CHAPTER 3 MOTIVATIONAL AND AFFECTIVE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE LEARNING Objectives: At the end of the lesson the students

are expected to: A. Define motivation operationally; B. Differentiate intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. C. Discuss the Theories on Motivation. Introduction Studying is a hard task. However, it ceases to be a task if you have the right kind and right amount of motivation. Potential performance is a product of ability and motivation. When teachers ask about motivation, they want to know what causes a student to act in a particular way. No single definition of motivation is recognized; we will think of motivation as consisting of three interrelated components: personal goals, personal agency beliefs and emotions (Ford, 1992). What is Motivation? Motivation according to Lucas and Corpuz, (2011) is an inner drive that causes you to do something and persevere at something. Motivation is an inner drive that energizes you to do something. It is the strength of the drive toward an action. While ability refers to what children can do motivation refers to what these children will do. Motivation refers to the initiation, direction, intensity and persistence of behaviour. When we get motivated to do something, it is not enough that we start working at that thing and we get attracted toward the thing. Our attraction toward that thing becomes so intense that we persist working on the same thing through thick and thin. Motivational and Emotional Influences on Learning Some students seem naturally enthusiastic about learning, but many need or expect their instructors to inspire, challenge and stimulate them. Effective learning depends on the teachers ability.. to maintain the interest that brought the students to the classroom will be transformed by what happens in the classroom. Unfortunately, there is no single magical formula for motivating students. Many factors affect a given students motivation to work and to learn: interest in the subject matter, perception of its usefulness, general desire to achieve, self confidence and self-esteem, as well as patience and persistence. And of course all students are motivated by the same values, needs, desires or wants. Some of the students are motivated by the approval of others, some by overcoming challenges ( Ames and Ames, 1990). The rich internal world of thoughts, beliefs, goals and expectations for success or failure can enhance or interfere with the learners quality of thinking and information processing. Students beliefs about themselves as learners and the nature of learning have a marked influence on motivation. Motivational and emotional factors also influence both the quality of thinking and information processing as well as an individuals motivation and facilitate learning and performance by focusing the learners attention on a particular task. However, intense negative emotions (e.g. anxiety, panic, rage, insecurity) and related thoughts (e.g. worrying about competence, ruminating about failure, fearing punishment, ridicule or stigmatizing labels) generally detract from motivation, interfere with learning, and contribute to low performance (http:www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html). Ask any person who is successful in whatever he or she is doing what motivates him/her and very likely the answer will be goals. Goal setting is extremely important to motivation and

success. So what motivates you? Why are you in college? If you are in college because thats what your parents want, you may find it difficult for you to motivate yourself. Sure, its possible to succeed with someone else providing the motivation for you. But motivation that comes from within really makes the difference. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivations There are varieties of specific actions that teachers can take to increase motivation on classroom tasks. In general, these fall into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation ( Franken, 2001). Intrinsic motivation is an internal stimulus that arouses one to action. It is based on motive, which is always intrinsic . A motive arouses one to do something. In this type of motivation, the learner works not for medals or anything tangible but for the personal satisfaction of accomplishing his work and attaining his goals. The learners creativity, higher order thinking and natural curiosity all contribute to motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by task of optimal novelty and difficulty, relevant to personal interests and providing for personal choice and control. While, extrinsic motivation refers to the motivation that comes from outside the learner, such as motivation resulting from reinforcement in the form of highest test scores or teacher compliment. (Eggen & Kauchak, 1994). It is an external stimulus to action. This type of motivation is based on incentive. The motivation comes in the form of praise and other forms of social approval, high grades, medals, scholarships; etc salaries, wages, bonuses and kind of remuneration are also incentives and hence fall under extrinsic motivation (Vega, 2004). When students work hard to win their parents favour, gain teachers praise, or earn high grades we can rightly conclude that their motivation is primarily extrinsic their reasons to work and study are primarily outside themselves. But, if it comes from personal satisfaction like pursuing higher degrees and feel contended after receiving the degree, it is intrinsic motivation. General Principles of Motivation There are certain basic principles of motivation that are applicable to learning in nay situation. These are the following principles: 1. The environment can be used to focus the students attention on what needs to be learned. Teachers who create warm and accepting yet business-like atmospheres will promote persistent effort and favourable attitudes toward learning. 2. Incentives motivate learning. Incentives include privileges and receiving praise from the teacher. The teacher determines an incentive that is likely to motivate an individual at a particular time. In a general learning situation, self- motivation without rewards will not succeed. 3. Internal motivation is no longer lasting, and more self-directive than is external motivation, which must be repeatedly reinforced by praise or concrete rewards. Some individualsparticularly children of certain ages and some adults- have little capacity for internal motivation and must be guided and reinforced constantly. The use of incentives is based on the principle that learning occurs effectively when the student experiences feelings of satisfaction. 4. Learning is most effective when an individual is ready to learn, that is when one wants to know something. Sometimes, the students readiness to learn comes with time and the instructors role is to encourage its development. 5. Motivation is enhanced by the way in which the instructional material is organized. In general, the best organized material makes the information meaningful to the individual. One method of organization includes relating new tasks to those already known. Theories of Motivation

