Process theories seek to explain what managers can do to encourage hard work and optimal work performance.

Fundamental to all the popular theories of motivation, including those of Abraham H.Maslow and Frederick Herzberg, is the notion that employees are motivated to perform better when offered something they want, something they believe will be satisfying.

Offering employees something they believe will be satisfying is necessary, but not enough. Employees must believe they will get what they want. Employees are not motivated to perform better when managers focus on the ‘offering’ and ignore the ‘believing’. The employees is believing that what is offered will be satisfying.

Three condition for employees to be motivated to perform is this:

They must believe that their effort will lead to performance. Without confidence in themselves, they will not try as hard as they could.

They must believe that their performance will lead to expected outcomes.

They must believe that the overall value of the outcomes will be satisfying.

The expectancy theory of motivation can be summarized as follows. Employees are motivated to perform only when all three of the following conditions are met:

The employee believes that effort will lead to performance

The employee believes that performance will lead to outcomes

The employee believes that the outcomes will lead to satisfaction.

According to expectancy theory, motivation depends on how much we want something and on how likely we think we are to get it.

Expectancy theory is complex because each action we take is likely to lead to several different outcomes; some we may want, and others we may not want. For example, a person who works hard and puts in many extra hours may get a pay raise, be promoted, and gain valuable new job skills. However, that person also may be forced to spend less time with is or her family and be forced to cut back on his or her social life. For some person, the promotion may be paramount, the pay raise and new skills fairly important, and the loss of family and social life of negligible importance. For someone else family may be most important. So the first person would be motivated to work hard and put extra time, whereas the second person would not be motivated . In other words, it is the entire bundle of outcomes – and the individual’s evaluation of the importance of each outcome – that determines motivation.

Expectancy theory is difficult to apply , but it does provide several useful guidelines for managers. It suggests that managers must recognize that 1)employees work for a variety of reasons

2) these reasons, or expected outcomes,may change over time

3) it is necessary to clearly show employees how they can attain the outcomes they desire.

Goal-setting theory

The theory suggests that employees are motivated to achieve goals their managers establish together. The goal should be very specific, moderately difficult, and one the employee will be committed to achieve. Rewards should be tied directly to goal achievement.

A major benefit of this theory is that it provides a good understanding of the goal the employee is to achieve and that will accrue to the employee if the goal is accomplished. (http://books.google.com/books?id=zb0cItqvLJUC&pg=PT318&dq=expectancy+and+goal-setting+theories&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=expectancy%20and%20goal-setting%20theories&f=false )

Expectancy theory is one of the key process theories. According to expectancy theory , people will work hard to achieve good work performance if they are subsequently rewarded with rewards that are meaningful to them.

It also based on the belief that humans are rational and think rationally and will apply themselves to achieve rewards they value. There are three issues with the application of expectancy theory. First, it assumes a rational model of humanity. It assumes that employees will always follow a logical sequence of thought and action. But, as has been proven over and over, humans are not always rational. Second, in order for expectancy theory to be applied effectively, employees must have an adequate level of self-efficacy. They must believe that they have the ability to perform the task. If they do not believe that they can perform the task to the level required and thus valued reward, then expectancy theory will not work. A third problem with expectancy theory is that it is based on an extrinsic reward structure. The employee works solely for the external reward, and extrinsic reward provide motivation only for a limited period of time and, in some cases, not at all. What employee values at one point in time may not be what he or she values at another point in time.

Conclusion:

Goal-setting theory fits closely with expectancy theory if the goals are connected to rewards that the person values.

2) Expectancy theory means you motivate people managing expectations….

http://books.google.com/books?id=FG2ZNPjdrnYC&pg=PT482&dq=expectancy+theory+how+to+motivate+employee&lr=&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=expectancy%20theory%20how%20to%20motivate%20employee&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FG2ZNPjdrnYC&pg=PT482&dq=expectancy+theory+how+to+motivate+employee&lr=&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=expectancy%20theory%20how%20to%20motivate%20employee&f=false

Goal-setting theory PROBLEMS (http://books.google.com/books?id=eTpoNm5U_JwC&pg=PA224&dq=expectancy+and+goal-setting+theories&lr=&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=expectancy%20and%20goal-setting%20theories&f=false ) p.225

The effort is not the only determinant of performance. What else is needed? First, employees must have the required skills. Second , the work environment must be supportive( budget, time, tools, equipment).

Behavioral scientists generally agree that expectancy theory of motivation “represents the most comprehensive, valid , and useful approach to understanding motivation”. However , understanding motivation is one thing. Being able to motivate people to perform is another. In this regard, expectancy theory generally has been regarded as “quite difficult to apply”. This is no longer true. Now it is considered that applying expectancy theory to performance problems is simple and straightforward.

