Motivation: A Comparison of and Possible Relationship between Herzberg s Two Factor Theory of Motivation and Vroom s Expectancy Theory

Transcription

1 Motivation: A Comparison of and Possible Relationship between Herzberg s Two Factor Theory of Motivation and Vroom s Expectancy Theory Melissa A. Foss University of South Florida LIS 6409: Intro to Library Administration Spring Semester 2014

2 Key to any organization is the human component. Although technology continues to advance and often it seems as though computers and machines could, and potentially, will take the place of people, the individuals that make up an organization are the heart of the organization. The employees provide the effort, insight, and performance that ultimately make an organization what it is and ensure that the organization obtains its mission. Therefore, in order to have a properly and efficiently functioning organization and one that will achieve its optimal performance, it is necessary to ensure that the employees are working to their full-potential. In order to ensure that employees are working to their full potential, managers should be aware of the potential motivations underlying employees decisions on the amount effort they will put into their work. A variety of motivational theories have been advanced by numerous theorists, all trying to get at the ways in which individuals are motivated to complete work at a desirable level. These theories range in approach from looking at pre-existing needs common to individuals as motivators (for example Maslow s hierarchy of needs, Herzberg s two-factor theory of motivation, and McClelland s need theory) to looking at the individual s perception of what his or her effort will get them (for example Adam s equity theory, Vroom s expectancy theory, Skinner s behavior modification, and Locke s goal-setting theory) (Moran, Stueart, & Morner, 2013, pp ). In order to fully understand those factors that motivate employees to put forth premium effort and take pride in their work compared to those employees that put forth just enough effort to get the work done or put forth less than the required effort, it would be helpful to consider not just a single theory of motivation, but look at a combination of theories for example combining

3 a content model such as Herzberg s two-factor theory with a process model such as Vroom s expectancy theory. What is Motivation? Motivation and Motivational Theories How an individual employee perceives their work, their attitude toward the work, and their general personality traits impact how the employee performs their work (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 269). Those individuals that are motivated are more likely to perform in a high quality manner than those employees that lack motivation (Honore, 2009, pp ). Studies have concluded that there is a positive relationship between employee satisfaction/contentment, customer satisfaction and company performance (Matzler & Renzl, 2007, p. 1093; Rahman, Rajab, Shaari, Panatik, Shah, & Hamid, 2012, p. 604). Because the employees are essential to an organization s performance, it is necessary that those in charge spend time managing interpersonal relationships within the workplace (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 269). It is also necessary to understand the motivation of employees to perform the needed tasks. Managers strive to ensure that employees are helping the organization reach its goals and a large part of that is figuring out how to align the work of the employee with the goals of the whole (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 274). Understanding human nature and what causes someone to perform tasks at a higher level is a desire in a variety of fields including economics, psychology, and sociology (Steel & Konig, 2006, p. 889). An abundance of research in many areas of the labor force and areas of the world has been conducted in order to better understand motivation in employees, the factors that influence motivation and job contentment; these areas include recreation/leisure services (Williams, Lankford, & DeGraaf, 1999), New Zealand compared to the United States