The following theories have demonstrated motivation of students in school developed by different psychologists. Their theories are helpful in understanding the variety of pupils motives, their emergence and their interrelationships. One of the theories to be considered is Maslows famous concept of self actualization or the use of ones abilities to the limit of ones potentialities. According to Maslow, there are five basic needs: psychological, safety, love and belongingness, esteem and self-actualization. The Psychological Needs such as hunger and sleep are dominant and are basic to motivation, unless they are satisfied, everything else recedes. Deprivation of physical needs may alter ones behavior. For example, children who do not eat breakfast suffer from poor nutrition and may lead to inattention while the teacher is teaching. This is particularly true with children from poor families. Safety needs. The desire for safety is basic to every human being. These are needs for security, protection, stability, freedom from fear and anxiety. Children who are afraid of school, of the teacher and from their parents have feelings of insecurity, and their classroom performance can be affected. Love and Belongingness. This need refers to the human need for family and friends. Motivated people wish to avoid feelings of loneliness and isolation. When we are accepted by others, we feel a sense of belongingness. If we cannot easily adjust to others, this can affect classroom setting. Esteem Needs. Maslows idea of esteem centers on seeking recognition from others and from oneself as a worthwhile person. This need is satisfied when one experiences feelings of worth, usefulness and confidence. Teachers should provide opportunities for students to achieve for students to achieve and succeed to satisfy the need for self esteem. Need for Self Actualization. The need for self-actualization is a motivating force that influences our actions potentialities. Students should be encouraged to recognize their potentialities. Clearly, a deficit in any of the categories may affect students performance. Students who are hungry or fearful may find it difficult to concentrate on their studies. Students who feel rejected and isolated may refuse to participate fully in class activities. In the same manner, student teacher relationships are significant in satisfying students needs. Students need to feel that they are worthy of respect, from themselves and others. The respect must be based on actual achievement (Maslow and Lowery, 1998). David McClellands Need Achievements Theory. This theory explains how students can be helped to improve their need achievement. This theory is an explanation that is related to competence, judging it and increasing it. He stated that an individual seeks out challenging, moderately difficult tasks. Students differ in their achievement that is on how much achievement means to them. Teachers, therefore, can help students improve their need achievement by involving students, encouraging active participation, and providing tangible feedback to students responses. The motivational theory that explains the cause of an individuals behaviour is the Attribution Theory. Most of the students attribute their success or failure to specific causes. When they are able to get good grades, they think that they are good in the subject but, when they fail in the test they attribute it to the difficulty of the test. It is recognized that no grand theory of motivation exists. However, motivation is so necessary for learning that learning that strategies should be planned to organize a continuous and interactive motivational dynamic for maximum effectiveness.

Self Efficacy and Self Concept People are more likely to engage in certain behaviors when they believe they are capable of certain behaviours successfully that is, when they have self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989:Schunk, 1989). Self efficacy is a concept similar to self-concept but with an important distinction. It describes that belief that one is capable of executing behavior or performing tasks successfully and is an essential driving force of human nature. Self concept, though conceptualized somewhat differently by different theories, is typically depicted as pervading a wide variety of activities; thus people are generally described as having generally high or low self-concepts. Self Concept. It is the cognitive or thinking aspect of self (related to ones self-image) and generally refers to the totality of a complex, organized, and dynamic system of learned beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about his or her personal existence (Purkey, 1988). A great deal of research shows that the self concept is, perhaps the basis for all motivated behaviour. It is the self concept that gives rise to possible selves, and it is possible selves that create the motivation for behaviour. Franken (1994) states that it is possible to change the self concept. Self change is not something that people can will but rather it depends on the process of self reflection. Through, self- reflections, people often come to view themselves in a new more powerful way, and it is true this new, more powerful way of viewing the self that people can develop possible selves. Vrooms Theory Expectancy Theory ...assumes that behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Together with Edward Lawler and Lyman Porter, Victor Vroom suggested that the relationship between people's behavior at work and their goals was not as simple as was first imagined by other scientists. Vroom realized that an employee's performance is based on individuals factors such as personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities. The theory suggests that although individuals may have different sets of goals, they can be motivated if they believe that:

