37 Chapter II Review of Literature The earlier chapter presented the introduction to the study. This chapter is devoted to present the review of literature on motivation and job satisfaction. 2.1 MOTIVATION Meaning of Motivation The globalization of businesses and the advancement of information technologies have brought changes that are reshaping the world of work. They alter the way business is done, the way employees behave and the way managers manage their employees. Motivating and retaining employees has become an important and complex task for the managers. The key to performing this task well is to find out more about the factors that motivate employees. It has become important to establish the correlation between management and motivation of employees. To have a sound human resource management strategy that attracts retains and motivates the valuable employees, it is important that the organizations find out what the employees are looking for from their jobs. The organization should constantly assess the employees’ motivation levels and also what they need, want or expect from their work. In the age of Scientific Management, forwarded by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1890’s, only monetary rewards were considered to be important to employees. This rather limited view of employees’ needs and rewards gave way in the 1920’s when a series of experiments at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant led to a new paradigm of worker motivation. The Hawthorne experiments, as they came to be known, led to a view that saw employees motivated more by social needs rather than by purely economic ones. This viewpoint, known as the Human Relations Movement, attempted to identify and satisfy the social needs of the worker in the belief that a satisfied worker worked
Transcript
37
Chapter II
Review of Literature
The earlier chapter presented the introduction to the study. This chapter is devoted to
present the review of literature on motivation and job satisfaction.
2.1 MOTIVATION
Meaning of Motivation
The globalization of businesses and the advancement of information technologies have
brought changes that are reshaping the world of work. They alter the way business is
done, the way employees behave and the way managers manage their employees.
Motivating and retaining employees has become an important and complex task for the
managers. The key to performing this task well is to find out more about the factors that
motivate employees.
It has become important to establish the correlation between management and motivation
of employees. To have a sound human resource management strategy that attracts retains
and motivates the valuable employees, it is important that the organizations find out what
the employees are looking for from their jobs. The organization should constantly assess
the employees’ motivation levels and also what they need, want or expect from their
work.
In the age of Scientific Management, forwarded by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the
1890’s, only monetary rewards were considered to be important to employees. This rather
limited view of employees’ needs and rewards gave way in the 1920’s when a series of
experiments at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant led to a new paradigm
of worker motivation. The Hawthorne experiments, as they came to be known, led to a
view that saw employees motivated more by social needs rather than by purely economic
ones. This viewpoint, known as the Human Relations Movement, attempted to identify
and satisfy the social needs of the worker in the belief that a satisfied worker worked
38
harder than an unsatisfied worker. Rewards under the Human Relations viewpoint,
therefore, also included the relationships employees form with their fellow workers. It
was thus seen to be in the organization’s interest to provide an environment that allows
and encourages social relationships to develop. Finally, the Human Resources Movement
began to concentrate more on the needs of the individual rather than the interactions
within working groups.
The Human Resources Movement views the worker as being largely ‘pre-motivated’ to
perform to the best of their abilities and it becomes the task of management to provide
conditions whereby workers can meet their own individual goals at the same time as
meeting those of the organization. Rewards under the Human Resources Movement
therefore include a wide range of factors, such as money, affiliation, achievement and
performing a meaningful job.
At one time, employees were considered just another input into the production of goods
and services. What perhaps changed this way of thinking about employees was research,
referred to as the Hawthorne Studies, conducted by Elton Mayo from 1924 to 1932 found
that employees are not motivated solely by money and employee behavior is linked to
their attitudes.
The amount of research on motivation has varied through time. During the 1930s and
1940s, work motivation became prevalent through drive theories i.e. reinforcement or
need theories. While the 1950s and 1960s showed a decrease in the amount of attention
on work motivation, however further theories were developed based on the cognitive
perspective which provided the basis for future theories in the 1960s such as Vroom
(1964) and Locke (1968).
Motivation by definition refers to what activates, directs human behavior and how this
behavior is sustained to achieve a particular goal. Also it can be defined as the set of
processes that arouse, direct and maintain human behavior towards attaining some goals.
Motivating the workforce of an organization to work more effectively towards the
organization’s goals is perhaps the most fundamental task of management. Organizations
39
motivate their workforce to perform effectively by offering those rewards for satisfactory
performance and perhaps punishing them for unsatisfactory performance. Over the past
hundred years or so there has been an evolution in the view of what the term ‘rewards’
actually means in an organizational context. According to psychologists, people can also
be motivated to do things even though there is no external reward but the behaviour itself.
In this case people are said to be intrinsically motivated Deci (1975).
According to McCormick and Tifflin (1979), motivation can be either intrinsic or
extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation stems from motivations that are inherent in the job itself
and which the individual enjoys as a result of successfully completing the task or
attaining his goals. While extrinsic motivations are those that are external to the task of
the job, such as pay, work condition, fringe benefits, security, promotion, contract of
service, the work environment and conditions of work. Such tangible motivations are
often determined at the organizational level, and may be largely outside the control of
individual managers. Intrinsic motivation on the other hand are those rewards that can be
termed “psychological motivations” and examples are opportunity to use one’s ability, a
sense of challenge and achievement, receiving appreciation, positive recognition, and
being treated in a caring and considerate manner.
According to Dessler (1980) motivation is both one of the simplest and most
complex of management jobs. It is simple because people are basically motivated or
driven to behave in a way which will lead to rewards. Daschler and Ninemeier (1984)
said “Motivation is a state or force within an individual that makes the employee act in a
way designed to achieve some goal. Taking this broad definition and putting it into the
context of supervision, motivation is what the supervisor does to encourage and influence
other people to take necessary action”.
