FIOP ASSIGNMENT by Aditi saini

Explain motivation. Give a detailed account of process theories or contemporary theories.

Motivation: The term ‘motivation’ can be traced to the Latin word, ‘movere’ which means “to move”
Motivation refers to the process of initiating, guiding, and sustaining activities to fulfill physical or
psychological needs. It plays a crucial role in encouraging individuals to perform optimally and
contribute to achieving organizational objectives. Positive motivation enhances employee productivity,
while negative motivation hampers performance. Motivation is a critical aspect of personnel
management, influencing employees' commitment and output. Some definition are given below:
 The internal force that drives a worker to action as well as the external factors that encourage that
action. Locke & Latham (2002)
 Motivation is a process that starts with a physiological or psychological deficiency or need that
activates a behavior or a drive that is aimed at a goal or incentive.Fred Luthans (1998)
 Motivation is one of the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and
persistence of effort toward attaining a goal. Robbins & Judge (2009)

Nature of Motivation:
Motivation is a psychological phenomena which generates within an individual. A person feels the
lack of certain needs, to satisfy which he feels working more. The need satisfying ego motivates a
person to do better than he normally does.
 Motivation in an inner feeling which energizes a person to work more.
 The emotions or desires of a person prompt him for doing a particular work.
 These are unsatisfied needs of a person which disturb his equilibrium.
 A person moves to fulfil his unsatisfied needs by conditioning his energies.
 There are dormant energies in a person which are activated by channelizing them into
actions.

Features of Motivation:
1. Motivation can be positive or negative :-
 There can be positive motivation and negative motivation.
 Positive motivation can be simulative, such as higher pay, power position etc.
 Negative motivation implies the use of penalties, punishments etc.
2. Motivation is goal oriented :-
 Motivation is a behavioural concept. It directs human behaviour towards the
accomplishment of goals.
 If properly motivated, employees put in their best possible efforts in orders to achieve the
desired goals.
3. Motivation is complex in nature :-
 Different individuals behave differently to a given set of incentives.
 Some employees may be highly motivated when they are given monetary incentives,
whereas others may be more motivated with the use of non-monetary incentives.
4. Motivation is system oriented :-
 Motivation is a combined effect of these groups of factors.
 Forces operating within individual, i.e. his nature, needs, values etc.
5. Motivation is different from job satisfaction:-
 Motivation is the act to satisfy needs and desires. Job satisfaction results only when such
needs and desires are fulfilled. Job satisfaction is the outcome of motivation.
6. Motivation is a continuous process:-
 Motivation is not a one time process.
  This is because, human needs and desires are never ending. When one needs is satisfied,
another needs emerges that is to be satisfied. Therefore managers have to identify the
emerging needs of their subordinates and strive to satisfy such needs at regular intervals.

Importance of motivation at the workplace:

1. Maximum utilization of factors of production: workers perform the work sincerely through the
inspiration of motivation.
2. Willingness to work: Motivation influences the willingness of people to work. A man is
technically, mentally and physically fit to perform the work but they may not be willing to work.
3. Reduced absenteeism: Financial incentive schemes coerce the workers to work more. This
reduces absenteeism.
4. Reduced labour turnover: Motivation has both financial and non-financial incentive schemes.
This helps to retain the existing labourers.
5. Availability of right personnel: Financial and non- financial incentives not only retain the
existing employees but also attract the employees from outside the enterprise.

Motivational Cycle:

The motivational cycle is a transition of states within an organism that propels the organism toward
the satisfaction of a particular need, where motivation itself is considered a hypothesized state.
Psychologists use the concept of need to describe the motivational properties of behavior.
The state of motivation is further comprised of four different states, which takes place in an
organism to drive him towards each action. Each action is first initiated because of a particular
need. The need drives the person into taking actions. Positive results, caused due to the actions,
further acts as an incentive motivating a person towards the goal. But the individual can never stop
after achieving a certain goal, and this phenomenon continues on and on.
Need: A need is lack or deficit of some necessity. It’s a state of physical deprivation that causes
tension within an organism. The tension caused when the organism is deprived of basic necessities
of life as food, water, and sleep, causes the internal environment of an organism to be imbalanced.
The imbalance caused by the need arouses the organism to maintain its balance. For any goal
directed behaviour, need is the first condition or stimulating factor.