1) Companies should collect systematic information as to what employees want from their jobs (value of rewards or valence) and their perceived probabilities of obtaining rewards relative to the effort they put out. This information could then be used in designing reward system.

2) Companies should make sure that employees understand the role prescriptions for their jobs so that effort are not misdirected and thus wasted.

3) Companies should take steps to tie reward to performance in the minds of employees (to establish perceived contingencies). Permitting employees to see and believe that high performance results in high reward.

What Motivates People?

Why are some amployees better motiveted than others? Employee motivation is difficult to understand because it involves a variety of individual and organizational factors. The individual factors include needs, goals, attitudes, and abilities; the organizational factors include pay, job security, co-workers, supervision, praise and the job itself.

Today, motivating employees is important and has become more challenging for employers due to the fact that an engaged workforce result in greater performance, productivity and success for the business. This is why many managers want to find ways on how to motivate their subordinates so that the employees are willing to contribute to the firm with full potential as it will affect the corporate performance. In order to motivate subordinates effectively, managers need to have a better understanding of motivation which is why there are numerous theories that try to explain the term.

Process theories seek to explain what managers can do to encourage hard work and optimal work performance.

While content theories are primarily concerned with the internal and external causes of behavior (needs and incentives), process theories attempt to explain the process by which people make motivational choices. The process theories are the perceptual theory, the expectancy theory, the equidity theory and the discrepancy theory.

Expectancy theory explains the process by which people make motivational choices. According to this theory, people make motivational choices based on how they perceive (1) the value of rewards, (2) the instrumental relationship between performance and rewards, and (3) the chance of getting the job done.

Expectancy Theory The assumption is that if management keeps employees happy, they will respond by increasing productivity.

The subject of motivation can be approached from a number of perspectives. Some theories approach motivation as coming from within a person (Drive Theory), whereas other theories approach motivation as coming from within the person (Incentive Theory). Compare and contrast two theories of motivation explaining how the two approaches may differ and how they may be similar. Does one theory seem to explain motivation better than the other? Support your argument with examples from each theory.

Motives are reasons people hold for initiating and performing voluntary behaviour. They indicate the meaning of human behaviour, and they may reveal a person’s values. Motives often affect a person’s perception, cognition, emotion and behaviour. A person who is highly motivated to gain social status, for …

Ask any person who is successful in whatever he or she is doing what motivates him/her, and very likely the answer will be “goals”. Goal Setting is extremely important to motivation and success. So what motivates you? Why are you in college? If you are in college because that’s what your parents want, you may find it difficult to motivate yourself. Sure, it’s possible to succeed with someone else providing the motivation for you. (“If you graduate from college, I’ll give you a car!” or worse “If you don’t graduate from college, you won’t get a car.”) But motivation that comes from within really makes the difference. Theories have been developed over the years as to what motivates us

The expectancy theory of motivation is suggested by Victor Vroom. Unlike Maslow and Herzberg, Vroom does not concentrate on needs, but rather focuses on outcomes.

Thus, this theory of motivation is not about self-interest in rewards but about the associations people make towards expected outcomes and the contribution they feel they can make towards those outcomes.

Other theories, in my opinion, do not allow for the same degree of individuality between people. This model takes into account individual perceptions and thus personal histories, allowing a richness of response not obvious in Maslow or McClelland, who assume that people are essentially all the same.

Expectancy theory could also be overlaid over another theory (e.g. Maslow). Maslow could be used to describe which outcomes people are motivated by and Vroom to describe whether they will act based upon their experience and expectations.

Today, motivating employees is important and has become more challenging for employers due to the fact that an engaged workforce result in greater performance, productivity and success for the business. This is why many managers want to find ways on how to motivate their subordinates so that the employees are willing to contribute to the firm with full potential as it will affect the corporate performance. In order to motivate subordinates effectively, managers need to have a better understanding of motivation which is why there are numerous theories that try to explain the term.

Maslows hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory are popular and widely known theories of motivation. Each is also a significant step up from the relatively narrow views of scientific management. But they have one weakness: Each attempts to satisfy what motivates people, but neither explains why or how motivation develops or is sustained over time.

The highest level of effort

occurred when the task was moderately difficult, and the

lowest levels occurred when the task was either very easy or very hard.

Goal setting is a powerful way of motivating people. The value of goal setting is so well recognized that entire management systems, like Management by Objectives, have goal setting basics incorporated within them.

In fact, goal setting theory is generally accepted as among the most valid and useful motivation theories in industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior.