Kovach (1987) stated that motivation is the force within a person that makes him/her act
in a certain way to achieve some goal. Motivation is, in fact, an internally generated
forces or drive within the individual which provides an incentive for the employee to act.
40
Research suggests that as employees' income increases, money becomes less of a
motivator and as employees get older, interesting work becomes more of a motivator.
The changing view of organisational rewards and employee motivation has led to a
multitude of theories of exactly how the job rewards influence the motivation and
performance of employees. Steers (1987) stated that “a comprehensive theory of
motivation at work must address itself to at least three important sets of variables which
constitute the work situation” i.e. the characteristics of the individual, the characteristics
of the job and the characteristics of the work environment. Steers points out that, at
present, no model exists that accounts for variables from each of the three major areas.
According to Drummond (1990) motivation is in the individual and helps to explain
behavior. Motivation is an intricate inside process with three components: what drives the
individual to behave in certain ways, what steers the behavior, and what maintains the
behavior. To satisfy the employees’ need is very difficult because each employee has
different characteristics that affect behavior. The factors that organizations have to be
concerned with are self-concept, attitudes, values, interests, feelings, personality, and life
experiences. They have to encourage employees through a positive organizational climate
that is motivating. This is due, in part, to the fact that what motivates employee changes
constantly Bowen & Radhakrishna (1991). It is not possible to understand, explain or
predict human behavior without some knowledge of motivation” Cai (1993). The
Hawthorne Studies began the human relations approach to management, whereby the
needs and motivation of employees become the primary focus of managers Bedeian
(1994).
Bong (1996) generally, motivation models may be classed as belonging to one of two
theoretical orientation groups – cognitive models and social-cognitive models. Cognitive
models of motivation “place greater weight on understanding learners’ covert thought
processes, often overlooking the impact of social and contextual variables” i.e. they focus
on the individual characteristics at the expense of the job and work environment
characteristics. A social-cognitive approach focuses on formulating and testing specific
41
hypotheses regarding the nature and direction of influence from social and contextual
variables. These different theoretical orientations often lead academic motivation
researchers to different conclusions as to which potentially relevant variables to include
in or exclude from their conceptualizations.
Bong, in a paper highlighting the problems in academic motivation research, stated that
the fact that no single model has been able to capture the full dynamics of motivated
behaviours was due to “different theoretical orientations of investigators working in the
field, who tend to emphasize a particular dimension of motivational phenomena over the
others”. He suggests that there are two solutions to the formulation of a broader model of
motivation. One possible solution for integrating numerous motivational constructs and
findings is to create a general model.
An intrinsically motivated individual, according to Ajila (1997) will be committed to his
work to the extent to which the job inherently contains tasks that are rewarding to him or
her. An extrinsically motivated person will be committed to the extent that he can gain or
receive external rewards for his or her job. He further suggested that for an individual to
be motivated in a work situation there must be a need, which the individual would have
to perceive a possibility of satisfying through some reward. If the reward is intrinsic to
the job, such desire or motivation is intrinsic. But, if the reward is described as external to
the job, the motivation is described as extrinsic.
The social-psychological model of the interaction between extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation is introduced in economics as the crowding theory by Frey (1997). Frey
assumes, in line with Deci that intrinsic motivation increases when individuals perceive
an external intervention as supportive. In this case, a crowding-in effect is said to occur.
An attempt has been made for a better understanding of what the theoretical construct of
intrinsic motivation in the context of paid work comes down to. Even though the
theoretical importance of intrinsic motivation is widely accepted currently, in practice
organizations don’t seem to pay much attention to intrinsic motivation but focus mainly
on extrinsic stimuli in their attempt to motivate their employees. Motivation is
operationally defined as the inner force that drives individuals to accomplish personal and
42
organizational goals. Frey’s definition of intrinsic motivation, therefore, also includes
feelings of obligation, such as work morale. However, if individuals perceive an external
intervention as controlling, intrinsic motivation decreases and a crowding-out effect is
said to occur. Why do we need motivated employees? The answer is survival Smith
(1998). Motivated employees are needed in our rapidly changing workplaces. Motivated
employees help organizations survive. Motivated employees are more productive.
Kreitner (1995), Bedeian &Linder (1995), Higgins (1994) all cited in Linder (1998)
defined motivation as “the psychological process that gives behavior purpose and
direction, a predisposition to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific unmet
needs, an unsatisfied need that will to achieve respectively.
The assumption that certain activities provide their own inherent reward raises the
question of how external rewards will affect people’s intrinsic motivation for these
activities Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999). To be effective, managers need to understand
what motivates employees within the context of the roles they perform. Of all the
functions a manager performs, motivating employees is arguably the most complex.
Motivation is probably one of the most important human resource management
responsibilities Jerris (1999). Considerable research has been conducted regarding the
definition of motivation. The amount of effort people are willing to put in their work
depends on the degree to which they feel their motivational needs will be satisfied. On
the other hand, individuals become de-motivated if they feel something in the
organization prevents them from attaining good outcomes. It can be observed from the
above definitions that, motivation in general, is more or less basically concern with
factors or events that moves, leads, and drives certain human action or Inaction over a
given period of time given the prevailing conditions.
Young (2001) suggests that motivation can be defined in a variety of ways, depending on
who you ask. Ask someone on the street, you may get a response like “it’s what drives
us” or “it’s what makes us do the things we do.” Therefore motivation is the force within
an individual that account for the level, direction, and persistence of effort expended at
work.” It is important to note, however, that Frey uses the term external intervention.