Drive: Need leads to drive, which is the second step towards achieving goal. Drive can be defined
as the state of tension or arousal produced by need. The drive can also be considered as the original
source of energy that activates an organism. For instance, when an organism is hungry and/or
thirsty, the organism seeks to reduce this drive by eating and/or drinking.
Drive acts as a strong persistent stimulus to push an organism towards its goal. It is the state of
heightened tension leading to restless activity and preparatory behaviour.

Incentive: The object of the environment that activates, directs, and maintains behaviour is called
incentive. It can be anything as long as it has either positive or negative value in motivating
behaviour.
The incentive theory rests on the assumption that the behaving organism is well aware of his
actions and the consequences received as a result. The theory also understands incentives as the
motivation, which a person has to achieve any particular goal object. The motivated behaviour is
directed towards incentive and getting closer to the incentive provides satisfaction of the aroused
drive.

Goal: The reduction of tension in the body can be considered as the goal of any motivated
behaviour. Let’s go back to the example of a hungry man. A hungry man eats food, and his body
restores to a balanced condition. This then reduces the tension. This reduction of tension as a result
of an energized activity is called goal. Once the goal has been completed, the organism is again
ready for another goal-motivated behaviour.
Goals might be both positive or negative. Positive goals are the ones that an organism tries to
attain, such as sexual companionship, food, victory etc. Negative goals are the ones that an
organism tries to escape from or avoid, such as embarrassing situations, punishments.
These four steps continue on and on throughout the life-course of an organism. Because the needs
are never ending, it leads to drive, which then lead to incentive and the goal.
For Example: The motivational cycle of the hungry man is over once when he eats and the goal is
satisfied. But, the cycle will restart once the man gets hungry again. The cycle goes on and on only
to end at the demise of an organism, at which point, the needs permanently stop. Motivational cycle
means that behaviour goes on in a sequence. Often times, a single motivated behaviour can also
fulfil multiple needs.

Motivation Cycle Phases:

Motive Generation: Motivation, originating from the Latin term "movere" meaning "to move,"
initiates the behavioral cycle. It involves internal conditions propelling an individual towards an
objective. Motives may arise from external cues, like pain or environmental obstacles, prompting
actions to relieve discomfort or accomplish a specific goal. Learning greatly influences the
diversity of stimuli capable of inducing motivation, as individuals develop the ability to recognize
different environmental signals as motivational cues.

Behavioral Response: After the activation of a motive, individuals undertake actions aimed at
satisfying the underlying drive or requirement. These actions are typically deliberate and adhere to
the principles of operant conditioning, where behaviors are consciously selected to aid in achieving
goals. The enacted behavior acts as a tool to overcome obstacles and hurdles encountered while
striving to reach the intended objective.

Achieving Goals: The final stage of the motivational cycle is reached when the intended objective
is accomplished. Accomplishing the goal brings about a feeling of contentment and closure,
indicating the fulfillment of the motivational journey. Reaching the goal may temporarily quell the
initial motive, until fresh stimuli or necessities emerge, prompting the cycle to recommence.

Motivation: Contemporary Theories

Contemporary theories of work motivation build upon and address the shortcomings of early motivation
theories, which lacked empirical support and failed to explain motivation within evolving organizational
contexts fully. Unlike their predecessors, contemporary theories have been rigorously validated and offer
a current framework for understanding employee motivation. These theories are labeled as
"contemporary" not because of their recent development, but because they provide a modern explanation
of motivation in the workplace. Below, we'll delve into some significant contemporary theories of
motivation.