There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance, Favorable performance will result in a desirable reward, The rewardwill satisfy an important need, The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile. The theory is based upon the following beliefs: Valence Valence refers to the emotional orientations people hold with respect to outcomes [rewards]. The depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic [money, promotion, time-off, benefits] or intrinsic [satisfaction] rewards). Management must discover what employees value. Expectancy Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence about what they are capable of doing. Management must discover what resources, training, or supervision employees need. Instrumentality The perception of employees as to whether they will actually get what they desire even if it has been promised by a manager. Management must ensure that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware of that.

Vroom suggests that an employee's beliefs about Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence interact psychologically to create a motivational force such that the employee acts in ways that bring pleasure and avoid pain. (http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/dstools/paradigm/vroom.html). Management and Motivation, Vroom, V.H., Deci, E.L., Penguin 1983 (first published 1970) [This book contains selected readings on "motivation"; Including Simon, Maslow, Herzberg, Vroom, Lawler etc.] The focus of Vrooms Expectancy Theory is that an employees motivation to complete a task is influenced by their personal views regarding: 1. The probability of completing the task and 2. The possible outcome or consequence of completing the task. Expectancy Theory states that, individuals make decisions, which they believe will lead to reward or reduce the likelihood of pain. The ultimate goal does not matter, the important factor is the impact that achieving the goal will have on the individual. An individuals opinion is formed by a combination of three factors which Vroom categorised as follows 1. Expectancy Does the individual believe that they can achieve the task 2. Valence Does the individual believe that completing the task will benefit them or cause detriment. 3. Instrumentality What is the probability of completing the task leading to an outcome desired by the individual 1. Expectancy (Subjective Probability) Expectancy is the individuals belief about whether they can achieve the task. This view will be influenced by a number of things including - The type of skills needed for the task, - Support expectations of co-workers and line managers, - Type of equipment/materials and - Availability of pertinent information. Another factor influencing expectancy is previous experience. If the task has been successfully completed in the past then expectancy will be high but if the task has failed in the past or was difficult to perform then expectancy will be low.

There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance, Favourable performance will result in a desirable reward, The reward will satisfy an important need, The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile If an individual feels that they can achieve the task then expectancy is measured as 1. On the other hand if they feel that the task can not be completed then expectancy is measured a 0. If the individual feels that the task may be achievable then it will be categorised between 0 and 1. Eg. A task measured as 0.75 is believed to be more achievable than one measured as 0.45. http://www.learnmanagement2.com/vroom.html. Attacking Herzbergs two-factor theory, Vroom offered an expectancy approach to the understanding of motivation. According to him, a persons motivation towards an action at any time would be determined by an individuals perception that a certain type of action would lead to a specific outcome and his personal preference for this outcome. There are three variables of Vrooms model given in the form of an equation. Since the mode is multiplicative, all the three variables must have high positive values to imply motivated performance choices. If any of the variables approaches zero, the probability of motivated performance approaches zero. Motivation = Valence*Expectancy*instrumentality

