposes on freewill
V. Affectivity often expires
VI. Can be complicated
 Equity Theory
Critical analysis on equity theory
 Expectancy Theory
a. Description of Expectancy Theory
b. Applications of the Valence Model
c. Studies of the valence model
d. Methodological Limitations

4.  Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory
The need hierarchy theory was one of the first theories to focus on the dispositional
predictors of job satisfaction. It proposed that employees’ needs determine their level of job
satisfaction.
Need Hierarchy Theory
The need hierarchy theory (Maslow, 1954, 1970) posits that individuals are born with a
set of needs. There are five needs: physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem, and self-
actualization. These are arranged in a hierarchy of relative prepotency, meaning that lower-order
needs are satisfied before higher-order needs are activated.

5. Physiological Needs
The first is Physiological needs are those required to sustain life, such as:
 Food
 Air
 Sex
 traveling
 water
 nourishment
 sleep
According to Maslow's theory, if First needs satisfied so person want next one needs. Such needs
are not satisfied then next one's need will not arise from the quest to satisfy them.

6. Safety
The second need is Safety need When one need are met, person get a food, water, air and sleep
the he /she want to safe working environment and safe living area.
 Living in a safe area
 Medical insurance
 Job security
 Financial reserves
 Safe Working area
According to Maslow's hierarchy, if a person feels that he or she is satisfy first one so he want
next one. .
Social Needs
The third need is social need when person get first two then he/she want social need. Once a
person has met the lower level physiological and safety needs, higher level needs become
important, the first of which are social needs. Social needs are those related to interaction with
other people and may include:
 Need for friends
 Need for belongings
 Need to give and receive love
Esteem
The fourth is self esteem needs, once a person feels a sense of "belonging", the need to feel
important arises. Esteem needs may be classified as internal or external. Internal esteem needs
are those related to self-esteem such as self respect and achievement. External esteem needs are
those such as social status and recognition. Some esteem needs are:
 Self-respect
 Achievement
 Attention
 Recognition
 Reputation
Maslow later refined his model to include a level between esteem needs and self-actualization:
the need for knowledge and aesthetics.

7. Self-Actualization
The fifth and last need is Self-actualization is the summit of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is
the quest of reaching one's full potential as a person. Unlike lower level needs, this need is never
fully satisfied; as one grows psychologically there are always new opportunities to continue to
grow.
Self-actualized people tend to have needs such as:
 Truth
 Justice
 Wisdom
 Meaning
Self-actualized persons have frequent occurrences of peak experiences, which are energized
moments of profound happiness and harmony. According to Maslow, only a small percentage of
the population reaches the level of self-actualization.
Critical Analysis on Needs Theories
After thoroughly reading of these theories I have some critics on these theories. Let me share
some critics points will all my fellows and my instructor, hopefully it will help me as well for
you to understand and look into the other side of these theories.
I will start my discussion from “Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs”. It is the first theory devised
by Abraham Maslow which categories the human need into five different categories. These five
categories are Psychological needs, Safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and last one self
actualization needs theory gave motivation and vision to other theories to devise.
The first critics on this theory is that it shows that only one need is satisfied at a time and you
can’t to move to other need before fulfilling the first need.
The second critic is that culture plays their vital role in an organization where this hierarchy fails
because they prefer their culture to the hierarchy of Maslow.
ERG Theory
gave a new sketched a new design of human need. He simply reduced the hierarchy of Maslow
five needs theory into three levels is first one Existence, second is Relatedness and 3rd is
Growth. In this theory the different levels of need are exist simultaneously which differentiate if
from the Maslow’s theory.

8. The first critics on this theory is that keeping in mind the organization perspective it is difficult
for a manager to recognize that which need is dominating in the employee.
The second critic is that I will call this theory of progressive needs instead of rigid.
McClelland's Theory of Needs
McClelland another new picture of needs theory, he explained that human needs differed with
the passage of time; he cannot stick to a single need in his whole life. Therefore he listed the
human need like ERG Theory into three categories such as achievement, affiliation, or power.
According to my point of view McClelland's Theory of Needs is the best theory keeping in
mind human need and the business perspective because the employee will prefer those
organizations where he can express his knowledge, experiences and skills in a proper way and in
a good environment so that he may achieve his mission as well as vision.
Almost every aspect of Maslow’s (1954, 1970) work has been disputed on both theoretical and
empirical grounds (Neher, 1991; Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). Five fundamental propositions of
Maslow’s (1954, 1970) theory have been questioned, including: 1) the higher the deprivation of a
need, the higher its need strength (i.e., deprivation/domination paradigm); 2) the higher the
satisfaction with a need, the higher the need strength of the need at the next level (i.e.,
gratification/activation paradigm); 3) the measurement of self-actualization; 4) the ability to
achieve self-actualization; and 5) the applicability of the theory to organizations. Each of these
will now be considered. Deprivation/Domination Paradigm
Almost every aspect of Maslow’s (1954, 1970) work has been disputed on both
theoretical and empirical grounds (Neher, 1991; Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). Five fundamental
propositions of Maslow’s (1954, 1970) theory have been questioned, including: 1) the higher the
deprivation of a need, the higher its need strength (i.e., deprivation/domination paradigm); 2) the
higher the satisfaction with a need, the higher the need strength of the need at the next level (i.e.,
gratification/activation paradigm); 3) the measurement of self-actualization; 4) the ability to
achieve self-actualization; and 5) the applicability of the theory to organizations. Each of these
will now be considered.
Criticism One: Deprivation/Domination Paradigm
The deprivation/domination paradigm postulates that the higher the deprivation of a need,
the higher its need strength. An early review concluded that the deprivation/domination
paradigm was only partially supported for self-actualization, and not supported for safety,
belongingness and esteem needs (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). On the basis of this review, many
researchers have assumed that the proposition is not supported (Wicker, Brown, Wiehe, Hagen &
Reed, 1993). This assumption may be inaccurate however, as many of the studies included in