4 and Europe (Hines, 1973); hospitality and service (Matzler & Renzl, 2007) and academia at the university level (Rahman, et al, 2012). One way to define motivation is the willingness to expend energy to achieve a goal or a reward (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 274). Another definition is with reference to what makes a person tick, what drives them to take a certain path (Miller, Walker, & Drummond, 2007, p. 103), the forces acting on or within a person that cause a person to behave in a specific, goal-directed manner (Honore, 2009, p. 63). Therefore it is important that the work an employee does to reach an organizational goal will also serve some benefit to the employee themselves to spark their motivation to complete what is required. Often employees do not work to their full potential and therefore the potential for the organization to reach its ultimate goals and full efficiency is also compromised; in that regard, it is necessary for managers to attempt to bridge the gap between what an employee needs and desires and what will get the organization where it needs to go (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 274). As indicated by Moran, Stueart, and Morner (2013), [m]otivation can be seen as a sequential process, in which 1) employees put forth effort, 2) those efforts result in the organization achieving its goals, and 3) the employer rewards the employees or satisfies their needs in some way (p. 274). There is an abundance of motivational theories and different fields tend to attribute different interpretations and subdivisions within the theories (Gardner, 1977, p. 203; Steel & Konig, 2006, p. 889); however, those theories do tend to have some commonalities (Steel & Konig, 2006, p. 889). Although individuals have at least some common needs and desires, the factors that actually motivate an individual to do or not do something vary greatly among particular individuals and also dependent on the current circumstances and environment (Moran, Stueart, & Morner, 2013, p. 274; Honore, 2009, p. 64). Certain thoughts or approaches to

5 motivation have existed for a very long time motivation through fear of punishment, the carrotand-stick approach, the economic person theory of Frederick Taylor, and the human relations theory are just a few (Miller, et al, 2007, p ). Theories have emerged from numerous theorists and researchers regarding what motivates individuals, most of which fall into the categories of either content or process models/theories (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 275; Miller, et al, 2007, pp ). Content Theories Content theories of motivation focus on the assumption that individuals have a set of preexisting needs and those individuals can be motivated by having those needs addressed in the workplace (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 275). Among the best known theories in this realm are Maslow s hierarchy of needs, which theorizes that all needs of individuals can be categorized into one of five levels with the needs of the lower categories being met before higher categorized needs are satisfied (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 276). According those the hierarchy, as needs are satisfied, they no longer serve as motivators (Miller, et al, 2007, p. 108). Another content theory is Herzberg s two-factor theory of motivation (discussed in more depth later in this paper), which modified and built upon Maslow s theory (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 277). McClelland proposed a theory that provides three categories of needs in workers achievement, power, and affiliation (Moran, et al, 2013, p ). These theories all find a basis in assumptions of pre-existing needs of individuals that can be categorized and seemingly remain constant. Process Theories The process theories tend to focus on the individual and the behaviors and psychology that affect the individual s motivation; these theories focus on the individual making decisions on the type of behavior that will cause their desired result (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 281). Adam s

6 equity theory that deals with the comparison of an individual s input (the effort exerted by the employee on their work) and output (what the individual receives because of his/her input) with the inputs and outputs of other employees in comparable positions both within the same organization and in a different organization (Moran, et al, 2013, p ). Vroom s expectancy theory (discussed more in depth later in this paper) takes into account the individual s perceptions, beliefs, and desires regarding their efforts, the outcomes, and the rewards as being factors into finding the motivational force of the individual (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 283). The process model of behavior modification theory looks at an individual s actions and means of reinforcing continued action or elimination of the action (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 285). Goal-setting theory proposes that when an individual has specific, potentially difficult goals to reach, the employee s performance will increase to attempt to reach those goals, thereby improving the possibility of completing the goal and advancing the organization (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 286). Herzberg s Two Factor Theory of Motivation Frederick Herzberg performed research regarding motivators in individuals and took Maslow s hierarchy, built upon it and modified it to more reflect motivation in the work place (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 277). Herzberg s two-factor theory of motivation includes 1) hygiene or maintenance factors and 2) motivators; the maintenance factors do not necessarily serve as motivators, but can lead to job dissatisfaction, while the motivators are the areas through which managers can promote better performance from their employees (Moran, et al, 2013, p ; Miller, et al, 2007, p. 110). Herzberg s theory is premised on the sets of factors existing independent of each other and the motivators are seen as intrinsic factors while the hygiene factors are extrinsic factors (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 279). Intrinsic factors are those that deal with