43
According to Frey, intrinsic motivation is not only influenced by external rewards but
also by regulations and commands. In Frey’s definition, intrinsic motivation has
‘acquired the meaning of being motivated to do something without being forced by
commands and without being paid to do it’. In order to be able to understand how
changes in organizations may affect employee performance it is of great importance to
understand the effects that changes in the organization may have on employee
motivation. While employees might be able to perform a certain job, if they aren’t willing
to give their utmost while doing this, employee performance will be low. Employee
motivation, therefore, is an important determinant of performance at the workplace
Houkes (2001).
The concept of employee motivation has been the subject of study in many different
disciplines. However, within each discipline different theories prevail about what
motivates people to go to work each day and how these motivations can be affected by
changing the rewards of working. While economic theory attributes changes in behaviour
to changes in relative prices, psychology generally focuses on people’s preferences Frey
et al (2001). The term motivation is derived from the Latin term ‘movere’, which means
‘to move’ Baron, Henley, McGibbon & McCarthy (2002). Moreover, the research
performed so far is primarily based on activities for which people typically don’t expect
to be paid, such as puzzle solving or volunteer work. In situations in which people do
expect to receive a financial reward, external interventions may have a different or no
impact on intrinsic motivation. Because financial rewards are typically expected in
economic contexts, additional research is needed to make the point that in the context of
paid work external interventions may affect the intrinsic motivation of employees also.
The extrinsic and intrinsic rewards employees derive from their job as well as the
productivity of these rewards therefore influence the level of well-being and thus the
level of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation employee’s display within their job. Therefore,
changes in the possibilities of producing well-being affect the level of employee
motivation. External interventions are assumed to affect extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
by influencing the extrinsic and intrinsic rewards employees derive from their job. In
44
addition, the intrinsic motivation of the employees is assumed to be influenced by the
way in which an external intervention is perceived. If, on one hand, an external
intervention is perceived as controlling, the productivity of the intrinsic rewards that are
derived from performing the activity decrease and intrinsic motivation will be crowded-
out. On the other hand, if an external intervention is perceived as supportive, the
productivity of the intrinsic rewards that are derived from performing the activity
increase and intrinsic motivation will be crowded-in. In social psychology, the
phenomenon of crowding out is known as ‘the hidden cost of reward’ or ‘the over
justification effect’ Frey and Osterloh (2002).
A great many definitions of the motivation construct have been postulated over the
several decades during which this multi-faceted concept has been researched. Greenberg
et al (2003) defines motivation as ‘the set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain
human behavior towards attaining some goal”. Bassett-Jones &Lloyd (2005) presents
those two views of human nature underlay early research into employee motivation. The
first view focuses on Taylors, which viewed people as basically “lazy and work –shy”
and thus held that these set of employees can only be motivated by external stimulation.
The second view was based on Hawthorn findings, which held the view that employees
are motivated to work well for “its own sake” as well as for the social and monetary
benefits this type of motivation according to this school was internally motivated.
2.2. Historical development of the employee motivation concept
The traditional model of thought on motivation dominated during the period 1900 to
1930. This manner of conceptualizing motivation is connected mostly to the thinking of
Frederick Winslow Taylor and the scientific school of management. Their rather
mechanistic point of departure was that workers generally do not want to work, and need
to be motivated by financial reward. In other words, people are willing to work, but only
if they get paid for it.
The traditional model made way for the human relations model that dominated between
1930 and 1960. Over time it became evident that the traditional model of motivation was
45
not applicable to all circumstances or people, as workers appeared to be able to motivate
themselves in many cases, and to not require constant supervision and control. At the
same time, workers became increasingly suspicious of management, as their
remuneration started losing equitability with their productivity. Worker dissatisfaction led
to the establishment of the first trade and labour unions. Gradually, the mechanistic ‘man-
machine’ idea of the previous movement made way for a better understanding of the
nature of people, and especially of the importance of social relationships in the workplace
on people’s motivation to work, and the human relations model of motivation was
established.
Around the 1960s it became popular to look upon motivation in terms of human
potential. Although the human relations school represented a considerable advancement
on traditional thinking, it could also not provide a complete explanation for of behaviour
in the workplace. It gradually made way for the human potential model. According to
theorists like McGregor, Maslow, Argyris and Likert, the human relations view simply
allowed for a more sophisticated way than financial reward to manipulate the worker.
They maintained that a worker is motivated by much more than just money or satisfying
social relationships, and that especially a sense of achievement resulting from performing
meaningful and challenging work is a potent employee need. They also argued that
people are already motivated to perform their tasks effectively, and do not necessarily
regard work as unwanted or unpleasant. This school of thought remains dominant in
motivation theorising and application today.
Cofer and Appley (1968) provided an interesting account of the early historical
development of the employee motivation concept. They dated interest in motivational
phenomena back to Darwin and Freud, and held that it is probably true that the form of
the early dominant motivation questions stemmed largely from concepts relating to
Darwinian evolution. Freud, and various others, was influenced by these concepts.