Self-Determination Theory: This proposes that people prefer to feel they have control over their actions,
so anything that makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than a freely chosen activity
will undermine motivation. Much research on self-determination theory in OB has focused on cognitive
evaluation theory, which hypothesizes that extrinsic rewards will reduce intrinsic interest in a task. When
people are paid for work, it feels less like something they want to do and more like something they have
to do. Self-determination theory also proposes that in addition to being driven by a need for autonomy,
people seek ways to achieve competence and positive connections to others.
When organizations use extrinsic rewards for performance, employees may perceive their success as
more driven by external factors than personal motivation. Removing such rewards can shift individuals'
perception of why they work, moving from external to internal motivations. For instance, continued post-
course reading suggests intrinsic enjoyment rather than external obligation.
Studies examining how extrinsic rewards increased motivation for some creative tasks suggest we might
need to place cognitive evaluation theory’s predictions in a broader context. Goal-setting is more
effective in improving motivation, for instance, when we provide rewards for achieving goals. The
original authors of self-determination theory acknowledge that extrinsic rewards such as verbal praise and
feedback about competence can improve even intrinsic motivation under specific circumstances.
Deadlines and specific work standards do, too, if people believe they are in control of their behavior. This
is consistent with the central theme of self-determination theory: rewards and deadlines diminish
motivation if people see them as coercive.
Self-concordance, an extension of self-determination theory, assesses how closely aligned people's goal
pursuits are with their interests and values. Intrinsic goal pursuit leads to higher goal achievement and
happiness due to the enjoyable process. Conversely, extrinsic goal pursuit yields lower achievement and
happiness as the goals lack personal meaning. OB research
suggests that people who pursue work goals for intrinsic reasons are more satisfied with their jobs, feel
they fit into their organizations better, and may perform better.

Job Engagement: the investment of an employee’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into job
performance. Numerous studies aim to assess deep commitment levels. For three decades, Gallup has
utilized 12 questions to gauge employee engagement, revealing its correlation with positive work results.
Highly successful organizations exhibit greater employee engagement, leading to enhanced productivity,
safety, and retention. Academic research similarly confirms these benefits, linking engagement with
improved task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Job engagement is influenced by perceiving work as meaningful, which is shaped by job characteristics
and resource availability. Alignment of individual values with organizational values and leadership
behaviors that inspire a sense of purpose also enhances employee engagement.
One of the critiques of engagement is that the construct is partially redundant with job attitudes like
satisfaction or stress. However, engagement questionnaires usually assess motivation and absorption in a
task, quite unlike job satisfaction questionnaires. Engagement may also predict important work outcomes
better than traditional job attitudes. Other critics note there may be a “dark side” to engagement, as
evidenced by positive relationships between engagement and work–family conflict. Individuals might
grow so engaged in their work roles that family responsibilities become an unwelcome intrusion.

