Motivational Needs and Processes |  |
Chapter SummaryMotivation is probably more closely associated with the micro perspective of organizational behavior than is any other topic. A comprehensive understanding of motivation includes the need–drive–incentive sequence, or cycle. The basic process involves needs, which set drives in motion to accomplish incentives (anything that alleviates a need and reduces a drive). The drives, or motives, may be classified into primary, general, and secondary categories. The primary motives are unlearned and physiologically based. Common primary motives are hunger, thirst, sleep, avoidance of pain, sex, and maternal concern. The general, or stimulus, motives are also unlearned but are not physiologically based. Curiosity, manipulation, activity, and affection are examples of general mo-tives. Secondary motives are learned and are most relevant to the study of organizational behavior. The needs for power, achievement, affiliation, security, and status are major motivating forces in the behavior of organizational participants.
Besides the various needs, motivation can also be broken down into its source—extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic motives are the visible consequences external to the individual (e.g., money), usually contingently administered by others, to motivate the individual. Intrinsic motives are internal to the individual, and are self-induced to learn, achieve, or in some way better oneself.
When the theories are specifically focused on work motivation, there are several
popular approaches. The Maslow, Herzberg, and Alderfer models attempt to identify specific content factors in the employee (in the case of Maslow and Alderfer) or in the job environment (in the case of Herzberg) that are motivating. Although such a content
approach has surface logic, is easy to understand and can be readily translated into practice, the research evidence points out some definite limitations. There is very little research support for these models’ theoretical basis and predictability. The trade-off for
simplicity sacrifices true understanding of the complexity of work motivation. On the positive side, however, the content models have given emphasis to important content factors that were largely ignored by the human relationists. In addition, the Alderfer
model allows more flexibility, and the Herzberg model is useful as an explanation for job satisfaction and as a point of departure for practical application.
The process theories provide a much sounder theoretical explanation of work motivation. The expectancy model of Vroom and the extensions and refinements provided by Porter and Lawler help explain the important cognitive variables and how they relate to one another in the complex process of work motivation. The Porter-Lawler model also gives specific attention to the important relationship between performance and satisfaction. Porter and Lawler propose that performance leads to satisfaction, instead of the human relations assumption of the reverse. A growing research literature is somewhat supportive of these expectancy models, but conceptual and methodological problems remain. Unlike the content models, these expectancy models are relatively complex and difficult to translate into actual practice, and, consequently, they have made a
contribution but are not the final answer for motivation in the field of organizational behavior and human resource performance.
More recently, in academic circles, equity theory has received increased attention. Equity theory, which is based on perceived input–outcome ratios of oneself compared
to relevant other(s), can lead to increased understanding of the complex cognitive process of work motivation but has the same limitation as the expectancy models for prediction and control in the practice of human resource management. More recently,
this equity theory has been applied to the analysis of procedural justice in the workplace. Finally, control and agency theories, coming from other disciplines, are briefly discussed as representative of other approaches receiving recent research attention in organizational behavior.
The last part of the chapter recognizes the globalization environment. Cross-cultural studies of motivation are taking place in two areas. First, variances and similarities
among motives and the relative importance of motives tend to indicate that there are routine differences in various cultures. Second, continuing research is oriented toward the understanding of which motivational theories are culture bound and which are
more applicable to cultures other than the United States. |
|
|
2002 McGraw-Hill Higher Education