However, most of the concepts in vogue have pre-Darwinian origins, such as the notion
of evolution, instinct, hedonism, rationality and irrationality, unconscious processes,
46
active mental forces, and mechanism and determinism. Primitive man, in his comparison
of himself to animals, must have discovered that a spiritual difference existed. This
represented the earliest thoughts on dualism in humans, i.e. the belief in the co-existence
of body and spirit or soul, which remained an important field of study and debate in
Western philosophy, from Aristotle through the Church philosophers, such as Augustine
and Aquinas, to Descartes and beyond. The manner in which the antecedents of
behaviour were conceptualised at any particular time in history has given rise to the
establishment of many theories on the motivation behind behaviour. Van Niekerk (1987)
and Du Toit (1990) provide a brief account of how the thinking of the various schools of
thought, from the religious theorists to the philosophers and social scientists, has evolved
over time.
2.3. Definitions of employee motivation
Campbell and Pritchard (1976) defined as “a label for the determinants of the choice to
initiate effort on a certain task, the choice to expend a certain amount of effort, and the
choice to persist in expending effort over a period of time”. Motivation, therefore, closes
the satisfaction-performance loop, and has to do with a set of interrelated factors that
explain an individual’s behaviour, holding constant the variables controlled or influenced
by management, as well as by individual skills, abilities and knowledge.
Beach (1980) saw motivation as a willingness to expend energy to achieve a goal or
reward. This author took somewhat of a behaviourist approach in stating that behaviour
that is perceived to be rewarding will be repeated, whereas behaviour that goes
unrewarded or is punished, tends to be extinguished. He recognizes intrinsic motivation
related to the job content, and that which occurs when people perform an activity from
which they derive satisfaction from simply engaging in the activity itself. Further he
regarded extrinsic motivation as related to the job environment, which provides a person
with the incentives and rewards he or she receives after having performed the work.
Churchill (1985) stated that studies over the years have shown little relationship between
measures of job satisfaction and performance outputs. Highly satisfied workers may be
poor performers, whereas highly dissatisfied workers may be good performers. Several
47
variables influence the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance;
although no direct causal relationships between these have been identified as yet.
However, it appears that motivation might account for much of the link between an
employee’s job satisfaction and job performance. In practice, proponents of this view
would focus on establishing an environment conducive to satisfying and maintaining
social interrelationships at work. From the perspective of self-actualizing man, people are
intrinsically motivated, and take pride in their work, and derive satisfaction from their
accomplishments. Within this approach, workplace reward systems are highly
performance-oriented. Lastly, the complex man view recognizes that people are
motivated by a great variation of motives, emotions, experiences and abilities, and that
these change over time as new motives are learnt, and new skills change their attitudes
towards their jobs. Organizations supporting this perspective offer highly individualized
reward structures, and environments and ways in which employees are allowed to
perform their duties.
The fundamental point of departure should be a thorough understanding of the nature of
the individual, e.g. his or her needs, values, beliefs, expectancies, drive levels and habits.
It is interesting to note that the concept of organizational commitment has come to partly
replace that of motivation within the field of organizational behaviour Lewicki (1981).
While the concept of motivation is linked to individualistic and task-centered reward
systems, commitment seems to be linked to the identification of employees with a
collective, that is, in terms of corporate values and norms. As such, management is
concerned with cultivating motivation towards realizing the mission and goals of the
organization, which are far above the ambitions and goals of any individual in it.
Employee motivation was viewed as an innate force, shaped and maintained by a set of
highly individualized factors that may change from time to time, depending on the
particular needs and motives of the employee. Environmental forces, such as those
related to the job itself and to the organization, do not have a causal link with motivation,
but impact on the level of motivation experienced by the employee. Together, the innate
and environmental forces determine an employee’s behaviour at work. Motivation was
48
also regarded as a multi-dimensional concept that manifests in behaviours that may be
observed, measured and, to some extent at least, predicted. As mentioned earlier the
concept of motivation is very important in terms of organizational effectiveness, as it
constitutes the crucial link between employee job satisfaction and employee performance,
which in turn determines organizational profitability and success. In their quest to
maintain an optimally motivated workforce, management’s focus should therefore be on
attending to the myriad of job-specific, as well as organizational factors which have been
shown to contribute towards employee job satisfaction and motivation.
Beck (1983) expressed a similar view, and stated that motivation is concerned with
explaining the variation in behaviour, such as why some people work harder than others.
Work characteristics in this regard refer to specific characteristics of a person’s job, for
example its task variety, whereas personal characteristics include those determined by a
person’s personality, for example an intrinsic need for achievement.
Van Niekerk (1987) saw work motivation as the creation of work circumstances that
influence workers to perform a certain activity or task of their own free will, in order to
reach the goals of the organization, and simultaneously satisfy their own needs. In the
field of organization psychology, work motivation is clearly approached from several
angles. As a result, a single comprehensive definition of motivation, which covers all
purposes in the field, is not possible.
Du Toit (1990) added that three groups of variables influence work motivation, namely
individual characteristics, such as people’s own interests, values and needs, work
characteristics, such as task variety and responsibility, and organizational characteristics,
such as its policies, procedures and customs. The concept of motivation is therefore
particularly useful in its ability to increase general understanding and prediction of
behaviour. Gouws (1995) defined motivation as an inner wish or urge that originates with
an individual, either consciously or unconsciously, to complete a task successfully
because it is enjoyable, and not necessarily for what will be received in return.
49
Petri (1996) also regarded motivation as the forces acting on or within a person to initiate
and direct behaviour. It explains differences in intensity of behaviour, and why behaviour
occurs in one situation, but not in another. Pinder (1998) contended that an essential
feature of this definition is that work motivation is an invisible, internal and hypothetical
construct, and that researchers therefore have to rely on established theories to guide
them in the measurement of observable manifestations of work motivation. In terms of
equity theory for example, work motivation is expected to manifest in both attitudinal
(e.g. job satisfaction) and behavioural (e.g. performance) measures, whereas in terms of
goal-setting theory the primary manifestation of motivation is behavioural (e.g. enhanced
performance when ability remains unchanged).