9. the review have methodological limitations. These limitations concern: a) the operationalisation
of need strength; and b) establishing causality.
Criticism Two: Gratification/Activation Paradigm
The gratification/activation paradigm postulates that the higher the satisfaction with a
need, the higher the need strength of the need at the next level of the hierarchy. The
gratification/activation paradigm is different from the deprivation/domination paradigm as the
former examines the correlation between the satisfactions of a need at one level with the
importance of the need at the next level, whereas the latter examines the correlation between
satisfaction and need strength of a need on the same level.
Two longitudinal studies have been conducted to evaluate the gratification/activation
paradigm. As previously mentioned, Hall and Nougaim (1968) interviewed managers annually
throughout a five-year period, coding their responses on need strength and satisfaction. For each
year, they correlated the changes in need satisfaction from one year to the next with changes in
need strength at the next highest level during the same period of time. According to Maslow’s
(1954) theory, it was expected that high correlations would exist between the change in
satisfaction of a given need level and the change in strength of the next highest level. The
pooled correlations were low however, ranging from r = 0.05 to r = 0.22. Hence, there was little
evidence to suggest that the increasing satisfaction of a need results in the increasing need
strength of the next highest need. It must be noted however that this study relied on a small
sample size, and the interview used in the study was not designed to produce data relevant to
Maslow’s (1954) theory. These limitations were addressed in Lawler and Suttle’s (1972) study.
As previously mentioned, Lawler and Suttle (1972) relied on Porter’s (1963)
questionnaire, which was specifically designed to measure Maslow’s (1954) needs. According
to Maslow’s (1954) theory, it was expected that the satisfaction of a need would be positively
correlated with the need strength of the need in the next highest level. Lawler and Suttle’s
(1972) results demonstrated that one correlation between security satisfaction, and social
importance was significant for the retail group
(r = 0.21), however the rest were all low ranging from r = -0.01 to r = 0.10. These findings, as
with Hall and Nougaim’s (1968) findings clearly raise questions concerning the validity of the
gratification/activation paradigm.
In summary, the gratification/activation paradigm proposes that as satisfaction with a
need increases, the need strength of the next highest need increases. Studies investigating this
paradigm generally demonstrate that the correlations between need satisfaction and need strength
of the next highest need are low.
Criticism Three: Measurement of Self-Actualization

10. There is a poor level of concordance between the definition of the need for self-
actualization, and the measurement of the need for self-actualization. Self-actualization is
defined as “the full use of one’s talents, capacities, potentialities” (Maslow, 1970, p. 150). It is
the need for the individual to become everything they are capable of becoming. Self-actualizes
have a more efficient perception of reality, accept others, are autonomous, do not need others,
are less concerned with themselves, and have deeper interpersonal relationships (Maslow, 1970).
These characteristics must be regarded with caution however as they were based on a social
discussion with a sample of 22 people whom Maslow (1954) believed to be self-actualizes.
These people were selected as they seemed to be fulfilling themselves, and doing the best they
were capable of. Perhaps as a consequence of this vague definition, operational definitions of
the need for self-actualization vary extensively.
Several early studies measured self-actualization using Porter’s (1963) need scale (i.e.,
Lawler & Suttle, 1972; Roberts, Walter & Miles, 1971). This scale includes three items which
assess the opportunity for personal growth and development in the job, the feelings of self-
fulfillment a person gets from being in the job, and the feelings of worthwhile accomplishment in
the job. One problem with these items however, is that they appear to assess how the person
feels about their work rather than whether they feel they are have reached their potential.
Although more recent scales tend to be more comprehensive, their validity is still
questioned. For example, Shoura and Singh (1999) assessed self-actualization through items
measuring meaningfulness, self-sufficiency, effortlessness, creativity, professional creativeness,
self-understanding, independence, and harmony with the universe. Examples of these items are
“do you think you have enough talents and capabilities to perform the job”, “does your work
come as second nature to you” and “do you feel your job is in harmony with the universe.”
These items are criticized for being vague, and it is questioned whether they measure if a person
has become all that they are capable of. Furthermore, these items only refer to self-actualization
on the job, and in some cases, self-actualization may occur off the job. In summary, there seems
to be a great deal of discrepancy between the definition and measurement of self-actualization.
Criticism Four: Ability to Achieve Self-Actualization
The need for self-actualization is the need for the individual to become everything that
they are capable of becoming. This suggests that anyone performing their job to the best of their
abilities is self-actualizing. However, Maslow (1970) screened 3000 college students and
concluded that only one student was
Self-actualizing. Following this study, Maslow (1970) proposed that
self-actualization of the sort he had found in older adults was not possible for younger
developing people. He proposed that young people lack many of the experiences needed for
self-actualization such as identity, autonomy, and romantic relationships. The proposal that

11. younger people do not self-actualize has not received empirical support. A study conducted on
engineers demonstrated that the junior engineers reported higher scores on self-actualization than
the senior engineers (Shoura & Singh, 1999). Furthermore, in a study of academics, ranging in
age from 30 to 68 years, age and self-actualization were not related (Hawkins, Hawkins & Ryan,
1989). It must be noted however that, as previously mentioned, these studies relied on
questionable measures of self-actualization.
Criticism Five: Applicability of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Organizations
Although some of the propositions in the need hierarchy theory have not received
empirical support, the theory has been extensively accepted in the management literature
(Roberts, 1982). Moreover, the general idea that the concepts of love, safety, self-esteem, and
growth contribute to motivation and satisfaction are acceptable to both psychologists and
management scientists (Shoura & Singh, 1999).
The fundamental problem in applying Maslow’s (1970) theory to work organizations is
that little is known about how to reach the ultimate goal of self-actualization. Maslow’s (1970,
p.46) definition of self-actualization as “what a man can be, he must be” is extremely vague, and
there is no agreed upon way of operational sing the construct, or facilitating it in employees.
 McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y
Introduction
McGregor developed two theories of human behavior at work: Theory X and Theory Y. In
simply words theory X is a negative view of people and Y theory is positive view of People.
Theory X workers could be described as follows:
- Individuals who dislike work and avoid it where possible
- Individuals who lack ambition, dislike responsibility and prefer to be led
- Individuals who desire security
The management implications for Theory X workers were that, to achieve organizational
objectives, a business would need to impose a management system of coercion, control and
punishment.

