Theories

• Fredrick Herzberg's theory

• Adam’s equity theory

• Victor vroom’s expectancy theory

FREDRICK HERZBERG’S
THEORY
 FREDRICK HERZBERG’S
THEORY
INTRODUCTION
• Frederick Herzberg (1923-2000), clinical
psychologist and pioneer of 'job enrichment', is
regarded as one of the great original thinker in
management and motivational theory. Herzberg’s
motivation theory is one of the content theories of
motivation.
• Fredrick Herzberg's theory of motivation is based on
the information collected by him and his associate by
interviewing two hundreds engineers and accountants
in nine different companies at Pittsburgh, USA. The
information collected relates to the attitude of
people towards work.
• Fredrick Herzberg's and his associates (1959)
were the first to identify that there are two sets
of factor in the work setting that affect
employees ‘job attitude’.
• This attitude depends upon two set of factors
namely hygiene or maintenance factor and
motivating factor and is often referred to as a
‘two need system’.
• These two separate ‘needs’ are the need to avoid
unpleasantness and discomfort and, at the other
end of the motivational scale, the need for
personal development. A shortage of the factors
that positively encourage employees (the
motivating factors) will cause employees to focus
on other, non-job related ‘hygiene’ factors.
 MOTIVATION FACTOR
There are very few employees who feel that
they do not deserve what they get, but
there are no of employees who feel that
they are not getting what they deserve. This
brings out the importance of motivators.
• Achievement
• Recognition
• Growth/advancement
• Interest in the job
 The most important part of this theory of motivation
is that the main motivating factors are not in the
environment but in the intrinsic value and satisfaction
gained from the job itself. It follows therefore that
to motivate an individual, a job itself must be
challenging, have scope for enrichment and be of
interest to the jobholder. Motivators (sometimes
called ‘satisfiers’) are those factors directly
concerned with the satisfaction gained from a job,
such as:
• The sense of achievement and the intrinsic value
obtained from the job itself
• The level of recognition by both colleagues and
management
• The level of responsibility
• Opportunities for advancement and
• The status provided.
• Motivators lead to satisfaction because of the
need for growth and a sense of self-achievement.
Motivating factors act as a forces of job
satisfaction. motivation factors make people happy
with their jobs because they serve man’s basic
needs for psychological growth. A lack of
motivators leads to over-concentration on hygiene
factors
 HYGIENE FACTOR
Herzberg’s second components in his approach to motivation
theory involves what are known as hygiene factors and includes
the work and organizational environment.
This Hygiene factor includes
• organization
• Its policies and its administration
• The kind of supervision
• Working conditions
• Interpersonal relation
• Salary
• Status
• Job security
• According to Herzberg, hygiene factors are only
preventive in nature. they simply prevent
dissatisfaction. That means, taking care of them
will prevent dissatisfaction among the employees
but will not motivate the employees. hygiene
factors bring motivation to theoretical zero level
and provide the necessary ‘floor’ or launching pad
for motivators to take off. only the motivators
motivate human being on the job.
• According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors do
little contribution to provide job satisfaction. he
called them ‘dissatisfiers’ as their absence cause
dissatisfaction but their presence is not motivating
but only prevent dissatisfaction. The hygiene
factors meet man’s needs to avoid unpleasantness
but do not motivate them to take more interest in
the work. This factors are related to the
conditions of work than with the work it self.
 Criticism
• The findings of this model can not universally
applicable as study was on upper level
white –caller employees.
• The second criticism is that when the critical
incident method was not used, the
researchers got different kinds of responses.
• There is criticism about the clear distinction
between satisfiers and dissatisfiers. There
would be certain factors relating to the job
which are satiesfiers and dissatisfiers at the
same time.
 Conclusion
Despite these drawbacks, herzbergs
two-factor theory is a great
contribution to the field of
organizational motivators that till then
had been either neglected or
completely overlooked.
EQUITY THEORY
 ADAMS EQUITY THEORY
John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioral psychologist,
put forward his equity theory on job motivation in
1963.Much like many of the more prevalent theories of
motivation, the Adams Theory features more awareness,
cognizance of wider situation and crucial comparison.
In our common life, when people feel fairly or advantageously
treated they are more likely to be motivated, when they
feel unfairly treated they are highly prone to feeling of
dissatisfaction and demotivation. The way that people
measure this sense of fairness is at the heart of Equity
Theory.
 OVERVIEW OF 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. Adam's
called personal ‘Efforts and Rewards’ and
other similar ‘Give and Take’ issues at work
as “INPUTS AND OUTPUTS” respectively.
 INPUTS
Inputs are logically what we give or put into our work such as:

 Efforts
 Loyalty
 Hard work
 Commitment
 Skill
 Tolerance
 Determination
 Personal sacrifice, etc.
 OUTPUTS
Outputs are everything we take out in return such as:

 Salary ,benefits, perks, etc.

 Intangibles that include,
 Recognition
 Reputation
 Responsibility
 Praise
 Sense of achievement
 Growth, etc.
• Many of these points can’t be quantified
and perfectly compared, the theory
argues that managers should seek to find
a fair balance between the inputs that an
employee gives and the outputs received.
And according to the theory, employees
should be content where they perceive
these to be in balance.
 IS THERE REALLY A RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN HOW HARD AN EMPLOYEE WORKS
AND HOW FAIRLY HE IS BEEN TREATED?
• Some noted economists believe that there exists such
relationship!
• In any organization, the employees in addition to their
time contribute their experience, their qualifications,
and their capability in addition to their personal
strengths. MONEY of course is the prime motivating
outcome for an employee, but it is not the only, and in
some cases not even the most important factor.
POWER and STATUS are also prime motivators.
• According to the Equity Theory, the most highly
motivated employee is the one who perceives his rewards
are equal to his contributions. If he feels that he is
working and being rewarded at about the same rate as his
peers, then he will judge that he is being treated fairly.
This doesn’t mean that every manager should treat every
employee identically because every worker does not
measure his contributions in the same way.
EXAMPLE:
Flexible working hours might motivate a working mother
even more than a pay raise.
 Conversely, though an across the board
wage increase may delight more employees,
the highest producers may become less
motivated if they perceive that they are
not being rewarded for their ambition. The
basic idea behind the Equity Theory is that
workers in an attempt to balance what they
put into their jobs and what they get from
them, will unconsciously assign values to
each of his various contributions. Hence
Equity Theory of Employee Motivation
basically describes the relationship
between how fairly an employee perceives
he is treated and how hard he is motivated
to work.
 According to the equity theory employees
compare their outcome/input ratio with the
outcome/input ratio of others to determine
whether they are being treated fairly or unfairly
by the organization. These comparisons are
divided into 3 categories:-
1. Over rewarded inequity/ Positive inequity:-
A person feels over rewarded when his
outcome/input ratio is greater than other
persons outcome/input ratio with whom the
person compares himself.
P outcome > O outcome
P input O input
Equity theory states that an overpaid
worker feels guilty.
2. Under rewarded inequity/ Negative inequity
A person feels under rewarded when his
outcome/input ratio is less than other persons outcome/input
ratio with the person compares himself.
P outcome < O outcome
P input O input
Equity theory states that underpaid workers feels angry.

