Organizational Behavior Theories and Motivation

Wilmington University

February 18, 2014 Authored by: Robert Cordrey

Organizational Behavior Theories and Motivation Abstract Organizations can improve performance by increasing motivation. Because of the complexity of motivation, there are many theories and approaches to motivation. The content theories of motivation suggest that organizations improve motivation by providing employees with the ability to fulfill their lowerorder and higher-order needs. The process theories suggest that the motivation to expend effort is a cognitive decision based on factors such as outcomes and perceptions of equity. The organization can improve motivation by providing rewards and ensuring that the employees perceive the distribution of rewards as equitable. The reinforcement theories rely on the assumption that organizations influence behavior by providing rewards for desirable behavior and punishments for undesirable behaviors, which creates the motivation to align the behaviors with organizational goals. The various approaches to motivation suggest that organizations should select the methods that are suited to the situation and the requirements and perceptions of employees.

Introduction Organizations can achieve improved outcomes by motivating the members of the organization to perform at their highest abilities. In general, performance is the result of the motivation and ability of the individual in the specific situation or environment where individuals perform tasks (Griffin & Moorhead, 2011, p. 90). Among these three elements, motivation is the most difficult for organizations to control. The organization can train individuals to increase abilities and can restructure the organization to create environments that support output. Motivation, however, is highly variable and depends on individual factors that drive performance. As a result of this variability, there are many theories concerning the factors that motivate individuals and how organizations can develop approaches to motivate as many employees as possible. Content Theories The content theories of motivation suggest that organizations can control the behavior of its members by providing them with opportunities to fulfill their needs (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, 2011, p. 150). The theories are based on the assumption that when an individual has not fulfilled the need, the deficiency in meeting the need drives the individual to take the steps necessary to fulfill the need. The perception of a need as well as the desire to fulfill the need can be

variable after the individual fulfills basic needs such as food and shelter. The contingent theories also presume that individuals are primarily motivated by self-interest in fulfilling their needs. The organization must alter the factors in the external work environment that can support the ability of the employee to meet their internal needs (Nelson & Quick, 2008, p. 123). The Maslow theory of the hierarchy of needs is an example of a content theory of motivation. The theory proposes that individuals must satisfy five types of needs beginning with the basic physical needs. Once these needs are satisfied people become motivated to satisfy security needs followed by love needs. After these needs are satisfied, people seek to fulfill esteem needs and finally self-actualization needs (Kessler, 2003, p. 15). The needs at the bottom of the hierarchy are physical while the needs at the top of the hierarchy are social, which suggests a progression in which social factors become more important for motivation. The theory of the hierarchy of needs suggests that organizations provide compensation as a motivational tool to ensure that an employee's are motivated to meet their basic physical needs. A classic example of this can be the use of a contest or quota system to meet a goal in which the payoff would be a monetary bonus. This type of reward happens frequently

throughout many different types of business and organizations. The firm should also provide opportunities for employees to secure their positions to meet security needs. Because most employees meet these basic physical and security needs, the organization should use esteem needs as motivators by providing recognition or promotion and to self-actualization needs by designing jobs to foster greater creativity. Another major content theory is Herzberg's two-factor theory proposes the satisfaction level of employees in an organization is the key to motivation. The theory suggests that hygiene factors external to the individual and motivators that are internal to the individual are the two general types of variables that affect satisfaction and motivation. The hygiene factors consist of conditions such as the amount of compensation or the physical environment in which work is performed. Employees must perceive the hygiene factors as adequate be satisfied with their work for the organization. Once an employee is satisfied, however, an increase in the hygiene factor does not produce any increase in satisfaction or motivation. Once fulfilled, the employee must find an alternative motivator to remain content. In contrast, a decrease in a hygiene factor can produce dissatisfaction, which reduces motivation (Hrumm, 2001, p. 199). The motivators that are intrinsic to the individual involve higher order needs such as challenging work,