12. Theory Y workers were characterized by McGregor as:
- Consider effort at work as just like rest or play
- Ordinary people who do not dislike work. Depending on the working conditions, work could be
considered a source of satisfaction or punishment
- Individuals who seek responsibility (if they are motivated)
The management implications for Theory X workers are that, to achieve organizational
objectives, rewards of varying kinds are likely to be the most popular motivator. The challenge
for management with Theory Y workers is to create a working environment (or culture) where
workers can show and develop their
Critical analysis on X& Y Theories
After thoroughly reading of these theories I have some critics on these theories. Let me share
some critics points will all my fellows and my instructor, hopefully it will help me as well for
you to understand and look into the other side of these theories.
I will start my critics on X theory in which McGregor’s says that people are avoid work,
In my point of some people avoid work because he not satisfied our job, X people need to
motivation, some X people motivate positive some negative and some working well with
punishment. This type of people working very well if someone motivate.
Secondly, in theory Y McGregor says that people love work, but in my point of view Y people
love work because management continuously motivate them, and people satisfied our job.
Though these theories are very basic in nature, they provide a platform for future generations of
management theorists and practitioners to understand the changing dynamics of human behavior.
Taken too literally, Theories X and Y seem to represent unrealistic extremes. Most employees
(including managers) fall somewhere in between these poles. Recent studies have questioned the
rigidity of the model, yet McGregor's X-Y Theories remain guiding principles to the
management to evolve processes which help in organizational development. A mix of practices
which ensure a healthy blend of systems and the freedom to perform at the work place is likely to

13. motivate the employees more. This mix of practices calls for induction of technology into HR.
How we can practice Talent Management in all types of organizations will indicate how well we
have u understood & deployed these theories X and Y in our real time environment.
 Herzberg’s Motivation- Hygiene theory
The psychologist Fredrick Herzberg asked the same question in the 1950s and 60s as a means of
understanding employee satisfaction. He set out to determine the effect of attitude on motivation,
by asking people to describe situations where they felt really good, and really bad, about their
jobs. What he found was that people who felt good about their jobs gave very different responses
from the people who felt bad.
These results form the basis of Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory (sometimes known as
Herzberg's Two Factor Theory.) Published in his famous article "One More Time: How do You
Motivate Employees", the conclusions he drew were extraordinarily influential, and still form the
bedrock of good motivational practice nearly half a century later.
Motivation-Hygiene Theory
Herzberg's findings revealed that certain characteristics of a job are consistently related to job
satisfaction, while different factors are associated with job dissatisfaction. These are:

14. The conclusion he drew is that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not opposites.
 The opposite of Satisfaction is No Satisfaction.
 The opposite of Dissatisfaction is No Dissatisfaction.
Remedying the causes of dissatisfaction will not create satisfaction. Nor will adding the factors
of job satisfaction eliminate job dissatisfaction. If you have a hostile work environment, giving
someone a promotion will not make him or her satisfied. If you create a healthy work
environment but do not provide members of your team with any of the satisfaction factors, the
work they're doing will still not be satisfying.
According to Herzberg, the factors leading to job satisfaction are "separate and distinct from
those that lead to job dissatisfaction." Therefore, if you set about eliminating dissatisfying job
factors you may create peace, but not necessarily enhance performance. This placates your
workforce instead of actually motivating them to improve performance.
The characteristics associated with job dissatisfaction are called hygiene factors. When these
have been adequately addressed, people will not be dissatisfied nor will they be satisfied. If you
want to motivate your team, you then have to focus on satisfaction factors like achievement,
recognition, and responsibility.

15. Criticisms of Herzberg et all’s., (1959) Theory
The two-factor theory is criticized for deducing conclusions from a study that:
a) Failed to test the main propositions; and b) was methodologically flawed. In regards to the
first criticism, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how motivator and hygiene factors
relate to job satisfaction. Although the study demonstrated that employees recalling good times
tended to recall motivator factors, and employees recalling bad times tended to recall hygiene
factors, there is no empirical evidence for the proposal that motivator factors can only contribute
to job satisfaction and that hygiene factors can only contribute to job dissatisfaction. The study
did not measure job satisfaction, and as such, there is no basis for assuming that the factors
described in the incidents caused, or were even related to job satisfaction (Ewen, 1964).
In regards to the second criticism of Herzberg et all’s., (1959) theory, concerning the
methodology of the study, several problems have been identified. These include: 1) some of the
findings contradict the theory; 2) the findings differ depending on the method of data collection;
and 3) the hypotheses and criterion measures are ambiguous. These limitations will now be
discussed more extensively.
Criticism One: Evaluation of Results
The results from Herzberg et all’s., (1959) study did not completely support the theory.
As can be seen in Table 1, employees often report motivator factors, such as recognition when
they are recalling a time when they felt bad. Although they reported recognition significantly
less for bad times than good times, recognition was still the third highest source of a bad time.
Furthermore, some of the hygiene factors were reported only slightly more for bad events than
good events (i.e., salary, status and job security). Hence, some of the findings are not supportive
of the two-factor theory.
Criticism Two: The Interview Method
Replications of Herzberg et all’s., (1959) study have produced mixed results. Some
researchers have found support for the theory (i.e., Schmidt, 1976), whilst others have
contradicted the theory (e.g., Armstrong, 1971; Brenner, Cormack & Weinstein, 1971; Hill,
1986; King 1970; Waters & Waters, 1969). A commonality among the studies that have
contradicted the theory is that they have departed from the traditional interview method
(Gardner, 1977; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). The interview method is criticized for being
retrospective, and selective (Gardner, 1977). The employees are expected to more readily recall

16. positive events which reflect upon themselves, and negative events which can be attributed to
external conditions (Vroom, 1964). As a result, many researchers have tested Herzberg et all’s.,
(1959) theory with rating scales.
Criticism Three: Ambiguous Hypotheses and Criterion Measures
Researchers testing the two-factor theory have been criticized for employing several
different hypotheses and criterion measures (King, 1970). First, in regard to the hypotheses,
King (1970) cites several different ways that researchers test the main propositions of the theory.
Some researchers propose that all motivator factors combined together should contribute more to
job satisfaction than job dissatisfaction, and that all hygiene factors combined should contribute
more to job dissatisfaction than job satisfaction. Other researchers examine each factor
separately, proposing that each motivator factor should contribute more to job satisfaction than
job dissatisfaction, and each hygiene factor should contribute more to job dissatisfaction than job
satisfaction. A more precise version of the theory proposes that only motivators determine job
satisfaction, and that only hygiene’s determine job dissatisfaction. These examples serve to
demonstrate that one researcher using a broad hypothesis may report that their findings support
the theory, whilst another researcher using a specific hypothesis may report that their results are
inconsistent with the two-factor theory.
In regard to the criterion measures, researchers tend to evaluate their findings differently
(King, 1970). For example Sergiovanni (1967) conducted a study on teachers using the critical
incident technique. The results indicated that teachers reported achievement as a source of a
positive event (30) more than a source of a negative event (9). Some researchers, including
Sergiovanni (1967) propose that this ratio is supportive of the two-factor theory as it is reported
more in positive experiences than negative experiences. However, other researchers (e.g.,
Friesen et al., 1983) propose that it is not supportive as achievement was reported for some
negative experiences. Most researchers opt for the former, proposing that if one part of the ratio
is greater than the other part, the results are supportive of the two-factor theory (i.e., Silver,
1987). Even so, these different criterion measures certainly create confusion.
It must also be questioned whether a study can provide support for the two-factor theory
when some of the ratios are in the wrong direction (i.e., salary 20: 12). Herzberg et al., (1993)
did not comment on the issue, however they accepted results that were not in the proposed
direction in their study. King (1970) attempted to specify some guidelines, proposing that failure
to conform one item would not contradict the whole theory unless that one item had a significant
negative difference. However, it still remains unclear how many items would need to be
inconsistent for the theory to be refuted.
J. Michael Syptak, MD, David W. Marsland, MD, and Deborah Ulmer, PhD