Valence is the strength of an individuals preference for a reward, expectancy is the probability that particular action will lead to a desired reward and instrumentality denotes an individuals estimate that performance will result in achieving the reward. Thus, if an individual has a particular goal, some behaviour must be produced in order to achieve that goal. He will weigh the likelihood that various behaviors will achieve the desired goals and if certain behaviour is expected to be more successful than others, that particular behaviour will be preferred by the individual. (a) Valence (reward preference): it refers to the strength of an individuals preference for receiving a reward. It is an expression of the value he places on a goal (outcome or reward). The value attached to a goal or reward is subjective as it varies from person to person. For instance, if a young and dynamic employee wants a promotion, has high valence or strength for that employee. Similarly, a retiring employee may have high valence for reemployment. People have different valence for various outcomes. The relative valence they attach to various outcomes is influenced by conditions such as age, education and type of work. The valence of a person for a goal may be positive or negative depending upon his positive or negative preference for this goal. If a person is indifferent to an outcome, his valence is zero. Thus, the total range of valence is from 1 to +1. (b) Expectancy (Effort-Reward Probability): it refers to the extent, to which the person believes that his efforts will lead to the first level outcome, i.e., completion of a task. Expectancy is stated as a probability, i.e., as individuals estimate of the probability of an outcome from an action. Since, it is an association between effort and performance, its value may range from 0 to 1. if the individual feels that chances of achieving an outcome are zero, he will not even try. On the other hand, if expectancy is higher, the individual will put higher efforts to achieve the desired outcome. (c) Instrumentality (performance-Reward Probability): it refers to the probability to which the performance (first level outcome) will lead to the desired reward (second level outcome). For instance, an individual wants a promotion and feels that superior performance is very important in achieving promotion. Superior performance is the first level outcome and promotion is the second level outcome. The first-level outcome of high performance acquires a positive valency by virtue of its expected relationship to the preferred second level outcome of promotion. In other words, superior performance (first-level outcome) will be instrumental in obtaining promotion (second level outcome). The value of instrumentality also ranges from 0 to 1, as it is the probability of achieving the desired outcome. Motivation is the product of valance, expectancy and instrumentality. These three factors in the expectancy model may exist in an infinite number of combinations depending upon the range of valence and the degrees of expectancy and instrumentality. The combination that produces the strongest motivation is high positive valence, high expectancy and high instrumentality. If all the three are low, the resulting motivation will be weak. In other cases, motivation will be moderate. Similarly, the strength of avoidance behaviour will be determined by the negative valence and expectancy and instrumental factors. As said above, the motivational force will be highest when expectancy, instrumentality and valence are all high. The management must recognize factors for behavioural modification, so that these three elements achieve the highest value individually. A worker may exhibit a poor behaviour due to:

(i) Low effort-performance expectancy: the worker may lack the necessary skills and training to believe that his extra efforts will lead to better performance. The management could provide the relationship between efforts and performance. (ii) Low performance-reward instrumentality relationship: similar performance may not lead to similar rewards. The reward policy may be inconsistent and may depend upon factor other than performance, which the worker may not be aware of or may not consider fair. The management must re-evaluate the appraisal techniques and formulate policies that strengthen performance-reward relationship as just and equitable. The important contribution of Vrooms model is that it explains how the goals of individuals influence their efforts and that the behaviour individuals select depends upon their assessment of the probability that the behaviour will successfully lead to the goal. For instance, all people in an organisation may not place the same value on such job factors as promotion, high pay, job security and working conditions. In other words, they may rank them differently. Broom is of the opinion that what is important is the perception and value the individual places, high value on salary increase and perceives superior performance as instrumental in reaching that goal. According to broom, this individual will strive towards superior performance in order to achieve the salary increase. One the other hand, another individual may highly value promotion and perceive political behaviour as instrumental in achieving it. This individual is not likely to emphasize superior performance to achieve the goal. In essence, vroom emphasizes the importance of individual perception and assessment to organisational behaviour. What is important here is that what the individual perceives as the consequence of a particular behaviour is far more important than what the manager believes the individual should perceive. Thus, Vrooms model attempts to explain how individuals goals influence his efforts and like need-based models reveal that individuals behaviour is goaloriented. The merits of Vroom theory are: (i) Basic framework: the Vrooms model provides a basic framework for interpreting work motivation as Keith Davis put it. According to Fred Luthans, the expectancy model is like marginal analysis in economics. Business people do not actually calculate the point where marginal ost equals marginal revenue, but it is still a useful concept for the theory of the firm. The expectancy model attempts to mirror the complex motivational process. From the theoretical standpoint it seems to be a step in the right direction. It is of value in understanding organisational behaviour. (ii) Appreciation of individual differences: it serves as a pathfinder because for the first time in a systematic way it draws attention to individual differences in motivation. As Koontz, O. Donnell and Weihrich pointed out: one of the great attractions of the Vroom model is that it recognizes the importance of various individual needs and motivations. It does seem more realistic. (iii) Clue to harmonization of individual and organisation goals: it clarifies the relationship between individual goals and organisational objectives and thus points to the way how the two can be harmonized. It is thus a step further from management by objectives. Instead of assuming that satisfaction of a specific need is likely to influence organisational objectives in a certain way we can find out how important to the employee are: the various first-level outcomes (organisational objectives) for their attainment, and the expectancies that are held with respect to the employees ability to influence the first-level outcome. For instance, suppose the organisation sets a certain standard for production (first-level outcome of organisational goal) for the purpose