Pinder (1998) described work motivation as the set of internal and external forces that
initiate work-related behaviour, and determine its form, direction, intensity and duration.
The concept focuses on events and phenomena of the work context only, and includes the
influence on work behaviour of both environmental forces and those inherent in the
person. Schultz and Schultz (1998), regarded motivation as simply the personal and
workplace characteristics that explain why people behave the way they do on the job.
In an age where retaining talent is crucial to their prosperity, organisations realize that
they need to do a better job at letting employees know that their work matters, by
stepping up employee recognition Clarke (2001). Fortunately there also appears to be
acknowledgement of the fact that people are inspired in dramatically different ways, and
that employee motivation should never take a one-size-fits-all approach Terez (2001).
Baron et al. (2002) concurred, and added that motivation is a complex phenomenon best
understood within a multivariate systems framework. Such a comprehensive view should,
at the very least, include the following aspects. A considerable field of interest covers the
relationship of extrinsic reward and work motivation, and many organisations have
responded strongly to its findings. Successful organizations often attribute much of their
success to a corporate culture that focuses on employee recognition Wiscombe (2002).
50
Spector (2003) described motivation as an internal state that induces a person to engage
in particular behaviours, and held that motivation may be viewed from two angles. On the
one hand, motivation encompasses direction, where a particular behaviour is selected
from a choice of behaviours. It refers to the amount of effort put into a task, and
persistence, which denotes the person’s continuing engagement in the selected behaviour.
On the other hand, motivation is also concerned with a desire to achieve a certain goal,
which derives from the particular individual’s own needs and desires.
2.4. Theories of Motivation
Even though much research has been conducted on the field of financial motivation and
many researchers and writers have proposed theories on the concept of financial
motivation, and its role in enhancing employee’s performance in every organization some
of these models have been widely used and accepted by today’s organizations leaders.
According to Petri (1996) the vast array of motivation theories are based on differing
approaches to the origins or sources of motivation. These can be energy, heredity,
learning, social interaction, cognitive processes, activation of motivation, hedonism or
growth motivation.
Motivation research draws on a large number of theoretical perspectives. Although some
of these appear to be less influential than when they were originally postulated, such as
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory Wicker & Wiehe (1999). Their contributions as
foundation layers and inspirations for subsequent theories are still evident and
acknowledged. Cognitive theories do not focus directly on work as a potential source of
motivation. They rather focus on the cognitive processes, such as thoughts, beliefs and
values, which people use to make choices regarding their behaviour at work Schultz &
Schultz (1998). For this reason these theories are also referred to as process theories.
Examples include equity, expectancy and goal-setting theories.
Needs-based theories, also referred to as content theories due to their explanation of the
content of motivation Hadebe (2001). He proposes that internal states within individuals
energise and direct their behaviour. These internal states are typically referred to as
51
drives, needs or motives in these theories, of which those of Maslow, McGregor and
Herzberg are well-known examples. Drive and reinforcement theories are based on
behaviouristic approaches, which argue that reinforcement conditions behavior. A
behaviour that has been rewarded in the past will tend to be repeated, and behaviour that
has been punished previously, will tend to be extinguished. Depending on the particular
approach adopted, motivation theories are generally classified into three categories,
namely needs-based, cognitive, and drive and reinforcement theories Baron et al. (2002).
2.4.1 Needs-based theories
2.4.1. a. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory
One of the most often-quoted motivation theories is that of Abraham Maslow, which he
introduced in 1943 Van Niekerk (1987). The basic tenet of the theory is that people are
motivated by their quest to satisfy their needs, or deficiencies, which may be grouped in
five categories, and that these needs occur in a specific hierarchy, where lower order
needs have to be satisfied before those of a higher order Gouws (1995). Maslow (1968)
asserted that “gratification of one basic need opens consciousness to domination by
another”. Physiological needs are related to basic survival, e.g. hunger or thirst. Safety
needs do not only apply to physical safety and security, but also to a person’s striving for
personal security, such as a steady job. Social needs refer to friendship, love and social
acceptance and support, whereas egotistical needs refer to recognition, respect and
achievement. Self-actualisation, Egotistical needs or Esteem needs, Social needs, Safety
needs and Physiological needs involve a person’s desire to be respected by others and by
him- or herself. Self-actualisation occurs at the pinnacle of the needs hierarchy, as it
represents a person’s striving towards the full development of his potential, which is
essentially never completely attained Gouws (1995). In addition, one of its main
constructs, the self-actualisation concept, has become very popular with especially
managers and executives who have accepted this high-level need as a potent motivator
Schultz & Schultz (1998).
52
Over time, little empirical evidence has been produced to support the idea of a needs
hierarchy. It developed an idea that as needs are satisfied, their importance diminishes
Baron et al. (2002). These shortcomings have been addressed in Alderfer’s Existence-
Relatedness-Growth (ERG) theory, which is an expansion of Maslow’s theory. Alderfer
condensed Maslow’s five needs into three, which were termed ‘Existence’ (physical
survival needs), ‘Relatedness’ (social needs) and ‘Growth’ (need for personal growth and
development). Alderfer emphasised that these needs do not occur in a hierarchy, but
rather on a continuum Spector (2003). They may in fact be experienced simultaneously
Alderfer (1969). His theory has intuitive appeal, and is more directly applicable to
employee motivation than Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory. Despite the limited
empirical support, needs hierarchy theory has had a positive impact on organizations, as
it has focused attention on the importance of addressing employees’ needs at work.