17. Fam Pract Manag. 1999 Oct;6
 Three-Need Theory
McClelland’s theory of needs Achievement, power, and affiliation are three important needs that
help to understand motivation. Achievement needs the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a
set of standards, to strive to succeed. power need The desire to make others behave in away that
they would not otherwise have behaved in. affiliation need The desire for friendly and close
interpersonal relationships. McClelland’s theory of needs focuses on three needs: achievement,
power, and affiliation. They are defined as follows:
• Need for achievement: The drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive
to succeed
• Need for power: The need to make others behave in a way they would not have behaved
otherwise
• Need for affiliation: The desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships some people
have a compelling drive to succeed.
Dominant Motivator Characteristics of This Person
Achievement
 Has a strong need to set and accomplish challenging goals.
 Takes calculated risks to accomplish their goals.
 Likes to receive regular feedback on their progress and achievements.
 Often likes to work alone.
Affiliation
 Wants to belong to the group.
 Wants to be liked, and will often go along with whatever the rest of the group wants to
do.
 Favors collaboration over competition.
 Doesn't like high risk or uncertainty.

18. Power
 Wants to control and. influence others.
 Likes to win arguments.
 Enjoys competition and winning.
 Enjoys status and recognition
Critical analysis Three Need theory
They’re striving for personal achievement rather than the rewards of success per se. They have a
desire to do something better or more efficiently than it has been done before. This drive is the
achievement need (nAc,. From research into the achievement need, McClelland found that 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, taa
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 prefer the challenge of working at a
problem and accepting the personal responsibility for success or failure rather than leaving the
outcome to chance or the actions of others. Importantly, 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) is due to their own actions. This means they like tasks of intermediate difficulty. High
achievers perform best when they perceive their probability of success as being 0.5, that is,
where they estimate they have a 50-50 chance of success. They dislike gambling with high odds
because they get no achievement High achievers do well in sales positions because their jobs
provide them with freedom, personal responsibility for outcomes, immediate feedback on their
performance, and the opportunity to take on moderate risks. Schering-Plough selects salespeople,
such as the woman shown here, who take on the challenging task of selling pharmaceuticals in a
highly competitive and rapidly changing industry. Achievers avoid what they perceive to be very
easy or very difficult similarly, they dislike low odds (high probability of success) because then
there is no challenge to their skills. They like to set goals that require stretching themselves a
little. 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, strive for influence over others, prefer tube

19. 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 (nAffi. This need has received the least
attention from researchers. Affiliation can be likened to Dale Carnegie’s goals—the desire to be
liked and accepted by others. Individuals with a high affiliation motive strive for friendship,
prefer cooperative situations rather than competitive ones, and desire relationships invoking a
high degree of mutual understanding. How do you find out if someone is, for instance, a high
achiever? There are questionnaires that tap this motive, but most research uses a projective test in
which subjects respond to pictures. Each picture is briefly shown to the subject and then he or
she writes a story based on the picture. As an example, the picture may show a male sitting at a
desk in a pensive position, looking at a photograph of a woman and two children that sits at the
corner of the desk. The subject will then be asked to write a story describing what is going on,
what preceded this situation, what will happen in the future, and the like. Each story is scored
and a subjects ratings on each of the three motives is obtained.
Relying on an extensive amount of research, some reasonably well-supported predictions can be
made based on the relationship between achievement need and job performance. Although less
research has been done on power and affiliation needs, there are consistent findings here, too.
First, 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. The evidence consistently demonstrates, for instance, that
high achievers are successful in entrepreneurial activities such as running their own businesses
and managing a self-contained unit within a large organization. Second, a high need to achieve
does not necessarily lead to being good manager, especially in large organizations. People with a
high achievement need are interested in how well they do personally and not in influencing
others to do well. High-nAch salespeople do not necessarily make good sales managers, and the
good general manager in a large organization does not need to achieve. Third, 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. Of course, what is the cause and what is the
effect is arguable. It has been suggested that a
Cognitive Evaluation Theory In the late 1960s one researcher proposed that the introduction of
extrinsic rewards, such a pay, for work effort that had been previously intrinsically rewarding
due to the pleasure associated with the content of the work itself would tend to decrease the
overall level of motivation. This proposal—which Cognitive evaluation theory has come to be
called the cognitive evaluation theory has been extenAflom ling extrinsic rewards for behavior
seventy researched, and a large number of studies have been supportive. As we that had been
previously intrinsic show, the major implications for this theory relate to the way in which
people rewarded lends to deuces the overall are paid in organizations. level o motivation .

20. Historically, motivation theorists have generally assumed that intrinsic motivations such as
achievement, responsibility, and competence are independent of extrinsic motivators like high
pay, promotions, good supervisor relations, and pleasant working conditions. That is, the
stimulation of one would not affect the other. But the cognitive evaluation theory suggests
otherwise. It argues that when extrinsic rewards are used by organizations as payoffs for superior
performance, the intrinsic rewards, which are derived from individuals doing what they like, are
reduced. In other words, when extrinsic rewards are given to someone. for performing an
interesting task, it causes intrinsic interest in the task itself to decline. Why would such an
outcome occur? The popular explanation is that the individual
We noted earlier thai the cognitive evaluation theory has been supported in a number of studies.
Yet it has also met with attacks, specifically on the methodology used in theca studies and in the
interpretation of the findings. But where does this theory stand today? Can we say that when
organizations use extrinsic motivators like pay and promotions to stimulate workers’
performance they do so at the expense of reducing intrinsic interest and motivation in the work
being done? He answer is not a simple Yes or “No.” While further research is needed to clarify
some of the current ambiguity, the evidence does lead us to conclude that the interdependence of
extrinsic and intrinsic rewards is a real phenomenon.iD but its impact on employee motivation at
work, in contrast to motivation in general, maybe considerably less than originally thought. First,
many of the studies testing the theory were done with students, not paid organizational
employees. The researchers would observe what happens to studies its behavior when a reward
that had been allocated is stopped. This is interesting, hut it does not represent the typical work
sudation. In the real world, when extrinsic rewards are stopped, it usually means try individual is
no longer part of the organization. Second, evidence indicates that very high intrinsic motivation
levels are strongly resistant to the detrained title impacts oil extrinsic rewards. Even when a job
is inherently inter sting [here still exits powerful norm for extrinsic payment? At the other
extreme on dull tasks extrinsic rewards appear to increase intrinsic motivate n, Inheritor, the
theory may have limited applicability to work organizations bemuse riots lower -Level jobs are
not inherently satisfying enough to foster high intrinsic interest and many managerial and
professional positions offer intrinsic reward. Cognitive evaluation theory may be relevant to that
set of orca rain atonal jobs that fairs in between—those that are neither extremely dull nor
extremely interesting.
Stephan P Robbins(1996) Organizational Behavior 7th edition
 Goal-Setting Theory:
Goal-Setting Theory goal-setting theory The theory that specific and
difficult goals lead to higher performance. Gene Broadwater, coach of the Hamilton High School
cross-country team, gave his squad these last words before they approached the line for the