Goal-Setting Theory: In the late 1960s, Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a
goal are a major source of work motivation. That is, goals tell an employee what needs to be done and
how much effort is needed. Evidence strongly suggests that specific goals increase performance; that
difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than do easy goals; and that feedback leads to
higher performance than nonfeedback.
why are people motivated by difficult goals? First, challenging goals get our attention and thus tend to
help us focus. Second, difficult goals energize us because we have to work harder to attain them. Third,
when goals are difficult, people persist in trying to attain them. Finally, difficult goals lead us to discover
strategies that help us perform the job or task more effectively.
People do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing toward their goals, because it
helps identify discrepancies between what they have done and what they want to do that is, feedback
guides behavior. But all feedback is not equally potent. Self-generated feedback with which employees
are able to monitor their own progress is more powerful than externally generated feedback.
The impact of employee participation in goal setting on effort varies. While participatively set goals
sometimes lead to better performance, in other cases, goals assigned by superiors are more effective.
However, participation can enhance goal acceptance and commitment, highlighting the importance of
clarity in goal explanation when participation is absent.
In addition to feedback, three other factors influence the goals– performance relationship: goal
commitment, task characteristics, and national culture.
Goal-setting theory presumes an individual's commitment to and determination not to lower or abandon a
goal, contingent on believing in their ability to achieve it and having the desire to do so. Goal
commitment is strengthened when goals are public, the individual possesses an internal locus of control,
and goals are self-set. Goals have a greater impact on performance in simple, well-learned, and
independent tasks, while interdependent tasks benefit from group goals.
Goal-setting effects vary across cultures, with most research conducted in individualistic societies like the
United States and Canada. While group-based goals haven't shown consistent superiority in collectivist
cultures, achievable moderate goals can be more motivating than difficult ones in such contexts. Assigned
goals foster greater commitment in high-power-distance cultures.
Goal-setting can yield positive outcomes, but overly effective goals may hinder adaptation and creativity,
particularly when learning is essential. Focusing solely on performance goals may narrow perspectives
and lead to unethical behavior. Research indicates that employees with low conscientiousness and
emotional stability may experience heightened emotional exhaustion with goal-setting leadership.
However, goals remain influential in shaping behavior, necessitating alignment with organizational
objectives. Emerging research explores subconscious goal-setting, suggesting that unconscious priming
with achievement themes can enhance performance, independent of conscious goal-setting processes.
Implementing Goal-Setting: Management by Objectives (MBO) is a structured approach to goal-setting
that emphasizes participative goal setting at all organizational levels. It translates overall objectives into
specific goals for each division, department, and individual, fostering a hierarchical linkage of objectives.
Common to MBO programs are goal specificity, participation in decision-making, explicit timeframes,
and performance feedback, aligning with goal-setting theory. While MBO is widely used across various
sectors, its effectiveness can be hindered by unrealistic expectations, lack of top management
commitment, and failure to allocate rewards based on goal achievement.

Self-Efficacy Theory: Self-efficacy (also known as social cognitive theory or social learning theory)
refers to an individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. The
higher your self-efficacy, the more confidence you have in your ability to succeed. So, in difficult
situations, people with low self-efficacy are more likely to lessen their effort or give up altogether, while
those with high self-efficacy will try harder to master the challenge. Self-efficacy can create a positive
spiral in which those with high efficacy become more engaged in their tasks and then, in turn, increase
performance, which increases efficacy further. Changes in self-efficacy over time are related to changes
in creative performance as well. Individuals high in self-efficacy also seem to respond to negative
feedback with increased effort and motivation, while those low in self-efficacy are likely to lessen their
effort after negative feedback.
Managers can enhance employees' self-efficacy by integrating goal-setting theory and self-efficacy
theory. Setting challenging goals communicates confidence in employees, boosting their self-efficacy and
motivating them to set higher personal goals. This psychological process fosters increased confidence and
performance, both professionally and personally.
The researcher who developed self-efficacy theory, Albert Bandura, proposes four ways self-efficacy can
be increased:
1. Enactive mastery.
2. Vicarious modeling.
3. Verbal persuasion.
4. Arousal.
According to Bandura, the most important source of increasing self-efficacy is enactive mastery that is,
gaining relevant experience with the task or job. The second source is vicarious modeling becoming more
confident because you see someone else doing the task. Vicarious modeling is most effective when you
see yourself as similar to the person you are observing. The third source is verbal persuasion: becoming
more confident because someone convinces you that you have the skills necessary to be successful.
Motivational speakers use this tactic.
Finally, Bandura argues that arousal increases self-efficacy. Arousal leads to an energized state, so the
person gets “psyched up” and performs better.
Self-efficacy theory has several implications for organizational behavior (OB). Enactive mastery, where
individuals practice and build skills, is crucial in training programs as it boosts self-efficacy and enhances
training effectiveness. Individuals with higher self-efficacy benefit more from training and are more
likely to apply it on the job. Verbal persuasion, exemplified by the Pygmalion effect, influences self-
efficacy. When managers believe in their employees' abilities and provide challenging assignments, it
leads to higher self-efficacy and improved performance. Additionally, intelligence and personality traits
like conscientiousness and emotional stability contribute to self-efficacy. While some argue that
intelligence and personality overshadow self-efficacy, more research is needed to understand their
interplay.