7 the work itself, achievement, levels of responsibility, recognition, and status (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 279; H R Buddies (1), 2011). Extrinsic factors, or those factors leading to job dissatisfaction, are more closely linked to the work environment and items such as company policies, supervision, relationships with co-workers, and pay (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 279; H R Buddies (1), 2011). The two-factor theory provides that the hygiene factors need to be satisfied in order to prevent job dissatisfaction; however those factors are not enough to provide the motivation for employees to perform at their full, or at least closer to full, potential (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 279). This is the point that the motivator factors play keeping employees excited about their jobs based on the actual work being done and fulfilling needs related to the work such as challenge, interest, and value of the work being done (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 279). Herzberg s theory has been subject to much critique, much study, and persists despite all the criticisms (H R Buddies (1), 2011; Matzler & Renzl, 2007, p. 1094; Moran, et al, 2013, p. 279). The critiques of Herzberg s theory include: 1) that the separation of the factors is an artifact of the technique Herzberg implemented in his studies; 2. that the theory does not allow for individuals differences; 3. that the theory deals in generalities and deals with average behavior (Farr, 1977; H R Buddies (1), 2011; Matzler & Renzl, 2007, p. 1094; Ondrack, 1974, p. 79). While Herzberg and his technique are critiqued, those same critics are also criticized on the basis that those researchers who fail to find support for the theory have not used the necessary procedures (Gardner, 1977, p. 197). Vroom s Expectancy Theory of Motivation Multiple researchers have come up with different motivation theories dealing with expectancies with a common feature or difference with the expectancy models having a heavier

8 focus on the individual and how the individual acts in order to maximize or minimize a particular outcome (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 282). Expectancy theories are applied in various fields including education, business, government, and social sciences (Hoffman-Miller, 2013). It is considered to be both behavioral and motivational (Uy, 2014). One of the most well known expectancy theorists is Victor Vroom who proposed a theory based on individuals acting to obtain a particular outcome if they believe it is a worthwhile outcome and believe their efforts will ultimately cause the outcome to occur (Moran, et al, 2013, p ). Vroom s model breaks down into the formula Motivation = Valence x Expectancy x Instrumentality (M = V x E x I) (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 283). The valance refers to the value in the outcome/reward resulting from the effort; the expectancy deals with the individual s belief regarding whether his/her effort will result in a performance that is expected of him or her; and instrumentality refers to the individual s belief that the acceptable performance will result in the desired reward (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 284; Uy, 2014). Valence deals with the particular individual s desire for either extrinsic or intrinsic rewards; when considering what is an extrinsic reward versus an intrinsic reward, it is found to be similar to the extrinsic (money, benefits, work environment) and intrinsic (the actual work) factors cited by Herzberg (H R Buddies (2), 2011). Valences can be both positive and negative (Porfeli, Lee, & Weigold, 2012, p. 3401). A more general way of looking at these three factors or variables is three questions that expectancy theory explains... employees are concerned [with] How much effort, diligence, care, etc., should I devote to my work? 2. If I perform well as a result of my effort, diligence, care etc., will I obtain desired outcomes to satisfy my needs? 3. Does my employer provide work outcomes that satisfy my needs? (Miller, et al, 2007, p. 112). For the expectancy theory, it is crucial to look more specifically at the individual because not all

9 people will appreciate the same reward (Miller, et al, 2007, p. 112). Expectancy theory is driven by the strength of an individual s belief about whether a specific performance or reward can and will be achieved (H R Buddies (2), 2011). If any given variable is zero, then as a multiplicative formula, the motivation is also zero (H R Buddies (2), 2011). Like Herzberg s theory, expectancy theory is not without its critics. Among the critiques of Vroom s expectancy theory is the difficulty in application since it depends on the individual as opposed to the more general nature of the two-factor Herzberg theory (Moran, et al, 2013, p. 284). Expectancy theory has also been critiqued on the basis of the accuracy of its assumptions (Liddell & Solomon, 1977, p. 460). By looking at a combination of process and content theories, it may be possible to integrate theories of motivation; thereby allowing managers and other individuals responsible for motivation of employees within an organization to better understand underlying motivation of individuals. Relationship between and Possible Integration of Herzberg and Vroom s Theories As discussed above, Herzberg and Vroom s theories fall into different classifications (content versus process) and include different levels of generality versus individuality. Additionally, theories are interpreted in different ways depending on the particular field (Steel & Konig, 2006, p. 889). Based on those differences, it would seem easy to consider the theories as separately operating or exclusive options; however, considering integration of Herzberg & Vroom s theories, especially with the existing commonalities that can be found in the particular theories may bring us closer to a common, more widely applicable understanding of motivation. It has been posited that different theories may hold for different individuals, (Hofmans, De Gieter, & Pepermans, 2013, p. 2), motivation theory is not a one size fits all concept.