21. league championship race: ‘Each one of you is physically ready. Now, get out there and do your
best. No one can ever ask more of you than that.” You’ve heard the phrase a number of times
yourself: “just do your best. That’s all anyone can ask for.” But what does “do your best’ mean?
Do we ever know if we’ve achieved that vague goal? Would the cross-country runners have
recorded faster times if Coach Broadwater had given each a specific goal to shoot for? Might you
have done better in your high school English class if your parents had said, “You should strive
for 85 percent or higher on all your work in English” rather than telling you to “do your best”?
The research on goal- setting theory addresses these issues, and the findings, as you will see, are
impressive in terms of the effect of goal specificity, challenge, and feedback on performance. In
the late 1960s Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of
work motivation.34 That is, goals tell an employee what needs to be done and how much effort
will need to be expended.3 The evidence strongly supports the value of goals. More to the point,
we can say that specific goals increase performance; that difficult goals, when accepted, result in
higher performance than do easy goals; and that feedback leads to higher performance than does
nonfeedback.36 Specific hard goals produce a higher level of output than does the generalized
goal of “do your best.” The specificity of the goal itself acts as an internal stimulus. For instance,
when a trucker commits to making 12 round-trip hauls between bronco and Buffalo, York, each
week, this intention gives him a specific objective to reach for. We can say that, all things being
equal, the trucker with a specific goal will outperform his counterpart operating with no goats or
the generalized goal of ‘do your best.” If factors like ability and acceptance of the goals are held
constant, we can also state that the more difficult the goal, the higher the level of performance.
However, it’s logical to assume that easier goals are more likely to be accepted. But once an
employee accepts a hard task, he or she will exert a high level of effort until it is achieved,
lowered, or abandoned. People will do better when they get feedback on how well they are
progressing toward their goals because feedback helps identify discrepancies be- Detroit Edison
involves its electric utility employees in setting goals. Under its goals, measures, and targets
(GMT) program, each company unit defines team and individual goals, performance measures,
and specific expectations to ensure that a employees work toward the some results, Detroit
Edison
Rewards employees financially for their contributions in meeting broad organizational goals
such as customer satisfaction and specific gods such as reducing power plant production costs.
Shown here is an employee-generated, project. Employees replaced boiler tubes at a company
power plant, saving Detroit Edison about $228,000 over the lowest bid by on outside contractor
and reaping financial rewards for employees. what they have done and what they want to do;
that is, feedback acts to guide behavior. But all feedback is not equally potent. Self-generated
feedback—where the employee is able to monitor his or her own progress—has been shown to
he a more powerful motivator than external1y generated feedback. - If employees have the
opportunity to participate in the setting of their own goals, will they try harder? the evidence is
mixed regarding the superiority of participative over assigned goals. In some cases, participative
set goals elicited superior performance; in other cases, individuals performed best when assigned

22. goals by their boss. But a major advantage of participation may be in increasing acceptance of
the goal itself as a desirable one to work toward. As we noted resistance is greater when goo’s
are difficult, If people participate in goal setting, they are more likely to accept even a difficult
goal than if they are arbitrarily assigned it by their boss. The reason is that individual’s ale more
committed to choices in which they have a part. Thus, although participative goals may have no
superior over assigned goals when acceptance is taken as a given, participation does increase the
probability that more difficult goals will be agreed to and acted upon. Are there any
contingencies in goal-setting theory or can we take it as a universal truth that difficult and
specific goals will always lead to higher performance? In addition to feedback, three other
factors have been found to influence the goals—performance relationship: goal commitment,
adequate self- efficacy, and national culture. Goal-setting theory presupposes that an individual
is the goal, that is, determined riot to lower or abandon the goal. This is most likely to occur
when goals are made public, when the individual has an internal locus of control, and when the
goals are self-set rather than assigned. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that he or she
is self- capable of performing a task, the higher your self-efficacy, the more confidence- The
individual yourself erase is dance you have in your ability to succeed in a task. So, in difficult
situations, warble of performing o ask we find that people with low self-efficacy are more likely
to lessen their effort or give up altogether whereas those with high self-efficacy will try harder to
master the challenge. In addition, individuals high in self-efficacy seem to respond to negative
feedback with increased effort and motivation; those low in self-efficacy are likely to lessen their
effort when given negative feedback. Lastly, goal-setting theory is culture bound. It’s well
adapted to countries like the United States and Canada because its key components align
reasonably well with North American cultures. It assumes subordinates will be reasonably
independent (not too high a score on power distance), that managers and subordinates will seek
challenging goals (Low in uncertainty avoidance), and that performance is considered important
by both (high in quantity of life). So don’t expect goal setting to necessarily lead to higher
employee performance in countries such as Portugal or Chile, where the opposite conditions
exist. Our overall conclusion is that intentions—as articulated in terms of hard and specific
goals—are a potent motivating force. Under the proper conditions, they can lead to higher
performance. However, no evidence supports the idea that such goals are associated with
increased job satisfaction.
Critical analysis goal Setting theory
After thoroughly reading of these theories I have some critics on these theories. Let me share
some critics points will all my fellows and my instructor, hopefully it will help me as well for
you to understand and look into the other side of these theories.
When two separate goals are set at the same time, exerting too much focus on one may make it
difficult to achieve the other (Latham, 2004). For example, if someone sets quantity and quality
goals simultaneously; trying too hard for quantity may cause quality to be neglected . However,

