A cognitive theory of motive based on the work of J. Stacey Adams ( 1963, 1965 ) . Adams proposed his equity theory which stated that, a individual evaluates his or her results and inputs by comparing them with those of others. The two of import factors in equity theory are inputs and results.
Input signals are defined as those things a individual contributes to an exchange in the work topographic point, an employee`s input would be experience, instruction, attempts, accomplishments and abilities.
Results are those things that result from the exchange such as salary, fillips, publicities, acknowledgment etc.
Equity Theory consists of following four propositions:
Persons tried to maximise their results. i-e inducements committees, fillips.
Groups can accomplish corporate ends and wagess by developing equity among themselves
This system can merely go effectual if all the members of group promote this system among themselves and use can merely be encouraged to lodge to equity if they are cognizant of its benefits and there must be a system of wagess for those who stick to equity and penalty for those who persuade unfairness to maintain the system more effectual and consequence oriented.
Groups can maximise corporate wagess by developing recognized systems for equitably allocating wagess and costs among members. Systems of equity will germinate within groups, and members will try to bring on other members to accept and adhere to these systems. The lone manner groups can bring on members to equitably act is by doing it more profitable to act equitably than inequitably. Therefore, groups will by and large honor members who treat others equitably and by and large punish ( increase the cost for ) members who treat others inequitably.
Equity theory explains that employees get de-motivated and become disturbance in unjust environment.Inequity has direct relation with employees concerns, employee who get excessively much wagess feel same hurt like the employee who gets really small the separating characteristic between two feelings is guilty or shame and humiliation for the ulterior instance.
When persons find themselves take parting in unjust relationships, they become hard-pressed. The more unjust the relationship, the more distress persons feel. Harmonizing to equity theory, both the individual who gets “ excessively much ” and the individual who gets “ excessively small ” feel distressed. The individual who gets excessively much may experience guilt or shame. The individual who gets excessively small may experience angry or humiliated.
Employes who recognise unjust relation they try difficult to reconstruct equity and take their torment. greater the realization of unfairness more the employes feels hurt and more they try to acquire rid of unfairness by reconstructing equity because both goes frailty versa.
Persons who perceive that they are in an unjust relationship effort to extinguish their hurt by reconstructing equity. The greater the unfairness, the more distress people feel and the more they try to reconstruct equity.
hypertext transfer protocol: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory # cite_note-0
It is a perceptual experience of an person of input and results, which may or may non be world. Inequity will non be if the individual has high inputs and low end products every bit long as the others individual has the similar ratio. Inequity occurs due to missing of equity. The feeling of unfairness is making force per unit area or tenseness inside people which therefore motivates them to reconstruct equity by conveying the two ratios back into balance. ( Walster, Traupmann and Walster, 1978 )
And to reconstruct the unfairness employees may:
Change inputs -employees can set more or less attempt into the work.
Change outcomes-employees can force for pay additions and other benefits without any corresponding additions in inputs.
Psychologically rationalize inputs or outcomes-rather than really altering inputs or results, employees change their perceptual experience of what they are seting or acquiring out.
Leave -employees can reassign to another occupation merely quit the administration.
Psychologically falsify the inputs or results of others-employees may come to believe that others work harder than they do and therefore deserves greater wagess.
Change the comparison-an employee may make up one’s mind that a peculiar individual is no longer allow for comparing and selects another, which yields a more favorable result.
EXPECTANCY THEROY: –
The anticipation theory of motive was proposed by Victor Vroom of Yale School of Management in 1964. Vroom chiefly focuses on results, non on demand. The theory states that
`The strength of a inclination to execute in a peculiar mode is dependent on the strength of an outlook that the public presentation will be followed by a definite result and on the entreaty of the result to the individual`
The anticipation theory of motive describes the relationship between the attitudes of the employees, their observation about the attainability of marks and the wagess they expected to have as a consequence of their public presentation. Every person have certain sort of outlooks and set ends, they can be motivated on these ends and outlooks. Vroom realised that employee ‘s public presentation is based on single factors such as personality, accomplishment cognition, experience and abilities. The figure of thing can add to employee anticipation perceptual experience. The degree of assurance and accomplishment required for undertaking completion. The support from higher-ups and sub-coordinators and the desire information required. Vroom anticipation theory based on three beliefs, Valence, Expectancy, instrumentality. Expectancy Theory is besides called Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy Theory or VIE Theory
The value of the sensed result ( What ‘s in it for me? ) . It concern with the emotional orientations which people hold with respects to outcome.
It is the belief that if I complete certain actions so I will accomplish the result. It is the trust that if you performed good the result will be desired. Expectancy theory consists on three following relationships.
Effort-performance relationship: What is the chance that the person ‘s attempt be documented in his public presentation assessment?
Performance-reward relationship: It is about the point to which the employee believes that by acquiring a good public presentation they will acquire good organisational wagess.
Rewards-personal ends relationship: It is all about the attraction of the possible wages to the person.
It is about the belief that I am able to finish the actions. It is about the person ‘s capablenesss of finishing the undertaking or occupation. It is the religion that better attempts consequences in better public presentation
A motivated employee is therefore the consequence of the supposed degree ofA satisfaction, the confidence to accomplish and the wagess that the employee hopes to acquire on accomplishing the set ends. In other words, valency * anticipation * instrumentality = motive.
In 1960 ‘s, A Edwin LockeA purposed the Goal-setting theory of motive. This theory states that
“ The ends to be achieved are set at a higher criterion than in that instance employees are motivated to execute better and set in maximal attempt ”
To put proper ends and undertakings are really of import for the growing of company because if employees Have clear apprehensions of their ends so they put all their attempts in accomplishment of those ends and their work will be more consequence oriented.