2.4.1. b. Herzberg’s two-factor theory
Frederick Herzberg’s well-known theory of motivation was postulated in 1954, and
developed from his work to determine the attitude of workers towards their jobs. The
basic assumption of Herzberg’s theory is that motivation originates from the job itself,
and not from other external characteristics. The factors leading to job satisfaction
(‘motivators’) are separate and distinct from those leading to job dissatisfaction
(‘hygiene/maintenance’ factors) Herzberg (1966).
53
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
Motivation Factors are those factors that Hygiene Factors are those Factors that deal
that deal with job content and lead to job with job context and lead to dissatisfaction.
satisfaction.
Growth Company policies and Administration
Work Itself Supervision
Responsibility Interpersonal Relations
Achievement Status
Advancement Working Conditions
Recognition Security
Salary
The hygiene factors, which may be equated with Maslow’s lower order needs, are placed
along a continuum, from a state of dissatisfaction, to no dissatisfaction. These factors
involve circumstances surrounding the task which do not lead to job satisfaction, but
prevent dissatisfaction, if maintained adequately. Examples of these maintenance factors
include the level of supervision, job status, work circumstances, service conditions,
remuneration and interpersonal relationships. Motivators, on the other hand, have a direct
positive effect on the work situation, and lead to improved productivity. They may be
equated with Maslow’s higher order needs, and are also placed along a continuum – from
a highly motivated to a highly unmotivated state. Aspects of the job itself, e.g. level of
recognition, pleasure of performance, increased responsibility, and opportunities for
advancement and promotion, serve as motivators Herzberg (1966).
The assumed independence of motivators and hygiene factors is a matter of some
controversy in the field, and the theory in general has accumulated little empirical
support. Nevertheless, the theory has had a major impact on organizational psychology
Baron et al (2002). It has led to the re- design of many jobs to allow for greater
participation of employees in planning, performing and evaluating their own work,
referred to as job enrichment Schultz and Schultz (1998). Motivation/hygiene theory has
54
been very successful in focusing attention on the importance of providing employees with
work that is meaningful to them Spector (2003).
Bassett-Jones & Lloyd (2005) suggests that the “content theorists led by Herzberg,
assumed a more complex interaction between both internal and external factors. It
explored the circumstances in which individuals respond to different internal and external
stimuli.
2.4.1. c. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y
Douglas McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Theory Y represent his ideas on motivation to
the direction and control of employees in the workplace. According to McGregor’s
Theory X, which articulates the traditional approach to motivation, people are not keen
on work, and try to avoid it where possible. As a result, employees must be coerced and
controlled by punitive measures to perform effectively. The average person is believed to
lack ambition, avoid responsibility, and strive for security and financial compensation
only. They are egocentric, and not at all mindful of organisational goals. Theory Y, in
contrast, reflects a more modern approach to motivation. People seek responsibility, and
are capable of creative problem solving. McGregor regarded Theory Y as a more accurate
and realistic portrayal of human behaviour, since it represents the integration of
individual and organisational goals. McGregor did, however, recognise that the theory
does not offer a complete explanation for employee motivation.
Gouws (1995) noted that McGregor’s theory closely resembles that of Maslow, in that
the factors McGregor believed act as motivators to people at work, are arranged and
satisfied in a similar hierarchy. McGregor also placed physiological needs first, followed
by physical and social needs. Egotistical needs are sub-categorised as self-regard needs
on the one hand, which involve self-respect, self-confidence, autonomy, achievement,
competence and knowledge. On the other hand needs such as the status, recognition,
respect and appreciation a person enjoys. The highest level of need is that of self-
fulfillment, which people attempt to satisfy through continued self-development and
creativity.
55
2.4.1. d. McClelland’s learned needs theory
McClelland’s theory, also referred to as the ‘Three-Needs’ theory Gouws (1995) or the
‘Achievement Motivation’ theory Schultz & Schultz (1998), was introduced in 1967. The
theory is based on the view that achievement-oriented people share three major needs.
These are not innate, but acquired through learning and experience McClelland (1966).
McClelland assigned a specific code to each of the three needs, which include:
The need for Power (n/PWR), which denotes the need to control others, influence
their behaviour and be responsible for them;
The need for Affiliation (n/AFF), which refers to the desire to establish and
maintain satisfying relationships with other people;
The need for Achievement (n/ACH), viewed as behaviour directed towards
competition with standards of excellence.
Although not highly influential, McClelland’s theory of motivation was certainly
instrumental in focusing attention on the unusual needs of employees with a strong need
to achieve Beach (1980).
2.4.1. e. Hackman and Oldham’s task enrichment theory
Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham’s model, which was introduced in 1980 is also
known as the ‘job characteristics’ theory The theory is based on the premise that three
psychological states in particular are necessary to enhance a person’s motivation and job
satisfaction. They are
The experience of work as meaningful
The experience of work responsibility, i.e. the level of personal responsibility for
a person’s work
Insight in job performance, i.e. how much insight a person has in how well or
how poorly he is performing on his job.
The more intense the experience of these three states, the higher the person’s motivation
level will be Porter, Lawler & Hackman (1975). The concept of task enrichment has
56
proven to be very meaningful and useful in the workplace. Therefore Hackman and
Oldham’s theory continues to stimulate investigation Tyagi (1985).