23. this can be fixed by prioritizing separate goals or finding a balance between goals directly
dealing with each other. It is more important to have well thought out goals than to have too
many and not be able to follow through on any one goal.
Another limitation deals with goals and risks. During a computer game study, Knight, Durham,
and Locke (2001) found that participants who were given difficult performance goals increased
risk strategies to improve performance. Additionally, a limitation that can occur is commonly
referred to as tunnel vision. This is when employees focus so intently on their goals that they
will ignore other aspects of their job. Improper management techniques, or the presence of
inequity in the workplace underpayment),can subvert the effectiveness of the goal setting
theory. Also, not accounting for an individual’s subconscious actions also provides weaknesses
to the goal setting theory. This approach also does not account for actions motivated by the
subconscious; as the goal-setting theory focuses on cognition with no regard to the subconscious.
On occasion, an individual can do something without being aware of what is motivating them.
Finally, goal-setting theory focuses on how goals are related to job performance, but does not
take into account the "why", and does not account for why setting goals is linked to performance.
 Reinforcement theory
Reinforcement theory of motivation was proposed by BF Skinner and his associates. It states that
individual’s behavior is a function of its consequences. It is based on “law of effect individual’s
behavior with positive consequences tends to be repeated, but individual’s behavior with
negative consequences tends not to be repeated.
Reinforcement theory of motivation overlooks the internal state of individual, i.e., the inner
feelings and drives of individuals are ignored by Skinner. This theory focuses totally on what
happens to an individual when he takes some action. Thus, according to Skinner, the external
environment of the organization must be designed effectively and positively so as to motivate the
employee. This theory is a strong tool for analyzing controlling mechanism for individual’s
behavior. However, it does not focus on the causes of individual’s behavior.
The managers use the following methods for controlling the behavior of the employees:
Positive Reinforcement- This implies giving a positive response when an individual shows
positive and required behavior. For example - Immediately praising an employee for coming
early for job. This will increase probability of outstanding behavior occurring again. Reward is
a positive reinforce, but not necessarily. If and only if the employees’ behavior improves,
reward can said to be a positive reinforce. Positive reinforcement stimulates occurrence of a

24. behavior. It must be noted that more spontaneous is the giving of reward, the greater
reinforcement value it has.
Negative Reinforcement- This implies rewarding an employee by removing negative
undesirable consequences. Both positive and negative reinforcement can be used for increasing
desirable / required behavior.
Punishment- It implies removing positive consequences so as to lower the probability of
repeating undesirable behavior in future. In other words, punishment means applying
undesirable consequence for showing undesirable behavior. For instance - Suspending an
employee for breaking the organizational rules. Punishment can be equalized by positive
reinforcement from alternative source.
Extinction- It implies absence of reinforcements. In other words, extinction implies lowering
the probability of undesired behavior by removing reward for that kind of behavior. For
instance - if an employee no longer receives praise and admiration for his good work, he may
feel that his behavior is generating no fruitful consequence. Extinction may unintentionally
lower desirable behavior.

25. Implications of Reinforcement Theory
Reinforcement theory explains in detail how an individual learns behavior. Managers who are
making attempt to motivate the employees must ensure that they do not reward all employees
simultaneously. They must tell the employees what they are not doing correct. They must tell the
employees how they can achieve positive reinforcement.
Critical Analysis on reinforcement theory
Research on Reinforcement Theory, like any other research, must be conducted using rigorous
methods , the set of assumptions, rules and procedures that scientists use to conduct research is
called the scientific method. The scientific method increases objectivity by placing the data
under the scrutiny of fellow scientists and informs them of the methods used to collect the data.
This allows other scientists to make their own conclusions about the data and even ask new
questions that inspire new research, thus building on the accumulated knowledge of the specific
phenomena/subject (Stangor, 2007).
One interesting contemporary example of Reinforcement Theory, in real life action, comes
from an article by Richard Burger (2009) entitled, "The Marvelous Benefits of Positive and
Negative Reinforcement". The example took place in a college psychology class where most of
the students had decided to test the principles of reinforcement on their own professor. The
students had noticed that the professor had the annoying and distracting habit of pacing back and
forth in the front of the classroom during his lectures. Using the principles of Reinforcement
Theory, they set out to end this habit. To do this, the students who were in on the experiment sat
in the first two or three rows of the classroom as the lecture began. When the professor stood in
the center of the classroom, the students in the experiment would act as though they were
immensely involved in the lecture, eyes locked in. When the professor would wander off center,
they acted disinterested and uninvolved. A quarter of the way through the semester the
professor's habit was gone and he lectured only in the center of the classroom.
Reinforcement Theory was clearly in action in this example. As the professor wandered to the
sides of the room, he was punished by students who became disinterested in his lecture. This was
clearly negative punishment. As he made his way back to the center of the room, where the
students wanted him to stay, he was rewarded by the students becoming involved and interested,
or positive reinforcement. Whether the professor knew it or not, he was becoming
conditioned, down to extinction*, *to standing in the front of the room by the rewards and
punishments the students gave him.
In a study by Del Chiaro (2006), the use of verbal positive reinforcement as a means of
improving employee job satisfaction was examined. Five supervisors were trained in the use of
verbal positive reinforcement. The supervisor's employees then completed job satisfaction

26. surveys following job training during a baseline, intervention, and post-test phase (Del Chiaro,
2006).
Analysis of the results of the employee surveys revealed no clear patterns, but when the
means of all the supervisors were added, there was a small increase in job satisfaction ratings.
Since the validity data the supervisors submitted was incomplete, the small increase could not be
solely attributed to the verbal positive reinforcement (Del Chiaro, 2006). Del Chiaro (2006),
however, concludes that, based on the data, "training supervisors in the use of positive verbal
reinforcement has no negative effect on employee job satisfaction" (p. 3434). According to this
study, verbal positive reinforcement may increase job satisfaction slightly, but it is more likely
that it does not decrease job satisfaction.
For example, in one seminal study on reinforcing effects of stimulants in humans, doses of
intravenous cocaine were available on an FR 10 schedule (Fischman & Schuster, 1982). Under
this schedule, cocaine dose-dependently increased responding relative to placebo, indicating that
cocaine functioned as a positive reinforcer (Stoops, 2008).
Raj, Nelson, & Rao, (2006) conducted two field experiments in the Business Information
Technology Department of a major retail industry to analyze the impact of positive task
performance reinforcers. The groups created consisted of employees that either: performed
complex tasks or performed relatively simple tasks. Each group was then broken into subgroups
for a total of 4 groups. The complex group was reinforced with money and paid leave or outcome
and process feedback. The simple group was reinforced with an informal dress code or flexible
working hours
 Disregards internal motivation. The reinforcement theory only considers behavior and
consequences without considering processes of internal motivation or individual
differences (Redmond, 2010).
 Difficult to identify rewards/punishments. One main weakness in dealing with
Reinforcement Theory is the difficulty to identify rewards or punishments (Booth-
Butterfield, 1996). Each human being is different and unique, and Reinforcement Theory
has to take this into account. A reward that works for one person may not work for
someone else. For example, one person may be lacking self-confidence, so higher praise
from a manager may act as a reward. If only a raise in pay were the reward in this
situation, the lack of self-confidence would still be evident and an increase in
productivity would not be present.