10 Hofmans, De Gieter, and Pepermans (2013) hypothesized that financial reward would be connected to job satisfaction in a subgroup of employees, while all employees would have a connection between psychological reward and job satisfaction (p. 2). Hofmans, De Gieter, and Pepermans (2013) found that for a subgroup of individuals financial reward linked to job satisfaction; however, in line with the two-factor theory, psychological reward equated to job satisfaction for everyone (p. 7). Although, these findings seem to support Herzberg s two factor theory, the findings also tend to show that individual differences do make a difference in motivation of individuals (Hofmans et al, 2013, p. 7), and that uniqueness may need to be considered in looking at motivation. The support that can be found for the variety of theories seemingly makes integration an obvious option for taking in to consideration the multitude of possible aspects of motivation of and the unique needs of employees. The consideration of integration of theories of motivation is not a new concept and has been subject of research for some time (Steel & Konig, 2006, p. 890). Williams, Lankford, and DeGraaf (1999), in researching the perception of managers when it came to factors impacting employee motivation, found that managers tended to identify factors from multiple theoretical approaches both content and process theories (p.99). Based on their results, Williams, Lankford, and DeGraaf (1999) indicated that the blending of approaches they found was similar to the conclusions of Katzell and Thompson (1990), who suggested that one of the most important areas for motivation research in the 1990s would be in the development of integrative theories (pp ). Steel and Konig (2006) attempted to develop a temporal motivational theory (TMT) based on integrating features of four theories. The theories focused on included the need theory, picoeconomics, expectancy theory, and cumulative prospect theory (Steel & Konig, 2006, p. 890). Steel and Konig (2006) indicated that

11 there exists the desire for a more comprehensive and integrated theor[y], a theory that tie these theories and processes together into an overall model (p. 890). While there are quite specific differences between the theories of Herzberg and Vroom, the theories can also be related to one another and potentially integrated to improve overall consideration of motivation in employees. It is important that employers consider the both the work environment (Herzberg s extrinsic/hygiene factors), (Honore, 2011, p. 68), and the work itself in making sure an employee is satisfied and motivated. While Herzberg s two-factor theory lends toward more discussion of intrinsic versus extrinsic factors, the distinctions in intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors can also be considered important in terms of valence in expectancy theory (Story, Hart, Stasson, & Mahoney, 2009, p. 391). In a way, expectancy theory s valence brings into account the factors of Herzberg valence is looking at the value that the individual puts on a particular outcome or reward; those rewards could be looked at to see where they fit in Herzberg s theory. For example, perhaps the reward is monetary, in that case the expectancy theory would take into account the individual s value and behavior toward a monetary reward while the Herzberg theory would consider generally where that type of need fits intrinsic versus extrinsic, maintenance versus motivator. By looking at both theories, a manager would be able to understand that monetary rewards typically are looked at as a maintenance factor; however, by considering the individual value the manager may realize that this particular individual values monetary reward more than the average employee making such a reward appropriate and a motivator in this case. Looking to both theories allows a manager to consider various angles, behaviors, and underlying characteristics that may have otherwise been ignored in only focusing on one theory.