recognition, or opportunities for promotion. Providing employees with motivators lead to higher job satisfaction and motivation to perform. Not all motivators need be sponsored by the employer, a motivator may be found within the employee, which could be equally effective. The theory suggests that an organization can create an optimal approach to motivate its employees by ensuring that there is a match between the hygiene factors and the motivator factors. The hygiene factors must be sufficient to prevent job dissatisfaction among employees, which includes adequate compensation, work environment, and scheduling. At the same time, the organization must provide its employees with sufficient motivator factors to create a motivational incentive to achieve the benefit represented by the factor. Because the needs of individuals are variable, the optimal balance should include a variety of hygiene and motivator factors to ensure that the organization can use the needs of its employees to motivate performance. Theory X and Theory Y is another approach to assist organizations with identifying the optimal approach to motivating people (Nelson & Quick, 2008, p. 126). In this model, the Theory X people are motivated primarily by lower order needs such as food, shelter, and security. The model assumes that these people are inherently lazy, self-centered, and without

ambition. The organization motivates these people with compensation and other external rewards. The organization motivates the Theory Y people by providing opportunities for them to meet their higher order needs such as recognition or the desire for professional advancement. Process Theories One of the shortcomings of content theories is that they do not adequately explain the reasons people behave in specific ways to satisfy their needs. Process theories attempt to address the behaviors associated with motivation. In general, the process theories focus on the thought process of individuals in an organization that lead them to select a specific behavior from among many alternatives (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, 2011, p. 151). The organization motivates employees by providing incentives for individuals to select a behavior that is aligned with the organization's interests. There are certain characteristics that a business may seek in an individual to fill an open job slot. This would be done during the initial screening and continue throughout the hiring process. Obviously, a gregarious person would be better suited to fill a sales position in contrast to a shy or reserved individual. By hiring individuals already possessing the desired traits, it will allow for more intense grooming once hired.

Expectancy theory is a major process theory of motivation. The theory presumes that three conditions must be present to motivate people. A person must believe that their effort will be sufficient to achieve a desired outcome, which is referred to as expectancy. A person must also have the subjective belief that a given level of effort will result in the organization providing the reward if the performance expectation is met, which is referred to as instrumentality. Finally, a person must value the reward that results from the performance, which is referred to as valence (Wlodarczyk, 2011, p. 124). The motivational to engage in a specific behavior is the result of the product of expectancy multiplied by instrumentality and valence. If any of the three factors approaches zero, the motivation to engage in a behavior is substantially reduced. In expectancy theory, organizations can motivate employees by providing rewards valued by employees and connect the rewards to performance, which is sometimes called performance planning (Nelson & Quick, 2008, p. 136). These programs are intended to enhance the employees' belief an improvement in performance will lead to an improvement in the rewards the organization provides. For the program to be effective, the organization must provide the rewards to employees for the performance as promised (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, 2011, p. 151). Organizations should also provide employees with clear guidelines for the performance

necessary to receive an extrinsic reward such as compensation. The organization can also make the extrinsic rewards contingent on the desired behavior and provided immediately after the behavior occurs. Organizations, however, have less control over providing rewards the meet intrinsic needs such as promotions or the desire for professional advancement. One of the problems with implementing this theory is the variability in the value that employees place on rewards (Wlodarczyk, 2011, p. 125). Factors such as personalities and culture can influence the perception of the value of the reward. As result, organizations often have difficulty designing programs with rewards that equally motivate all employees. Equity theory also addresses motivation in organization and is an extension of expectancy theory that adds a comparative element (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, 2011, p. 151). The theory proposes that assess the fairness of the work outcomes in relation to the outcome of effort for others in the organization. The underlying assumption in the theory is that individuals make social comparisons and govern their behaviors based on their judgments concerning the fairness of the organization in fairly distributing benefits based on the amount of expended effort (Schermerhorn, Osborn, Hunt, & Uhl-Bien, 2012, p. 107). The theory implies that individuals develop a rough mental ratio in which they consider the proportion of