of incentive pay, promotion, etc. (second-level outcome). If the workers do not put forth adequate efforts to achieve the organisational goal, it may be assumed that either (a) they do not place much value on the second-level outcomes (incentive, promotion); (b) they feel that their efforts will not lead to the production standard; and (c) they may not believe that if they achieve the standard, it will be instrumental in getting them higher remuneration or promotion. (iv) Contingency approach: indirectly, Broom draws attention to an all-important fact that there is no one set formula for the motivation of individuals. He looked at effective motivation not in terms of either a fixed set of human needs or as a uniform configuration of external motivations. His is the contingency approach, so to speak. In other words, if any method of motivation is found to be productive, managers should continue it, on the other hand, if it does not produce the desired results, it should be given up for something better. By measuring and analyzing the workers output managers can get clues to their motivation, identify some of the important variables and formulate their reward plans accordingly. (v) Practical utility: according to R.J. House and M.A. Wahba, the Broom model has been used to predict a wide variety of work-related variables in a number of studies. These include job effort and performance, organisational practices, managerial motivation, occupational choice, importance of pay and pay effectiveness, leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness. In the opinion of Leon Reinharth and M.A. Wahba, the expectancy theory has served as the basis for research in such diverse areas such as decision-making, learning theory, verbal conditioning, attitudes and organisational behaviour. All these impart a certain amount of generality and practical utility to the model. (vi) Popular support: it is said that since the model had been proposed, at least one issue of every journal in organisational behaviour reported some result on its application in practice. Alan C. Filley, Robert J. House and Steven Kerr analyzed the numerous studies, more than 32, from 1962 to 1974 and came to the general conclusion that there was empirical support to the expectancy theory. Similarly, some of its propositions were confirmed by studies made by T.R. Mitchell and A. Biglan, who reviewed six cases in the area of industrial psychology; H. G. Heinemann, III and D. P. Schwab who investigated nine field enquiries in managerial settings and further M. Wahba and R. House who apprised fourteen investigations also confirmed the propositions. However, most researchers suggested the need for further study to test some of the principal variables, on which the model is based. The demerits of Vrooms theory: (i) Lack of concreteness: the generality of the model constitutes its principal weakness. As Luthans pointed out, it does not attempt to describe what the content (of motivation) is or what the individual differences are. Ti indicates only the conceptual determinants of motivation and how they are related. Further, it does not provide specific suggestions on what motivates organisation members as the Maslow, Harzberg and Alderfer models do. (ii) Neglect of values: even as a general theory it has been condemned in some quarters as nothing more than a theory of cognitive hedonism which propose that the individual cognitively chooses the course of action that leads to the greatest degree of pleasure or the smallest degree of pain. Hedonistic cognitions are insufficient to determine a persons value system. (iii) Little impact on management: apart from the fact that it is a highly complex model and difficult to understand, its practicability is also open to question. As Lyman Porter, Edward E. Lawler, III and J. Richard Heckman pointed out; the expectancy model is just a model and no more. People rarely actually sit down and list their expected outcomes for a contemplated