12 Despite the noticeable differences in Vroom and Herzberg s motivational theories, there is actual a relationship between them that can be used to integrate and take into account both general, pre-existing needs, and more individual behavioral and situational motivators when managing people in the work force. By understanding the combination of theoretically possible motivators that their employees are subject to and combining that theory knowledge with knowledge of the actual situation, behavior, and personalities of the employees, managers will be able to exercise judgment to make motivating choices to benefit the organization and the individuals at the same time.

13 References Farr, R. M. (1977). On the Nature of Attributional Artifacts in Qualitative Research: Herzberg s Two-Factor Theory of Work Motivation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(1), Retrieved from EBSCOhost pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2e51c6c9-24ff-406b-8438-d6b7c31b3e57%40sessionmgr198& vid=17&hid=107 Gardner, G. (1977). Is There a Valid Test of Herzberg s Two-Factor Theory? Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(3), Retrieved from EBSCOhost ca080fa6eaf1%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4108&bdata=jnnpdgu9zwrzlwxpd mu%3d#db=ers&an= Hines, G. H. (1973). Cross-Cultural Differences in Two-Factor Motivation Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(3), Retrieved from EBSCOhost sessionmgr4004&vid=19&hid=4108 Hoffman-Miller, P. (2013). Expectancy Theory. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Retrieved from EBSCOhost d20b-491f-a6d2-ca080fa6eaf1%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4108&bdata= JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=ers&AN= Hofmans, J., De Gieter, S., & Pepermans, R. (2013). Individual Differences in the Relationship between Satisfaction with Job Rewards and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), 1 9. doi: /j.jvb

14 Honore, J. (2009). Employee Motivation. The Consortium Journal, 14(1), Retrieved from EBSCOhost sid=2e51c6c9-24ff-406b-8438-d6b7c31b3e57%40sessionmgr198&vid=8&hid=107 H R Buddies (1). (2011) Herzberg Motivation Theory. Retrieved on April 13, 2014 from H R Buddies (2). (2011). Vroom s Expectancy Theory. Retrieved on April 13, 2014 from s_expectancy_theory.html Liddell, W. W., & Solomon, R. J. (1977). A Critical Reanalysis of A Test of Two Postulates Underlying Expectancy Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), doi: / Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2007). Assessing Asymmetric Effects in the Formation of Employee Satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28(4), doi: /j.tourman Miller, J. E., Walker, J. R., & Drummond, K. E. (2007). Supervision in the Hospitality Industry: Applied Human Resources (5 th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Moran, B. B., Stueart, R. D., & Morner, C. J. (2013). Library and Information Center Management (8 th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Ondrack, D. A. (1974). Defense Mechanisms and the Herzberg Theory: An Alternate Test. Academy of Management Journal, 17(1), doi: / Porfeli, E. J., Lee, B., & Weigold, I. K. (2012). A Multidimensional Measure of Work Valences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), doi: /j.jvb

15 Rahman, H. A., Rajab, A., Shaari, R., Panatik, A. A., Shah, I. M., & Hamid, K. (2012). Employees Contentment in an Organization. Asia Pacific Business Innovation and Technology Management Society, 40, doi: /j.sbspro Steel, P., & Konig, C. J. (2006). Integrating Theories of Motivation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), doi: /AMR Story, P. A., Hart, J. W., Stasson, M. F., & Mahoney, J. M. (2009). Using a Two-Factor Theory of Achievement Motivate to Examine Performance-Based Outcomes and Self-Regulatory Processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), doi: /j.paid Uy, Karize. (last modified Mar. 31, 2014). What is Expectancy Theory? Retrieved on April 6, 2014 from Williams, A., Lankford, S., & DeGraaf, D. (1999). How Managers Perceive Factors that Impact Employee Motivation: An Application of Pathfinder Analysis. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17(2), Retrieved from EBSCOhost 9a15-4d4c-b780-b90a304b731a% 40sessionmgr115&vid=5&hid=107