Reinforcement Theory: Goal-setting theory focuses on individuals' cognitive processes directing their
actions, while reinforcement theory adopts a behavioristic perspective, emphasizing environmental
factors shaping behavior. Despite philosophical differences, reinforcement theory provides a potent
framework for analyzing behavior control, although it neglects internal cognitive events, making it less a
motivation theory and more a behavior analysis tool.
Operant conditioning theory, a key aspect of reinforcement theory, posits that individuals learn to act in
certain ways to obtain desired outcomes or avoid undesired consequences. Behavior is shaped by
reinforcement or lack thereof based on its consequences. B.F. Skinner emphasized that providing pleasing
consequences reinforces behavior, increasing its frequency. Rewards are most effective when
immediately following the desired behavior, while behavior not rewarded or punished is less likely to
recur. For instance, a professor rewarding student contributions in class demonstrates operant
conditioning by conditioning students to expect rewards for participation. Skinner's behaviorism rejects
the significance of feelings and thoughts in influencing behavior, emphasizing the association between
stimulus and response over conscious awareness.
Operant conditioning is evident in situations where reinforcements are contingent upon specific actions,
such as earning high grades for correct test answers or generating high sales for commission. However,
this linkage can also lead individuals to engage in behaviors contrary to organizational interests if
reinforcement expectations are not met, as seen with declined overtime work. While reinforcers like pay
can motivate people, reinforcement theory oversimplifies behavior by ignoring cognitive variables such
as feelings, attitudes, and expectations. Some researchers interpret findings from reinforcement theory
experiments within a cognitive framework, acknowledging the complexity of human behavior beyond
simple stimulus-response mechanisms.
Reinforcement is a significant influence on behavior, but scholars recognize it is not the sole determinant.
Behavior and effort allocation are shaped by various factors, including consequences like reprimands.
Social-learning theory extends operant conditioning by incorporating observational learning and
perception. Individuals respond to their perceptions of consequences, not just the objective outcomes.
Models play a crucial role in social-learning theory, influencing individuals through attention, retention,
motor reproduction, and reinforcement processes. These processes determine the extent of a model's
influence, emphasizing the importance of attention, retention, motor reproduction, and reinforcement in
learning from observation.

Equity Theory/Organizational Justice: Employees assess their job situation by comparing what they
receive (e.g., salary, recognition) with what they contribute (e.g., effort, education) and compare this ratio
with relevant others. Equity exists when ratios are perceived as equal, resulting in a sense of fairness.
Inequity leads to tension, manifesting as anger when underrewarded and guilt when overrewarded. Equity
theory is complex, influenced by the referent selected (e.g., self-inside, other-outside) and moderated by
variables like gender, tenure, organizational level, and education/professionalism.

Gender disparities in pay and pay expectations contribute to inequity in the workplace, as women
typically earn less and have lower pay expectations than men. Women often use other women as
referents, leading to lower comparative standards due to societal stereotypes. Short-tenured employees
rely on personal experiences for comparisons, while long-tenured employees rely more on co-workers.
Upper-level, professional, and highly educated employees make more comparisons outside the
organization. Equity theory suggests that employees experiencing inequity may change inputs or
outcomes, distort perceptions of self or others, choose different referents, or ultimately leave their job.
Recent research has broadened the concept of equity, shifting from a focus solely on distributive justice to
encompass organizational justice. Organizational justice considers employees' perceptions of fairness in
reward distribution and the procedures for such allocation. Fairness is subjective, with individuals
interpreting fairness differently. Generally, people view allocations or procedures favoring themselves as
fair. Despite many individuals believing they pay their fair share of taxes, a significant proportion feel the
overall tax system is unfair due to perceived loopholes.
Equity theory research suggests that while individuals may approach fairness assessments in a rational
manner, they often rely on emotional reactions rather than precise calculations. They assess distributive
justice based on feelings about how they're treated relative to others, and may emotionally react to
injustices against others as well. Procedural justice, another aspect, emphasizes fairness in the process of
reward distribution, encompassing elements like process control and explanations. Employees perceive a
process as fair when they have input and receive clear explanations. Procedural justice becomes more
critical when distributive justice is lacking, as individuals focus on why they didn't get what they wanted.
Clear explanations, particularly in the form of post hoc excuses, are beneficial for maintaining perceived
fairness.
Interactional justice reflects how individuals perceive their treatment in terms of dignity and respect.
Perceptions of injustice often lead to retaliation, particularly towards supervisors. Distributive justice
strongly influences organizational commitment and satisfaction with pay, while procedural justice affects
job satisfaction, trust, and performance. Equity theory's application varies across cultures; collectivist
cultures prioritize individual needs alongside performance. Managers worldwide aim to promote justice
perceptions to ensure compliance and maintain positive identity. Open communication, consistent
procedures, and addressing sources of injustice are vital. Regardless of cultural differences, equitable
reward distribution based on performance is preferred globally over equal division by seniority.

