1. Contemporary Theories
of Motivation
Gonzalo Campuzano
Enrique Flores

2. OUTLINE
 Introduction
 Early Theories of Motivation (Overview)
 Goal Setting Theory
 MBO Programs
 Equity Theory
 Expectancy Theory
 Integrating Contemporary Theories of Motivation
 References
 Questions & Answers

3. 55% of U.S. employees have
no enthusiasm for their job.
As cited in D. Jones, “Firms spend Billions to Fire Up Workers – With Little Luck”,
USA Today, May 10, 2001

4. INTRODUCTION
 Motivation is the result of the interaction of the
individual and the situation.
 Individuals differ in their basic motivational drive.
 i.e. Texbook Vs. Novel
 The level of motivation varies both between
individuals and within individuals at different
times.
 Motivation: “The process that account for an
individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence
of effort toward attaining a goal.” [1]

5. EARLY THEORIES
OF MOTIVATION
 1950’s:
 Hierarchy of needs theory
 Theories X and Y
 The two-factor theory.
 They represent a foundation from which
contemporary theories have grown.
 Practicing managers still regularly use this
theories and their terminology in explaining
employee motivation.
 Contemporary way of thinking

6. GOAL-SETTING THEORY
 Goals tell an employee what needs to be done
and how much effort will need to be expended.
 In order to increase performance:
 Set specific goals.
 Difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher
performance than does easy goals.
 Provide feedback.
 An individual is committed to the goal when he
believes he can achieve the goal, and wants to
achieve it.

7. MBO PROGRAMS:
Putting Goal-Setting T. Into Practice
 Converting overall organizational objectives into specific
objectives for organizational units and individual
members.
 Four ingredients common to MBO programs:
 Goal specification.
 Participation in decision making.
 An explicit time period.
 Performance feedback.
 Failures may come from:
 Unrealistic expectations regarding results.
 Lack of commitment by top management.
 Cultural incompatibilities.
 Fujitsu

8. EQUITY THEORY
 Employees make comparison of their job inputs and
outcomes relative to those of others:
 When employees perceive inequity, the can:
 Change their inputs.
 Change their outcomes.
 Distort perceptions of self.
 Distort perception of others.
 Choose a different referent
 Leave the field

9. EQUITY THEORY
 Given payment by time:
 Overrewarded employees will produce more than will
equitably paid employees.
 Underrewarded employees will produce less or poorer
quality of output.
 Given payment by quantity of production:
 Overrewarded employees will produce fewer, but
higher-quality, units than will equitably paid
employees.
 Underrewarded employees will produce a large
number of low-quality units in comparison with
equitably paid employees.

10. EQUITY THEORY:
Conclusions
 Motivation is influenced significantly by others’ rewards
as well as by one’s own rewards.
 Inequities created by overpayment do not seem to have
a very significant impact on behaviour.
 Most research has focused on pay, but employees seem
to look for equity in the distribution of other rewards.
 Historically, equity theory focused on distributive justice.
But increasingly equity is thought of from the standpoint
of organizational justice.
 Managers should consider openly sharing information on
how allocation decisions are made, following consistent
and unbiased procedures.

11. EXPECTANCY THEORY
 The strength of a tendency to act in a certain
way depends on the strength of an expectation
that the act will be followed by a given outcome
and on the attractiveness of that the outcome to
the individual.
 The theory focuses on three relationships:
 1. Effort-performance.
 2. Performance-reward.
 3. Rewards-personal goals.
I n d iv u d u a l
E f f o r t
P e r s o n a l
G o a ls
O r g a n iz a tio n a l
R e w a r d s
I n d iv id u a l
P e r f o r m a n c e
1 32

12. EXPECTANCY THEORY
 Giving maximum effort not always means being
recognized.
 Good performance appraisal not always leads to
organizational rewards.
 Rewards are not always found attractive by
employees:
 Managers limited in the rewards they can distribute.
 Managers incorrectly assume that all employees want
the same.

13. EXPECTANCY THEORY:
Conclusions
 The key is the understanding of an individual’s
goal and the linkage between the three
relationships.
 There is no universal principle for explaining
everyone’s motivations.

14. INTEGRATING CONTEMPORARY
THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
 Many theories are complementary.
 Its basic foundation is the expectancy model.
In d iv u d u a l E ffo r t
P e r s o n a l
G o a ls
O r g a n iz a tio n a l
R e w a r d s
In d iv id u a l
P e r fo r m a n c e
O p p o r tu n ity A b ility
O b je c tiv e
P e r fo r m a n c e
E v a lu a tio n
S y s te m
P e r fo r m a n c e
E v a lu a tio n
C r ite r ia
D o m in a n t
N e e d s
E q u ity C o m p a r is o n /
O r g a n iz a tio n a l J u s tic e
BA I
O
I
O
:
R e in fo r c e m e n t
G o a ls D ir e c t B e h a v io r
H ig h A c h ie v e m e n t
N e e d
J o b D e s ig n

15. J o b D e s ig n
In d iv u d u a l E ffo r t
P e r s o n a l
G o a ls
O r g a n iz a tio n a l
R e w a r d s
In d iv id u a l
P e r fo r m a n c e
O p p o r tu n ity
G o a ls D ir e c t B e h a v io r
A b ility
O b je c tiv e
P e r fo r m a n c e
E v a lu a tio n
S y s te m
P e r fo r m a n c e
E v a lu a tio n
C r ite r ia
D o m in a n t
N e e d s
H ig h A c h ie v e m e n t
N e e d
R e in fo r c e m e n t
E q u ity C o m p a r is o n /
O r g a n iz a tio n a l J u s tic e
BA I
O
I
O
:

16. REFERENCES
Robbins and Judge, “Organizational Behavior”, 12th Edition, Pearson
Prentice Hall, 2007.
D. Jones, “Firms spend Billions to Fire Up Workers – With Little Luck”, USA
Today, May 10, 2001
[1] T.R. Mitchell, “Matching Motivational Strategies with Organizational
Contexts”, Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 19, pp 60-62
P.C. Early, P. Wojnaroski, and W. Prest, “Task Planning and Energy
Expended: Explorations of How Goals Influence Performance”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Feb 1987.
J. Greenberg and S. Ornstein, “High Status Job Title as Compensation for
Underpayment: A Test of Equity Theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
May 1983.

17. Questions & Answers