3.Equity:-
A person feels equitably treated when his
outcome/input ratio is equal to others persons output/input
ratio with the person compares himself.
P outcome = O outcome
P input O input
Equitably paid workers are said to feel satisfied.
 6.Under conditions of inequity people
experience tension, which in turn
creates the motivation to reduce
inequity. Thus people are motivated to
escape these negative emotional states
anger and guilt. Employees experiencing
inequity will try to reduce it through a
combination of 2 responses:-
• Physical or Psychological
• Internal or External
 Employee works harder at
Internal- Physical his job.
Employee might discount
Internal-Psychologicalthe value of rewards
received.
An employee tries to
External-Physical convince other workers to
ask for more rewards.
Employee might choose
External- someone else for
Psychological comparison purposes.
 Similarly the employees who feel under
rewarded may try to reduce inequity and
restore balance through these 4
responses:-
Employee may deliberately
lower the quantity or quality
Internal-Physical
of work.
Employee might inflate the
value of the rewards
Internal-Psychological
received.
Employee might bargain for
more rewards.
External-Physical
Employee might choose
someone to compare himself
External-Psychological
more favorably.
• The equity model threw light on the areas
of motivation by recognizing the influence
of social comparisons. Individuals are
concerned not only with the efforts but also
with the absolute amount of rewards they
receive for their efforts with the
relationship of this amount to what other
receives.
• Research on the equity model has yielded
favorable results as these results have been
more supportive to under rewarded inequity
than over rewarded inequity.
The equity is not free of limitations. Some of the
difficulties that managers encounter in using this
model are:-
• Difficulty in predicting inequity:-
Predicting inequity is often difficult because
employees select a number of reference groups both
inside and outside the organization. Also employees
compare themselves to standards that are most
favorable to them. For e.g. educated employee
emphasize on qualifications, while employees with
longer service emphasize seniority as the dominant
criterion.
• Equity sensitivity:-
Different individuals have different
preferences for inequity. Some people prefer to be
over rewarded other prefer to be under rewarded.
Identifying while category an employee belongs to is
not and easy task for managers.
 CONLUSION
• The idea behind Adams’s equity theory is to strike a healthy
balance here, with outputs on side of the scale, inputs on the
other-both weighing in a way that seem reasonably equal. If the
balance lies too far in favour of the employer, some employees
may work to bring balance between inputs and outputs on their
own, by asking for more compensation or recognition. While
others will be demotivated and still others will seek alternative
employment.
 Expectancy theory
Introduction
• Expectancy theory was introduced by victor vroom. He made
important contribution to the understanding of motivation and the
processes used to determine how much efforts employees will
expand on their jobs. In short this theory expands on the work of
Maslow's and Herzberg. He introduced three important concepts are
as follows:-
• Expectancy
• Instrumentality
• Valence
• Force
 Expectancy
Expectancy denotes the anticipated probability
that a given level of work effort leads to a
specific level of performance. Vroom opines that
before an individual decides to put effort into the
performance of the task, he or she looks at the
various options available. Expectancy is defined as
the probability ranging from 0 to1 that certain
efforts will lead to a certain outcome. If the
employee feels that he has no chance of meeting
target than his expectancy is 0. The mere fact
that he decides to put
 Expectancy

1
0
High probability
Low probability that
that efforts will lead
Efforts will lead
To performance
to performance
 Instrumentality
Instrumentality refers to the outcomes for each level of
job performance of the individual. For instance, if
indeed through a high level of effort, high
performance is achieved, what will be the resultant
outcomes or instrumentalities? There are both
negative and positive consequences in terms of effort
and reward outcomes. The value of instrumentality
ranges from 0 to 1. if the employee strongly believes
that performance leads to promotion then
instrumentality is high. On the other hand
If the employee is not clear as to what determines a
promotion then instrumentality is low.
 Expectancy

+1
0
High probability
Low probability that
that efforts will lead
Efforts will lead
To performance
to performance
 Valence
• Valence is the extent of attraction (as opposed to repulsion)
of an outcome to the recipient of the reward. That is it
denotes the value or attraction of various possible outcomes
from putting in effort. Valence can be positive or negative.
The numerical value of valence may range from +1 to -1. No
motivation is possible unless the valence is positive. Valence is
positive when the person prefers attaining the outcome as
compared with not attaining it. Valence is zero when the
person is indifferent to the outcome. Valence is negative when
the person prefers not attaining the outcome as compared
with attaining it.
 valence

-1 0 +1
No attraction or Indifferent to the Strong attraction
Preference for reward Or preference
The reward For the reward
 Force
Force is the actual effort expanded by the individual on the
job (indicating the motivational level) and is, as we have
observed, a function of the multiplicative effects of the
sum of the effort to performance probabilities, the sum of
performance to outcome probabilities, and valence. Force is
calculated thus:
force = [(E->P) x (P->O) x V]
Certainly, individuals in organization do not cognitively go
through all the calculations described in the model attaching
values for probabilities and valence. However, employees do
intuitively and often cognitively go through processes
somewhat on the lines described in the model while deciding
on how much effort you put in for studying for different
examinations or writing various term papers