benefits they receive for inputs to the organization against the proportion of rewards that others receive for efforts. The balance their inputs and the organization's outputs that they receive based on subjective criteria. If the individual perceives the distribution of rewards to be inequitable, they have less motivation to increase the level of their inputs (Nelson & Quick, 2008, p. 132). Inputs can include time, effort, ability, commitment, or many other intangible contributions of the employee to the organization. Individuals also consider different types of benefits in this appraisal of organizational equity such as compensation, recognition, opportunities for advancement, or sense of achievement. Under equity theory, an organization can influence motivation by addressing the external factors that the employee considers when assessing equity. The organization can determine if the perception of inequity is valid and alter the distribution of benefits to foster a greater perception of equity among employees. If the organization believes that the distribution of benefits is fair based on inputs, it can provide information about the performance appraisal on which the benefit for the employee is based. This approach can alter the employee's perception of the value of the input to the organization and the assessment of whether the distribution of benefits is fair. Another possibility is that the employee's

10

points for comparison of inputs and outcomes are not valid. The organization can provide information to the employee demonstrating that the positions in the organization are indeed different, require different inputs, and lead to different outcomes. Reinforcement Theories Reinforcement theories of motivation in organizational behavior are a subset of contingency theories, which propose that an organization can influence behavior by providing a reward of a punishment contingent on people exhibiting a desired behavior or undesired behavior. The reward or punishment creates an increased likelihood that the individual will select a behavior that the organization desires or avoid a behavior that the organization finds undesirable. Reinforcement theories suggest that the proper application of the reinforcement can change the type, degree, and persistence of a desired or undesired behavior. The theories are based on a behavioral modification approach in which the organization develops and implements a systematic method to changing the behavior of employees to support organizational strategies and objectives. The two general reinforcement theories are classical conditioning and operant conditioning with both approaches relying on similar types of practices that lead to the desired changes in employee behavior. In general, the use of

11

reinforcement theory is a three-step process. The organization must select a type of contingent reward or punishment that is meaningful for the individual and likely to have an enduring effect. The organization must then design a contingency to ensure that the reinforcement is contingent on the desired behavior, such as a bonus for extra effort that leads to higher sales. The third step is to design contingencies so that they continue to reinforce the desired behavior after it is established (Miner, 2005, 81). The organization can use this approach to motivate employees to develop a new behavior that is beneficial or to avoid a behavior that the organization considers undesirable. The theories also propose that organizations use extinction rather than punishment to deter employees from using negative behaviors. This approach involves withholding a positive reinforcement used in the past. Withdrawing the reinforcement leads to the disappearance of the undesirable behavior over time (Miner, 2005, p. 82). The scheduling of reinforcement is also important for modifying the behavior of employees. In general, an intermittent reinforcement is more effective for changing the behavior, with the employee receiving the reinforcement only occasionally when displaying the desired or undesired behavior. The application of reinforcement theory also assumes that the organization can provide employees with contrived rewards or

12

with natural rewards. The contrived rewards include items that are not part of the overall compensation and benefit packages that the organization offers such as a cash bonus, refreshments, profit sharing, or social events. These contrived rewards have some cost, which should be commensurate with the benefit the desired behavior provides to the organization. Natural rewards are intangible an include praise or participation in the decision making process. These types of rewards have no cost to the organization. Conclusion The theories for motivating employees in organizations are useful for ensuring that employees expend maximum effort on behalf of the organization, which can improve overall organizational performance. Because of the many different factors that can influence motivation, no single theory fully describes the way organizations can influence the motivation and behavior of its employees. The variation in the theories suggests that organizations should be selective in using various motivational techniques based on the requirements of employees and the specific situation.

13

References Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. (2011). Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Griffin, R., & Moorhead, G. (2011). Organizational behavior. Mason OH: Cengage. Hrumm, D. (2001). Psychology at work. New York: Worth Publishers. Kessler, H. (2003). Motivate and reward: Performance appraisal and incentive systems. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Miner, J. (2005). Organizational behavior: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe. Nelson, D., & Quick, J. (2008). Understanding organizational behavior. Mason OH: Thompson. Schermerhorn, J., Osborn, R., Hunt, J., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational behavior. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Wlodarczyk, A. (2011). Work motivation: A systematic framework for a multilevel strategy. Bloomington IL: Author House.