Several elements must exist in order for the goal-setting effect to take place. Goals must be clear, challenging and attainable, and there must be some method of receiving feedback. Locke finds that the goal itself is not the motivator, but rather the perceived difference between what was actually attained and what had been planned for.

SIMILARITIES

Several elements must exist in order for the goal-setting effect to take place. Goals must be clear, challenging and attainable, and there must be some method of receiving feedback. Locke finds that the goal itself is not the motivator, but rather the perceived difference between what was actually attained and what had been planned for.( about 2nd theory)

Locke, and professors Steve Motowidlo and Phil Bobko found that “higher expectancies lead to higher levels of performance,” which is in accordance with Vroom’s valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory. Somewhat contradictorily, they also showed that when expectations are low but goal level is high, performance would be high also.

Expectancy theory and goal-setting theory both emphasize the importance of ensuring that employees make this decision, but each takes a different route in describing what causes this to be made. Expectancy theory specifies the need to tie performance outcomes to rewards which are valued by employees. Goal setting theory lays stress on the need for acceptance by employees of the goals per se, so that motivation is more intrinsically based.

Teams.(Expect.theory) Expectancy beliefs may be more difficult to achieve at team because of line-of-sight difficulties.

Feedback. http://books.google.com/books?id=W1zEHoN0qmsC&pg=PA394&dq=benefits+of+expectancy+theory&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=benefits%20of%20expectancy%20theory&f=false (p.395)

Differences

The difference of emphasis is apparent in process theories when expectancy theory and goal-setting theory are examined. For-example, with expectancy theory individuals tend to be motivated by projects where the success rate is high. By contrast, goal-setting theory suggests that individuals are motivated by difficult assignments where success is not guaranteed. (http://books.google.ru/books?id=XVdTMmM6meMC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=similarities+between+expectancy+theory+and+goal+setting+theory&source=bl&ots=CfSCZ1btja&sig=xZD_sGJT4qRedZC0L-0Iq88g9Ys&hl=ru&ei=E7QKS_a5Lomz4Qalz5m-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=similarities%20between%20expectancy%20theory%20and%20goal%20setting%20theory&f=false )( Business psychology and organisational behaviour: a student’s handbook Авторы: Eugene F. McKenna)

(Expectancy theory) Difficult goals are harder to attain than easy goals, thus we had found a negative linear relationship between expectancy of success( high expectancy meant easy goals) and performance .

Goal-setting theory state that there is a positive linear relationship between the difficulty level of a goal and the level of person’s performance. Since harder goals are more difficult to reach than easier goals, one’s expectancy of success, across goal levels, will show a negative linear relationship to performance. Expectancy theory, in contrast to goal setting, asserts that there is a positive linear relationship between a person’s expectancy of success and subsequent performance , (http://books.google.com/books?id=0SoXpZXBrXYC&pg=PA60&dq=expectancy+and+goal-setting+theories&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=expectancy%20and%20goal-setting%20theories&f=false )

(!) http://books.google.com/books?id=W1zEHoN0qmsC&pg=PA394&dq=benefits+of+expectancy+theory&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=benefits%20of%20expectancy%20theory&f=false

Regarding to the concept of valence in Expectancy theory, it is critical to note that ,,,, Thus people with a high goal must perform at a higher level to become more satisfied than do those with an easy goal.

(?)

Limitations

As noted by Locke, his goal-setting theory has several limitations:

1. Goal conflict. Sometimes an individual has several goals, some of which may be in conflict. When this occurs, performance will suffer.

2. Goals and risk. More difficult goals/deadlines can spur riskier behaviors and strategies.

3 Personality. Goal success is largely effected by self-efficacy. Also, personality plays a large role in goal determination and approach.

4. Goals and subconscious motivation. Subconscious motivators affect people regularly, but how these subconscious motivators affect goal performance has not been studied.

(?)

Goal-setting theory appears to contradict Vroom’s (1964)

valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory, which states

that the force to act is a multiplicative combination of

valence (anticipated satisfaction), instrumentality (the belief

that performance will lead to rewards), and expectancy

(the belief that effort will lead to the performance needed to

attain the rewards). Other factors being equal, expectancy

is said to be linearly and positively related to performance.

easy goals, expectancy of goal success would presumably be negatively related to performance

Goal=.-setting theory places great emphasis on the need for the feedback of information on performance if employees are to be motivated to perform well.

http://books.google.com/books?id=E_NoJzUp1dcC&pg=PA67&dq=benefits+of+expectancy+theory&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=benefits%20of%20expectancy%20theory&f=false (how staffs can motivate,,,,,page 70-75)

http://books.google.com/books?id=DbV8QhDnEZEC&pg=PA65&dq=expectancy+and+goal-setting+theories+similarities&hl=ru#v=onepage&q=&f=false