27.  Hard to apply to complicated forms of behavior. It is not equally reliable in all
situations. Using it to impact behaviors involved in complicated task work can be
problematic. It is easier to reinforce behavior that applies to a simple task because
positive and negative behaviors are easier to keep track of and modify (Redmond, 2010).
 Imposes on freewill. The control and manipulation of rewards in order to change
behavior is considered unethical by some (Redmond, 2010).
 Affectivity often expires. Even when an acceptable reward or punishment is met, they
often become less meaningful over time (Booth-Butterfield, 1996). The reward of praise
seen above, for instance, becomes much less desirable after the person receives a boost in
self-confidence. Now, the manager may have to move on to another reward to keep the
motivation fresh.
 Can be complicated. The punishment aspect of Reinforcement Theory can be difficult
to apply well. According to Booth-Butterfield (1996), for punishment to be effective, a
few guidelines may be required:
1. The punishment should be immediate.
2. The punishment should be intense.
3. The punishment should be unavoidable.
4. The punishment should be consistent.
 Equity Theory
It is important to also consider the Adams’ Equity Theory factors when striving to improve an
employee’s job satisfaction, motivation level, etc., and what can be done to promote higher
levels of each.
To do this, consider the balance or imbalance that currently exists between your employee’s
inputs and outputs, as follows:
Inputs typically include:
 Effort
 Loyalty
 Hard Work
 Commitment
 Skill
 Ability

28.  Adaptability
 Flexibility
 Tolerance
 Determination
 Enthusiasm
 Trust in superiors
 Support of colleagues
 Personal sacrifice, etc.
Outputs typically include:
 Financial rewards (salary, benefits, perks, etc.)
 Intangibles that typically include:
o Recognition
o Reputation
o Responsibility
o Sense of Achievement
o Praise
o Stimulus
o Sense of Advancement/Growth
o Job Security
Theory Critics
Equity theory has a one major proposition which is the comparison of one’s inputs and outcomes
to others inputs and outcomes and as a result of this comparison one might experience equity or
inequity.
This proposition is very clear and parsimonious unlike many theories in the social science. Every
one can understand this theory since it has to deal with our feelings toward equity and justice.
These are very important issues to humans and that is why people will be inclined to understand
this theory more clearly (Rice, 1993). Researchers emphasized that theories should not be too
broad or too narrow. Equity theory has achieved this limitation. Equity theory has focused on
what motivates employees and describes that employees input something and expect something
back in return. This equalization of relationship will tend to motivate employees to perform. The
theory also emphasized two situations of inequity, which is the case of over reward and under
reward and how humans tend to react in either situation.
Equity theory is considered to be one of the most valid frameworks to understand human
Attitudes and motivation (Miner, 1984). According to Miner (1980), equity theory has the
following characteristics:

29. (a). Prediction of performance: the evidence of research showed that both over reward and
under reward will have an effect on performance, but the question that remained un answered is
for how long this effect will last before corrected by cognitive distortion. On balance the theory
seems to predict performance at least for a short period of time.
(b). Prediction of work satisfaction: the research done in this area gives strong support for
Equity theory. In over-reward situations guilt and dissatisfaction was experienced which
Led workers to increase inputs, and under-reward created anger and resentment, which led
In many cases to turnover and absenteeism, and lowering inputs.
(c) Construct validity: the central construct of the theory is equity motivation. Or perhaps two
Constructs involving guilt or shame reduction and anger reduction. The theory lacks
Precision in regard to what factors operate as inputs and what factors operate as outputs
And under what circumstances.
(d). utility: able to predict performance and work satisfaction.
(e). Fallibility: the problem of individual, who will respond to inequity stimulation and who
Will not. There is also a problem in regard to a comparison other, how it is chosen and why, how
factors come to be viewed as inputs and outputs and why.
In the appendices there are two models, which represent equity theory, and clarify it. These
models will allow us to see the relationships more clearly. The first model presents a clear
relationship.
When we compare ourselves to a referent other, the result is either equity or inequity. In the case
of inequity a person will experience anger or guilt and this anger or guilt will motivate
individuals to reduce inequity by following one of seven methods or a combination. This
relationship is falsifiable; it is constructed in a way that can be refuted by researchers. Inequity
may not lead to anger or guilt in some situations.
The draw back of equity theory is that it has not accounted for individual differences and for
different cultures. More research needs to be conducted to further explore this relationship.
Equity theory has a lot of utility in it. It is generalizable to almost any relationship whether
Intimate, exploitative, or occupational. The second utility is that equity has many constructs and
some of them are not measured, yet, this allows us to delete inapplicable constructs and variables
instead of adding new constructs and variables to the theory. The third utility of equity theory is
comprehensiveness.
Fourth, the theory is logical and it explains human behavior consistently. This is apparent in its
Use and consistency as we seen through research. Fifth, equity theory is unbounded by space or
time.
This means that it is applicable to any relationship which increases its generalizability. Sixth, all
Propositions of the theory have specified the cause and effect relationships. Seventh, the theory
has construct validity. Constructs like pay satisfaction may lead to job satisfaction. Through
studies these constructs have behaved the way they suppose to behave. Finally, we can say that
equity theory is self verifying since the nature of relationships is specified.