Expectancy Theory: The Expectancy theory of motivation was proposed by Victor H. Vroom (1964). It
is also called as VIE Theory. This theory has its roots in the cognitive components of human motivation.
Vroom was the first to directly apply cognitive concepts to the field of work motivation. He proposed this
theory in response to the early theories which, in his opinion, did not address the complexity of
motivation process.
Victor Vroom’s theory is based on following four assumptions:
 People joining an organization carry with them their expectations and have certain needs and
motivations. These expectations and needs shape the way they behave in the organization
 The behavior of an individual is a result of his/her conscious choice. People behave in a manner
which is consistent with their expectancy calculations
 Different individuals within the same organization have different demands based on what is
important to them. For e.g. for one individual good salary could be of paramount importance, while
for the other job security could matter the most. What people want from an organization varies
from one person to another.
 People will weigh available alternatives before choosing from among them so as to optimize
outcomes for them personally
The Expectancy theory has three key elements: Valence, Instrumentality, and Expectancy (hence VIE
Theory). Each of these elements is discussed below:
Expectancy, in simple terms, means an individual’s belief that his/her efforts will result in attainment of
desired goals. It is a person’s estimate that effort (job-related) will result in a given outcome (level of
performance). It is a probability and ranges from 0 to 1. Expectancy is said to be 0 if the employee sees
no chance that his/her job-related effort will lead to the performance level desired by them. It is 1 in the
case the employee is certain of attaining the desired performance level.
Instrumentality describes the extent to which a certain level of task performance is going to be
instrumental in achieving various work outcomes. It is an individual’s estimate of the probability that a
certain first-level outcome (here, task performance) will lead to attainment of a second level outcome (a
reward e.g. promotion). This second-level outcome is seen as a reward which may come in the form of a
pay increase, promotion, recognition or sense of accomplishment. Instrumentality also ranges from 0 to 1.
Valence refers to the strength of an employee’s preference for a particular outcome or reward. It is the
value an individual attaches with an outcome based on his/her needs, demands or expectations. Valence
can be positive, negative or zero. Valence is positive when an individual prefers to attain an outcome to
not attaining it. On the other hand, if the employee prefers to not attain that reward, valence is negative.
Valence is said to be zero when the employee is indifferent to a reward. It ranges from 1 to +1. Same
outcome or reward might hold different valences for different individuals. For e.g. salary, promotion,
recognition by supervisors, job security or any other reward might have more or less value to different
employees.
Vroom gave an equation to depict the relationship between motivation, expectancy, instrumentality, and
valence:

