Diary Entry 3: Motivation at Work McGregors Theory X implies that the average worker is able to be successfully managed and

their behaviour controlled. Theory Y suggests that management must guide the personal goals of individuals to match that of the organisation so that both objectives can be met simultaneously. Both theories form the basis of content and process theories of motivation. Content theories of motivation explain the factors which energise or motivate people (Brooks, 2006, p. 49). Maslows hierarchy of needs assumes human needs are arranged in order of the physiological at the bottom to self-actualization needs at the top. Each of the lower needs must be satisfied, before higher needs can become motivating factors. Herzbergs two-factor theory emphasises that the intrinsic motivating factors - achievement, advancement, recognition, responsibility and job content can only be stimulated when the extrinsic hygiene factors and maintenance are of a healthy nature. Process theories, on the other hand, focus on how a variety of personal factors interact and influence human behaviour (Brooks, 2006, p. 49). They focus on goal-setting, expectancy and equity, which, unlike content theories, recognise the individual as an ascendant in the decision-making process of motivation. Vrooms expectancy theory argues that employees are motivated to behave in a certain manner depending on their expectation of attaining a highly valued and particular outcome. If this expectation is not met then the individuals motivation is likely to lessen and their personal association to work negatively affected. Lockes goal theory likens this in its proposal that motivation is influenced by set goals accepted by an individual with given feedback on performance. It identifies the allowance for individuals to monitor, evaluate and regulate their own performance against targets as a persistent driving force. Also aimed towards achieving outcomes, Adams equity theory implies the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards promised in relation to expended efforts comparable with others is what motivates workers, i.e. their pay or contract terms compared to others performing identical duties. Content theories of motivation are generally too vague and do not recognise how strongly individual needs rely on personality and circumstance, both of which are inconstant. Although, due to the complexities of randomness, process theories themselves cannot be universally applied, they at least accommodate for this by offering a much more in depth insight and understanding to the dynamic framework determinants of motivation and commitment, more practicable in the workplace.