behaviour, estimate expectancies and valences, multiply and add up the total, unless of course they are asked to do so by a researcher. That is why its impact on job-settings has been negligible and influence on managerial action, not much. It has been rightly remarked by Hamner and organ the predictive potential of this theory is still largely untested. A fully developed test incorporating force, expectancy and instrumentality measures as well as ability assessment has not yet been offered. (iv) Weak empirical support: the empirical support for the Vroom model is insignificant and lacks consistency. http://www.mbaknol.com/management-concepts/theories-of-motivation-vroom%e2%80%99svalence-expectancy-theory/ Theories of Motivation Overview At a simple level, it seems obvious that people do things, such as go to work, in order to get stuff they want and to avoid stuff they don't want. Why exactly they want what they do and don't want what they don't is still something a mystery. It's a black box and it hasn't been fully penetrated. Overall, the basic perspective on motivation looks something like this: In other words, you have certain needs or wants (these terms will be used interchangeably), and this causes you to do certain things (behavior), which satisfy those needs (satisfaction), and this can then change which needs/wants are primary (either intensifying certain ones, or allowing you to move on to other ones). A variation on this model, particularly appropriate from an experimenter's or manager's point of view, would be to add a box labeled "reward" between "behavior" and "satisfaction". So that subjects (or employees), who have certain needs do certain things (behavior), which then get them rewards set up by the experimenter or manager (such as raises or bonuses), which satisfy the needs, and so on. Classifying Needs People seem to have different wants. This is fortunate, because in markets this creates the very desirable situation where, because you value stuff that I have but you don't, and I value stuff that you have that I don't, we can trade in such a way that we are both happier as a result. But it also means we need to try to get a handle on the whole variety of needs and who has them in order to begin to understand how to design organizations that maximize productivity. Part of what a theory of motivation tries to do is explain and predict who has which wants. This turns out to be exceedingly difficult. Many theories posit a hierarchy of needs, in which the needs at the bottom are the most urgent and need to be satisfied before attention can be paid to the others. Expectancy Theory (Vroom) This theory is meant to bring together many of the elements of previous theories. It combines the perceptual aspects of equity theory with the behavioral aspects of the other theories. Basically, it comes down to this "equation": M = E*I*V or motivation = expectancy * instrumentality * valence M (motivation) is the amount a person will be motivated by the situation they find themselves in. It is a function of the following.

E (expectancy) = The person's perception that effort will result in performance. In other words, the person's assessment of the degree to which effort actually correlates with performance. I (instrumentality) = The person's perception that performance will be rewarded/punished. I.e., the person's assessment of how well the amount of reward correlates with the quality of performance. (Note here that the model is phrased in terms of extrinsic motivation, in that it asks 'what are the chances I'm going to get rewarded if I do good job?'. But for intrinsic situations, we can think of this as asking 'how good will I feel if I can pull this off?'). V(valence) = The perceived strength of the reward or punishment that will result from the performance. If the reward is small, the motivation will be small, even if expectancy and instrumentality are both perfect (high). Victor Vrooms Expectancy Theory of Motivation The Expectancy Theory of Victor Vroom deals with motivation and management. Vrooms theory assumes that behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Together with Edward Lawler and Lyman Porter, Vroom suggested that the relationship between peoples behavior at work and their goals was not as simple as was first imagined by other scientists. Vroom realized that an employees performance is based on individuals factors such as personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities.

The expectancy theory says that individuals have different sets of goals and can be motivated if they believe that: There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance, Favorable performance will result in a desirable reward, The reward will satisfy an important need, The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile. Vrooms Expectancy Theory is based upon the following three beliefs: Valence (Valence refers to the emotional orientations people hold with respect to outcomes [rewards]. The depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic [money, promotion, time-off, benefits] or intrinsic [satisfaction] rewards). Management must discover what employees value. Expectancy (Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence about what they are capable of doing). Management must discover what resources, training, or supervision employees need. Instrumentality (The perception of employees whether they will actually get what they desire even if it has been promised by a manager). Management must ensure that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware of that. Vroom suggests that an employees beliefs about Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence interact psychologically to create a motivational force such that the employee acts in ways that bring pleasure and avoid pain. This force can be calculated via the following formula: Motivation = Valance x Expectancy (Instrumentality) This formula can be used to indicate and predict such things as job satisfaction, ones occupational choice, the likelihood of staying in a job, and the effort one might expend at work. Porter-Lawler Model The process theory called the Porter-Lawler Model suggests that levels of motivation are based more on the value that individuals place on the reward. The components that effect motivation then, are called valence (whats important to you) and expectancy (can I do it). Porter and Lawler suggest that perceived inequality in this model plays a pivotal role in job satisfaction. Our