The multiplier effect in the equation implies that higher levels of expectancy, instrumentality, and valence
will result in high levels of motivation. It also means that if any one of the three factors is zero, the
overall level of motivation is zero.
The three key elements of the expectancy theory give rise to three relationships, which are crucial in
determining the motivational level of an individual employee. They are shown in the figure below:

a) Effort-performance relationship: It deals with the perception of an individual that a given amount of
effort that he/she puts in the job would result in a given level of performance.
b) Performance-reward relationship: It deals with the belief of an individual that performing at a
particular level will result in the attainment of a desired outcome or reward.
c) Rewards-personal goals relationship: It deals with the extent to which the attained rewards or outcomes
satisfy an individual’s personal goals and the degree to which these goals are valued by the employee.
The expectancy theory contributed constructively to the study of motivation. It reflected the importance
of individual differences in work motivation. It identified several important alternatives that can be
adopted to motivate employees by modifying the person’s effort-to-performance expectancy,
performance-to-reward expectancy, or reward valences. It appreciates the complexities of work
motivation unlike the early theories of motivation. Despite this, expectancy theory has been criticized for
its assumption of human beings to be calculative which is too idealistic. It also fails to specifically state
exactly which motivates organizational employees.

Porter-Lawler Model of Motivation: This model of work motivation was proposed by Lyman Porter
and Edward Lawler (1968). This model is essentially an extended and refined form of Victor Vroom’s
Expectancy model. It a motivation model which directly deals with the complex relationship between
satisfaction and work performance. It is a more comprehensive model than Vroom’s model. It is a
multivariate model which tries to address the relationship between job attitudes and job performance.
This model rejects the conventional way of equating satisfaction and performance. It deals with multiple
variables (hence, a multivariate model) including motivation, satisfaction and performance.
The Porter-Lawler model is based upon four basic assumptions about human behavior. These are
stated below:
i. Individual behavior is a resultant of the influence of a number of factors present within the individual as
well as in the environment
ii. Human beings think rationally while making decisions. In organizations, their behavior is a result of
their conscious decisions
iii. Different people have different needs, desires and goals
iv. Individuals choose between alternate behaviors on the basis of their expectations so as to lead to a
desired outcome.
This model suggests that motivation does not directly lead to performance. Instead, it is moderated by
traits, abilities and role perceptions. The entire process is a complex interplay of following elements:
Effort is what an individual puts into a job. It refers to the amount of energy exerted by an
individual on a job. Reward is what an individual expects in exchange of his/her efforts. They consciously
try to figure out whether the rewards they are likely to receive are attractive to them. Perceived Effort-
Reward Probability, before putting in any efforts, people try to evaluate the possibility that their efforts
would result in a certain level of performance which in turn would lead to the rewards desired by them. In
other words, the effort put in by people is dependent on the effort-reward probability and reward valence.
Performance is a cumulative resultant of an individual’s efforts, abilities, traits and role perceptions.
Amount of efforts directly influence performance and this effort-performance relationship is moderated
by abilities and traits.
Satisfaction results from the rewards received after the performance. If the received rewards are perceived
as equitable then the individual feels satisfied, otherwise it leads to dissatisfaction. Porter-Lawler model
depicts the relationships diagrammatically rather than mathematically, which makes it easier to
understand. The role of rewards in creating satisfaction has been highlighted which was previously
ignored. It is also more comprehensive than Vroom’s model as it consists of more number of variables.
Most importantly, this model has received sufficient empirical support over the years.
The comprehensiveness of the model has also resulted in its criticism for being overly complex. This
model has also been criticized for its lack of impact on actual human resource management and practices.

Conclusion:
Motivation is a complex and multifaceted concept that plays a crucial role in driving individual behavior
and performance within organizations. Various theories, such as goal-setting theory, self-efficacy theory,
and expectancy theory, provide frameworks for understanding the underlying mechanisms of motivation
and offer valuable insights into how organizations can effectively enhance employee engagement and
productivity. Additionally, contemporary models like the Porter-Lawler Model underscore the importance
of considering factors such as effort, performance, and rewards in shaping motivation. By acknowledging
the diverse needs and preferences of employees and implementing strategies to foster a supportive work
environment, organizations can harness the power of motivation to achieve their goals and objectives.
References
Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2014). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. John

Wiley & Sons.

Luthans, F., Luthans, B. C., & Luthans, K. W. (2015). Organizational behavior: An Evidence-Based

Approach, 13th Ed. IAP.

Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1975). Motivation and work behavior. McGraw-Hill Companies.