A meta-analysis of 200 studies, confirmed the positive relationship between job
characteristics, job satisfaction and performance Fried & Ferris (1987). Hackman and
Oldham also identified five task characteristics believed to lead to the above motivational
states. Fundamental to this theory is the notion that the need for personal development,
creativity and challenge has a very significant impact on the successful execution of a
meaningful task. In addition, due to differing individual drives and needs, different
people will respond differently to the same task Van Niekerk (1987). It developed out of
the authors’ research on objective measures of job characteristics that correlated with job
satisfaction and work attendance Schultz & Schultz (1998).
2.4.2 Cognitive theories
2.4.2. a. Equity theory
Equity theory was first introduced by Stacy Adams in 1965. Its basic tenet is that people
are motivated to achieve a condition of equity / fairness in their dealings with other
people, and with the organizations they work for. This theory helped to provide the basis
for studying the motivational implications of perceived unfairness and injustice in the
workplace. It also laid the foundation for more recent theories on distributive (how much
is allocated to each person) and procedural justice (how rewards and job requirements are
determined) Cropanzano & Folger (1996).
In a meta-analysis of many of these theories, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) found
that both distributive and procedural justice were related to job performance, job
satisfaction and the intention to quit.
People make judgements or comparisons between their own inputs at work, e.g. their
qualifications, experience and effort, and the outcomes they receive, e.g. pay and fringe
benefits, status and working conditions. They then assign weights to these inputs and
outputs according to their relevance and importance to themselves. The summed total
57
produces an output / input ratio, which is the key issue in terms of motivation. If a
person’s output / input ratio is equal to that of another person, equity exists. A state of
inequity leads to tension, which the individual tries to reduce by changing one or more
elements of the ratio, e.g. increase or reduce his effort. Perceived inequity by the person
is therefore the basis for motivation Baron et al. (2002).
Equity theory has stimulated much research, but there has been a decline in interest of
late because of its inability to predict people’s perception of the equitability of their
specific situation. Nevertheless, it has served to direct attention to the importance of
treating employees fairly, and the consequences of failing to do so Spector (2003).
2.4.2. b. Goal-setting theory
Goal-setting theory was first proposed by Edwin Locke in 1968. He described motivation
as the assumption that people’s behaviour is motivated by their internal intentions,
objectives or goals. In other words, by what people consciously want to achieve.
According to Locke and Henne (1986) goals affect behaviour in four ways:
They direct attention and action to those behaviours which a person believes will
achieve a particular goal;
They mobilise effort towards reaching the goal;
They increase the person’s persistence, which results in more time spent on the
behaviours necessary to attain the desired goal;
They motivate the person’s search for effective strategies for goal attainment.
There are several prerequisites for the goal-directed behaviour to effectively improve job
performance Locke & Henne (1986):
a thorough commitment to the specific goal;
regular feedback on the person’s performance towards attaining the goal;
58
the more challenging the goal is perceived to be, the better the person’s
performance is likely to be;
specific goals are more effective than vague goals, e.g. “do your best”;
Self-set goals are preferred over organisationally set goals. If this is not entirely
possible, a person needs to at least have input into his own goals.
A meta-analysis of 72 on-the-job studies pointed out that goal setting produces
substantial increases in employee output Locke (1976). It is well supported by empirical
research evidence Locke & Latham (1990). This theory has an intuitive appeal because of
its clear relevance to the workplace Schultz & Schultz (1998).It is currently one of the
most popular theories informing organisational approaches to employee motivation
Spector (2003).
2.4.2. c. Expectancy theory
The original thinking behind what has come to be known as expectancy theory, or
Vroom’s Expectancy-Valence-Instrumentality (VIE) theory can be traced back to the
theorizing of Tolman and Levin in 1932 and 1938 respectively Petri (1996). Vroom was,
however, the first scholar to elaborate on this thinking in a motivational context in 1964
Gouws (1995). Since its origin in the psychological theorising of some 60 years ago, the
expectancy theory has been presented in many variations. Common to all versions is the
basic tenet that people base their behaviour on their beliefs and expectations regarding
future events, namely those maximally advantageous to them Baron et al., (2002).
Vroom’s original theory (1964) posits that motivation or force is a mathematical function
of three types of cognitions, Force = Expectancy x Σ (Valences x Instrumentalities).
Essentially, the theory explains how rewards lead to behaviour, through focusing on
internal cognitive states that lead to motivation. In other words, people are motivated to
action if they believe those behaviours will lead to the outcomes they want. The said
cognitive states are termed ‘expectancy’, ‘valence’ and ‘instrumentality’ Spector (2003).
59
Force is the person’s motivation to perform. Expectancy is the perceived probability that
a person has regarding his ability to perform the behaviour required to lead to a desired
outcome, e.g. working hard enough to secure a promotion. This aspect is similar to self-
esteem or self-confidence, which relates to a person’s belief that he can perform at the
required level. Valence is the value or the attractiveness of the outcome to the person.
Instrumentality is the perceived probability that a given behaviour will lead to the desired
outcome. There may be more than one outcome for each behavior. According to Vroom’s
formula, for each outcome a valence and instrumentality are multiplied, and each
resulting product then summed (Σ), and multiplied by the person’s expectancy, to
produce an overall force or motivation score Spector (2003).
Criticism
Expectancy theory has represented a popular and influential approach since its
introduction, but has been criticised for its assumption that people are as calculating and
rational in their decision-making. According to Hadebe (2001) the theory has limited use,
and is more valid for prediction of behaviour where effort–performance–rewards linkages
may be clearly perceived by the individual. It has also been criticised for failing to take
adequate account of people’s cognitive limitations Baron et al. (2002). Consequently,
there has been mixed levels of support for the theory’s usefulness in the workplace.