motivation, or effort leads to performance. Our performance is followed by intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. The perceived equity of those rewards leads to satisfaction. The model of ties in Vrooms Expectancy Theory, roles and traits, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as well as satisfaction. Porter and Lawler suggest that employee effort is jointly determined by two key factors: the value placed on certain outcomes by the individual, and the degree to which the person believes that his effort will lead to the attainment of these rewards. However, the persons ability and role clarity may prevent performance, thus, managers must assign people to tasks where ability fits the requirements. Porter and Lawler use satisfaction in their model. Satisfaction raises several interesting thoughts regarding managers motivation of employees. We define satisfaction as needs being met. Think about it, if needs are met, what is the purpose of behavior? The same holds true for happy. Managers want to believe that happy, satisfied employees are the most productive. There is no reputable research which confirms this. Stacy AdamsS Equity theory John Stacey Adams, workplace and behavioural psychologist, put forward his Equity Theory on job motivation in 1963. We each seek a fair balance between what we put into our job and what we get out of it. Adams calls these inputs and outputs. We form perceptions of what constitutes a fair balance or trade of inputs and outputs by comparing our own situation with other referents (reference points or examples) in the market place. We are also influenced by colleagues, friends, partners in establishing these benchmarks and our own responses to them in relation to our own ratio of inputs to outputs. rewards -pay, salary, expenses, hard work, commitment, skill, ability, adaptability, flexibility, tolerance, determination, heart and soul, enthusiasm, trust in our boss and superiors, support of colleagues and subordinates, personal sacrifice, etc. that there is a fair balance between inputs and outputs. perks, benefits, pension arrangements, bonus and commission -plus intangibles -recognition, reputation, praise and thanks, interest, responsibility, stimulus, travel, training, development, sense of achievement and advancement, promotion, etc. If we feel are that inputs are fairly and adequately rewarded by outputs (the fairness benchmark being subjectively perceived from market norms and other comparables references) then we are happy in our work and motivated to continue inputting at the same level. If we feel that our inputs out-weigh the outputs then we become demotivated in relation to our job and employer. People respond to this feeling in different ways: generally the extent of demotivation is proportional to the perceived disparity between inputs and expected outputs. Some people reduce effort and application and become inwardly disgruntled, or outwardly difficult, recalcitrant or even disruptive. Other people seek to improve the outputs by making claims or demands for more reward, or seeking an alternative job. Attribution Theory: Kelly Human beings are rational and are motivated to identity, understand and change the environment. Perception and not actual world govern motivation. Locus of internal or external control creates motivation. According to attribution theory, the explanations that people tend to make to explain success or failure can be analyzed in terms of three sets of characteristics: First, the cause of the success or failure may be internal or external. That is, we may succeed or fail because of factors that we believe have their origin within us or because of factors that originate in our environment. Second, the cause of the success or failure may be either stable or unstable.

If the we believe cause is stable, then the outcome is likely to be the same if we perform the same behavior on another occasion. If it is unstable, the outcome is likely to be different on another occasion. Third, the cause of the success or failure may be either controllable or uncontrollable. A controllable factor is one which we believe we ourselves can alter if we wish to do so. An uncontrollable factor is one that we do not believe we can easily alter. The basic principle of attribution theory as it applies to motivation is that a persons own perceptions or attributions for success or failure determine the amount of effort the person will expend on that activity in the future. There are four factors related to attribution theory that influence motivation: ability, task difficulty, effort, and luck. In terms of the characteristics discussed previously, these four factors can be analyzed in the following way: Ability is a relatively internal and stable factor over which the learner does not exercise much direct control. Task difficulty is an external and stable factor that is largely beyond the learners control. Effort is an internal and unstable factor over which the learner can exercise a great deal of control. Luck is an external and unstable factor over which the learner exercises very little control. Emerging Theories Control Theory Control theory relates to feeling that employees are in full control of their lives, or are in control of their jobs. Recent studies have shown that those who believe they have such personal control tolerate unpleasant events and experience less stress on the job than those who do not perceive such control. Agency Theory According to the Agency Theory, the interest of the organization and individuals may clash resulting in lesser motivation of the employees. Problems relating to clash between interests of individuals and the organization are known as agency problems. REFERENCES Porter Lawler Model: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rsleeth/Porter1.html Cognitive Aspects of Motivation http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook/Edpsy5/Edpsy5_needs.htm Physiological Aspects of Motivation http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook/Edpsy5/Edpsy5_physiological.htm FURTHER READING Learning from Poor and Minority Students Who Succeed in School by Janine Bempechat http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/workplace/motivation.shtml http://www.luebasedmanagement.net/methods_vroom_expectancy_theory.html Motivation: http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook/Edpsy5/Edpsy5_motivation.htm VN:F [1.9.14_1148]