It is really of import for the directors to brief the employees about his outlooks from them what he wants and what should be the focal point of employees. If employee does non hold a clear apprehension of what his director expects from him these thing truly affects his public presentation. Employee can believe that he is non executing good and can be de moralised.
. A study affecting over 1000 Australian directors revealed that:
21 per centum did non cognize or were unsure of the ends they were expected to accomplish
15 per cent did non cognize or were unsure of what was expected of them in their occupations
37 per cent had received no specific suggestions on public presentation betterment
34 per cent received small or no aid in bettering their public presentation
Harmonizing to the study
It is non surprising that Australian directors rated ‘lack of aims ‘ as the major waste of clip. This is non true harmonizing to the facts ends are strong actuating force they can impact employees public presentation both ways if employees have clear understanding he/she work harmonizing to directors demands and if their is a deficiency of communicating between director and employee and he/she is diffident about what result is expected from them their energies would be wasted in incorrect waies.
Research suggests the undermentioned conditions are required for end scene to be an utile incentive.
Directors should be clear and precise about choosing ends for employees.managers must avoid statements like do your best because these statements are ill-defined and do n’t give employees appropriate way towards their ends.
Employee ‘s engagement in the end puting procedure is besides really of import because if employees are involved in end puting procedure so they will hold clear understanding about their occupation positions and can be after their public presentation to accomplish expected outcomes.
And besides they will be much more motivated and satisfied if their engagements is involved in end puting procedure.
Directors must put ambitious ends for employees so that they put more attempts in accomplishing those ends but directors must non put really aggressive or impossible ends because this can take to de-motivation and letdown. Directors should bit by bit increase the trouble degree so that employee ‘s motive and avidity for result would be maintained.
Feedback on public presentation is the key to employees motive and succefull attack for ends achievement. Directors must ever give proper feedback to employees on what they have achieved and actuate employee by stating him that outlooks are now higher from him/her.
Goal puting theory depends on 2 factors
Employees self confidence-
Employees assurance and religion that he/she can execute harmonizing to what is expected from them. Higher the degree of assurance, greater will be the attempts by the person when they face disputing undertakings.
Goal puting theory assumes that the person is committed to the end and will non go forth the end. The employees committedness is dependent on the undermentioned factors:
Goals are clear and realistic.
Goals should be set with employee ‘s engagement in end puting procedure.
Advantages of Goal Setting Theory
Goal puting theory is a technique used to give employees way towards their ends and direct their energies to what is expected from them.
Goal scene is cardinal to increase motive among employees but it besides depends on proper feedback on employee ‘s public presentation.
Restrictions of Goal Setting Theory
At times, the organisational ends are in struggle with the managerial ends. Goal struggle has a damaging consequence on the public presentation if it motivates incompatible action impetus.
Unrealistic ends could go a ground of employees de-motivation.
It is hard sometimes to put appropriate ends harmonizing to employee ‘s abilities and to what extent he/she is capable off.
To keep employee ‘s satisfaction and involvement is hard throughout the goal-setting procedure.
3.11 REINFORCEMENT THEORY
Reinforcement theory of motive was proposed by BF Skinner and his associates. It states that person ‘s behavior is a map of its effects. It is based on “ jurisprudence of consequence ” , i.e, person ‘s behavior with positive effects tends to be repeated, but individual ‘s behavior with negative effects tends non to be repeated.
Reinforcement theory of motive merely focuses on external factors like organizational environment as a motivational factors. Skinner ignored the internal feelings and causes thay affects employees behaviour. This theory focuses on employees actions and descions but non on the root cause of that actions hence Skinner merely relates effectual external environment of administration as a motivational tool for employees.
This theory is a strong tool for analysing commanding mechanism for person ‘s behavior. However, it does non concentrate on the causes of person ‘s behavior.
The directors use the undermentioned methods for commanding the behavior of the employees:
Positive Reinforcement- positive support is giving positive feedback when employee performs harmonizing with the directors outlooks and organizational regulations e.g if employees is really punctual and commited to his occupation congratulations him/her straight off this will increase employees morale and actuate them to demo more commitment and professionalism.
Reawards and inducements are besides positive reinforcing stimuluss if and merely these things improves employees behaviour as well.rewards and inducements can be positive reinforcing stimuluss if they are given on a regular basis to pull employees attendings.understanding and designation of employees demands are besides an of import factor and can be a positive support factor.
Negative Reinforcement- This implies honoring an employee by taking negative / unwanted effects. Both positive and negative support can be used for increasing desirable / required behavior.
Punishment- penalty is besides a really of import factor fright of penalty restricts employees carelessness and unprofessionalism at job.in other words employees can confront worst effects if they show undesireable behavior that ; s non in line with administration directors outlooks. Removing suspending employees for interrupting regulations but penalty should reflect employees undesireable behavior and and directors must maintain in their head that penalty is to rectify employees bad behavior and it must ne’er demo any personal anguish.Punishment can be secure by positive support from other beginning.
Extinction. extinction implies take downing the chance of unsought behavior by taking wages for that sort of behavior. For case – if an employee no longer receives congratulations and esteem for his good work, he may experience that his behavior is bring forthing no fruitful result. Extinction may accidentally take down desirable behavior.
Deductions of Reinforcement Theory
Reinforcement theory explains in item how an single learns behavior. Directors are the cardinal members of administration and their action and descions affect the overall environment. Directors should follow appropriate method of measuring employees e.g giving employees wagess and inducements is a positive reinforcing stimulus but they should besides explicate emolpyees about their errors. Directors can implement this theory expeditiously if they explain their outlooks to employees and must do it clear for the employees what sort of behavior is anticipating from them. employees behaviour reflects their satisfaction involvement and committedness to their occupation so to accomplish that desired behavior directors should follow positive support.