30. Equity theory proved to have a strong background through research. The research seemed
Consistent when examining underpayment situations in which employees lowering their
performance when reacting to the underpayment however outcomes of overpayment research
seemed inconsistent.
Equity theory could not predict what behavior is likely to be observed (lowering inputs, raising
Outcomes, or leaving the field). Adams mentioned that when someone feels underpaid he or she
might either work less as a mean of altering a person’s inputs to reduce inequity, or that person
might work harder if he or she chooses to cognitively distort the amount of his or her current
inputs. The theory does not have a definite answer regarding when one of these two opposed
responses will occur.
This theory provides anger as a retaliation method against social targets such as other
Individuals or the organization as a whole. The theory did not clarify the construct anger. This is
a negative attitude against other individuals and organizations. Equity theory considers only the
final distribution of rewards. The procedures, which generate that distribution, are not examined.
These procedures are examined in a theory called procedural justice.
One of the most critical is that of trust. In recent research of the equity theory by Bruckner,
Siegel, Daly, Tyler, and Martin (l997)
It was determined in Three field studies that employees' trust in the corporate
Administration is a powerful force '-in offsetting a potentially negative reaction that an employee
may experience regarding decisions resulting in unfavorable
Action.
Niehoff and Moorman (l993) furthered the study of the equity theory and trust by looking at
three types of employer monitoring and their effect on workplace justice and employee
citizenship. The monitoring methods were observation, informal discussions, and formal
meetings. It was determined that the first method of monitoring influenced citizenship negatively
but had a positive effect on perceptions of fairness. Many work place disturbances, including
physical violence and even murder, are blamed on employees of the organization
. But as O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin, and Glew (1996) theorize, some of these aggressive actions are
the result of the environment within the entity-labeled "organization-motivated aggression
(m·fA)" (p. 225). The authors discuss how the environment
Contributes to aggression from two perspectives. One, it acts as a stimulus and second, it
promotes certain consequences from various behaviors.
include copycat actions; negative physical, verbal, or psychological treatment; positive
reinforcement or rewards to aggressiveness; lack of a conducive physical work environment.
Research propositions are then outlined for empirical verification.
Since Adams (1963) outlined the equity theory, employee payment for services rendered has
accounted for much research interest. Rice, Phillips, and McFarlane (1990) found that employees
with a higher standard as a referent are generally less satisfied with their pay than those who

31. have a lower paid referent. If referents can be 30 changed, management might attempt by
education to publicize that salaries in other organizations are the same or lower than their own.
Such actions might lead to low recognition of peoples' efforts and negative effects of feeling
unappreciated.
Communication also plays ~~ important role in research by Bazerman, Lowenstein, and White
(1992). Their work focuses on interpersonal comparisons on decision making in an
organizational context. They first accepted that the equity theory is the primary player in
multiparty allocation of resources and that how information is presented is, in part, the key to its
importance in relative inequity.
References:
Philip N. Gilmore (2001) MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTANTS, THE EQUITY THEORY, JOB
SATISFACTION.
Abdelghafour Al-Zawahreh &Faisal Al-Madi (2012) European Journal of Economics, Finance
and Administrative Sciences.
 Vroom’s (1964) Expectancy Theory of Job Satisfaction
Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) was one of the first theories to focus on the cognitive
processes that underlie job satisfaction. It has received considerable theoretical and empirical
attention for over 30 years (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). The number of studies examining
expectancy theory has decreased recently however, with only ten studies being conducted since
the 1990’s (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). As such, this review will mainly be based on the earlier
studies.
Description of Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory describes its major constructs and propositions using its own jargon.
It refers to three major constructs, namely expectancy, valence, and instrumentality. Expectancy
refers to how much a person perceives that an action will result in a certain outcome. For
example, how much a person believes that if they work harder, they will get a pay rise. Valence
refers to the degree of anticipated satisfaction or desirability of an outcome. Hence, in the
previous example, the valence would be a measure of how much the person desires a pay rise.
Instrumentality refers to the degree to which the person sees the outcome in question as leading
to the attainment of other outcomes. Hence, in our example, instrumentality would be how much
a person believes that a pay rise will result in other outcomes, such as buying a house.

32. The way these constructs are combined depends on the variable that is being predicted.
Three dependent variables have been examined, namely job effort, job performance and job
satisfaction. This review will only examine the model predicting job satisfaction, referred to as
the valence model. This incorporates two of the above-mentioned constructs, namely valence
and instrumentality. It proposes that job satisfaction can be predicted by multiplying the valence
of an outcome by its instrumentality. Hence, to predict job satisfaction, we would need to
determine how much a person likes or values an outcome of their job (i.e., being promoted) and
multiply this measure by how much they believe that this outcome will lead to other outcomes
(i.e., being offered a partnership in a business).
There is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the measurement of the major constructs
in the expectancy theory (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). The instrumentality construct has proved
to be the most troublesome for researchers (Wahba & House, 1978). Vroom (1964) referred to
instrumentality as the probability that an outcome will result in other outcomes (i.e., outcome-
outcome relationship), and expectancy as the probability that an action will result in an outcome
(i.e., action-outcome relationship). Researchers have confused these variables however, and
have measured instrumentality through examining the probability that an action will result in an
outcome (eg., Constantinople, 1967; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1983; Reinharth & Wahba, 1976).
These different conceptualisations of instrumentality influence the application of the valence
model to the workplace.
Applications of the Valence Model
According to the valence model as defined by Vroom (1964), an employer can increase
their employees’ levels of job satisfaction through ensuring that employees value the outcomes
of their job (i.e., gaining admiration from other workers, being promoted, feeling a sense of
accomplishment, pay rise), and believe that these outcomes will lead to other outcomes.
According to researchers who operationalise instrumentality as expectancy, employers
should ensure that their employees value the outcomes of their jobs, and believe that their work
will help them achieve those outcomes.
Studies of the Valence Model
Several early studies examined the relationship between job satisfaction and the valence
model (e.g., Constantinople, 1967; Ferris, 1977; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1983; Reinharth & Wahba,
1976; Sobel, 1971, Teas, 1981). A review of such studies demonstrates that correlations between
the valence model (valence x instrumentality) and job satisfaction are generally positive, ranging
from r = 0.03 to r = 0.57 (Mitchell, 1974). This demonstrates that together, valence and
instrumentality predict job satisfaction.
An example of a typical study conducted to assess how the valence model influences
satisfaction, is that conducted by Constantinople (1967). This study examined how valence and
instrumentality contributed to satisfaction in university students. The students were given a list

33. of 14 outcomes of university (e.g., learning how to learn from books and teachers). Each
outcome was rated in terms of its importance (i.e., valence) and on the degree to which the
university was helping the students to achieve the outcome (i.e., instrumentality). The product of
these two ratings (i.e., instrumentality and valence) was obtained for each outcome, and the
products were summed across all 14 outcomes. This measure was then correlated with a
measure of satisfaction with college. According to the valence model, it was expected that the
valence times instrumentality interaction would be positively related to satisfaction. The results
were generally supportive of the model with the correlations ranging from r = 0.34 to r = 0.49. It
must be noted however that Constantinople (1967) did not examine how much each component
of the model contributed to satisfaction.
Methodological Limitations
Although many studies testing Vroom’s (1964) valence model claim to provide moderate
support for Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory (e.g., Ferris, 1977; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1983;
Reinharth & Wahba, 1976; Sobel, 1971, Teas, 1981), these studies have some methodological
limitations. Three such limitations have been identified and will be discussed below as: 1) the
finding that the components of the valence model account for more of the variance in satisfaction
on their own than when combined; 2) violations of the assumptions of the multiplicative
composite; and 3) inflated correlations due to common method variance.