2.4.3. Reinforcement theories
Reinforcement theories, assume that people’s behaviour is determined by its perceived
positive or negative consequences. It is based on the ‘Law of Effect’ idea, which was first
postulated by Thorndike (1911), and further developed by Woodworth (1918) and Hull
(1943). Hull’s drive theory elaborated on this idea and suggested that effort was the
mathematical product of drive, multiplied by habit, and that habit was derived from
behaviour reinforcement.
According to Wiley (1997) “Modern approaches to motivation may be organized into
three related clusters: (1) personality-based views (2) cognitive choice or decision
approaches and (3) goal or self-regulation perspective. Personality-based views
60
emphasize the influence of enduring personal characteristics as they affect goal choice
and striving. Once employees have met the requirements of their own jobs, and attained
certain goals, they expect certain rewards to follow. In this regard, reinforcement theories
have contributed much towards the establishment of a wide array of reward and
performance incentives systems applied in organizations all over the world today Beach
(1980). As such, it provided the basis for the notion that rewards should be contingent
with individual units of productivity Schultz & Schultz (1998).
The term motivation has been used in numerous and often contradictory ways. Goal
directed behavior distinguishes employee’s motivated behaviors from other behavior. The
core of motivating individuals lies in the goal directed aspect of behavior. As a
motivation theory, reinforcement theory has fallen somewhat out of favour, as it merely
describes relations between reinforcement and behavior. This gives little insight into
motivational processes, e.g. whether or not a person wanted a specific reward, or why he
requires. Nevertheless, its relative popularity in the workplace is maintained by research
that has shown that rewards can be highly effective in the enhancement of job
performance. The consequences of behaviour may be tangible, such as money, or
intangible, such as praise Spector (2003).
Benner et al (1995) suggested “motivation is concern with how behavior gets started, is
energized, is Sustained, is directed, is stopped and what kind of subjective re-action is
present in the organization while this is going on. The primary focus was on how and
why questions of motivation, how a certain behavior starts, developed and sustained over
time. It is true that human behavior in general is dynamic and could affect the
individual’s personal altitude as well as factors surrounding that individual. These
exogenous factors eminent from the environment in which the individual operates
generate stimuli to employees. It is my belief that employees in general are goal seeking
and look for challenges and expect positive re-enforcement at all times. Hence it could
only be of benefit if organizations could provide these rewards and factors. Though
employees are financially motivated, motivation could be seen as a moving target, as
what Motivates differs among different people. They may even change from the same
61
person over a given period of time. Developments within the modern organization has
probably made motivating employees even more difficult due to the nature of every
individual, behavior increasing the complexity of what can really motivate employees.
According to Bassette-Jones & Lloyd (2005) “expectancy, equity, goal setting and
reinforcement theory have resulted in the development of a simple model of motivational
alignment. The model suggests that once the needs of employees are identified and
aligned in tune with organizational objectives that will lead to high motivation. If poorly
aligned, and then low motivation will be the outcome.For decades, organizational
scientists and practitioners alike have been fascinated by the happy productive worker
thesis. According to this hypothesis, happy employees exhibit higher levels of job-related
performance behaviors than do unhappy employees. However, despite years of research,
support for the happy productive worker thesis remains equivocal. These ambiguous
findings result from the variety of ways in which happiness has been operationalized.
Researchers have operationalized happiness as job satisfaction, as the presence of
positive effect, as the absence of negative effect, as the lack of emotional exhaustion, and
as psychological well-being. Some of these measures exhibit appreciable associations
with job performance; others do not. The circumflex framework is offered as a potentially
useful taxonomy for researchers interested in better understanding and promoting a happy
and productive workforce.
2.5. Job Satisfaction
Employee satisfaction over years has been a key area of research among industrial and
organizational psychologists. There are important reasons why organization should be
concerned with employee job satisfaction. This can be classified according to the focus
on the employee or the organization.
First, the humanitarian perspective is that people deserve to be treated fairly and
with respect. Job satisfaction is the reflection of a good treatment. It also can be
considered as an indicator of emotional well-being or psychological health.
62
Second, the utilitarian perspective is that job satisfaction can lead to behavior by
an employee that affects organizational functioning. Furthermore, job satisfaction
can be a reflection of organizational functioning.
Vroom (1964), need/value fulfilment theory, states that job satisfaction is negatively
related to the discrepancy between individual needs and the extent to which the job
supplies these needs. On the other hand, Porter and Lawler (1968) collect the influences
on job satisfaction in two groups of internal and external satisfactory factors. According
to them, internal satisfactory factors are related the work itself such as feeling of
independence, feeling of achievement, feeling of victory, self-esteem, feeling of control
and other similar feeling obtained from work. External satisfactory factors are not
directly related to work itself such as good relationships with colleagues, high salary,
good welfare and utilities.
According to the study conducted by Friedlander and Margulies (1969), it was discovered
that management & friendly staff relationships contribute to the level of job satisfaction.
However, this result contradicts with view of Herzberg (1966) who supported the view
that supervision is irrelevant to the level of job satisfaction. On the other hand, Arvey and
Dewhirst (1976), took 271 scientists as a study sample, and found that the degree of job-
satisfaction of the workers with high achievement motivation exceeded that of workers
with low achievement motivation. Also autonomy is an important concern for employees’
job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction has been defined as “feelings or affective responses to facets of the
