Motivation is a term that refers to a process that elicits, controls, and sustains certain behaviors.

For instance: An individual has not eaten, he or she feels hungry, as a response he or she eats and diminishes feelings of hunger. According to various theories, motivation may be rooted in a basic need to minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure, or it may include specific needs such as eating and resting, or a desired object, goal, state of being, ideal, or it may be attributed to less-apparent reasons such as altruism, selfishness, morality, or avoiding mortality. Conceptually, motivation should not be confused with either volition or optimism.[1] Motivation is related to, but distinct from, emotion.

Motivation concepts
[edit] Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Motivational poster Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that is driven by an interest or enjoyment in the task itself, and exists within the individual rather than relying on any external pressure. Intrinsic Motivation is based on taking pleasure in an activity rather working towards an external reward[6]. Intrinsic motivation has been studied by social and educational psychologists since the early 1970s. Students who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to engage in the task willingly as well as work to improve their skills, which will increase their capabilities[7]. Students are likely to be intrinsically motivated if they:

attribute their educational results to factors under their own control, also known as autonomy, believe they have the skill that will allow them to be effective agents in reaching desired goals (i.e. the results are not determined by luck), are interested in mastering a topic, rather than just rote-learning to achieve good grades.

Extrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activity in order to attain an outcome, which then contradicts intrinsic motivation[8]. Extrinsic motivation comes from outside of the individual. Common extrinsic motivations are rewards like money and grades, coercion and threat of punishment. Competition is in general extrinsic because it encourages the performer to win and beat others, not to enjoy the intrinsic rewards of the activity. A crowd cheering on the individual and trophies are also extrinsic incentives. social psychological research has indicated that extrinsic rewards can lead to over justification and a subsequent reduction in intrinsic motivation. In one study demonstrating this effect, children who expected to be (and were) rewarded with a ribbon and a gold star for drawing pictures spent less time playing with the drawing materials in subsequent observations than children who were assigned to an unexpected reward condition.[citation needed] For those children who received no extrinsic reward, Self-determination theory proposes that extrinsic motivation can be internalised by the individual if the task fits with their values and beliefs and therefore helps to fulfill their basic psychological needs.

[edit] Self-control
The self-control of motivation is increasingly understood as a subset of emotional intelligence; a person may be highly intelligent according to a more conservative definition (as measured by many intelligence tests), yet unmotivated to dedicate this intelligence to certain tasks. Yale School of Management professor Victor Vroom's "expectancy theory" provides an account of when people will decide whether to exert self control to pursue a particular goal. Drives and desires can be described as a deficiency or need that activates behavior that is aimed at a goal or an incentive. These are thought to originate within the individual and may not require external stimuli to encourage the behavior. Basic drives could be sparked by deficiencies such as hunger, which motivates a person to seek food; whereas more subtle drives might be the desire for praise and approval, which motivates a person to behave in a manner pleasing to others. By contrast, the role of extrinsic rewards and stimuli can be seen in the example of training animals by giving them treats when they perform a trick correctly. The treat motivates the animals to perform the trick consistently, even later when the treat is removed from the process.

[edit] Motivational theories

[edit] Incentive theory
A reward, tangible or intangible, is presented after the occurrence of an action (i.e. behavior) with the intent to cause the behavior to occur again. This is done by associating positive meaning to the behavior. Studies show that if the person receives the reward immediately, the effect is greater, and decreases as duration lengthens. Repetitive action-reward combination can cause the action to become habit. Motivation comes from two sources: oneself, and other people. These two sources are called intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, respectively. Reinforcers and reinforcement principles of behavior differ from the hypothetical construct of reward. A reinforcer is any stimulus change following a response that increases the future frequency or magnitude of that response, therefore the cognitive approach is certainly the way forward as in 1973 Maslow descibed it as being the golden pineapple. Positive reinforcement is demonstrated by an increase in the future frequency or magnitude of a response due to in the past being followed contingently by a reinforcing stimulus. Negative reinforcement involves stimulus change consisting of the removal of an aversive stimulus following a response. Positive reinforcement involves a stimulus change consisting of the presentation or magnification of an appetitive stimulus following a response. From this perspective, motivation is mediated by environmental events, and the concept of distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic forces is irrelevant. Applying proper motivational techniques can be much harder than it seems. Steven Kerr notes that when creating a reward system, it can be easy to reward A, while hoping for B, and in the process, reap harmful effects that can jeopardize your goals.

Incentive theory in psychology treats motivation and behavior of the individual as they are influenced by beliefs, such as engaging in activities that are expected to be profitable. Incentive theory is promoted by behavioral psychologists, such as B.F. Skinner and literalized by behaviorists, especially by Skinner in his philosophy of Radical behaviorism, to mean that a person's actions always have social ramifications: and if actions are positively received people are more likely to act in this manner, or if negatively received people are less likely to act in this manner. Incentive theory distinguishes itself from other motivation theories, such as drive theory, in the direction of the motivation. In incentive theory, stimuli "attract", to use the term above, a person towards them. As opposed to the body seeking to reestablish homeostasis pushing it towards the stimulus. In terms of behaviorism, incentive theory involves positive reinforcement: the stimulus has been conditioned to make the person happier. For instance, a person knows that eating food, drinking water, or gaining social capital will make them happier. As opposed to in drive theory, which involves negative reinforcement: a stimulus has been associated with the removal of the punishment-- the lack of homeostasis in the body. For example, a person has come to know that if they eat when hungry, it will eliminate that negative feeling of hunger, or if they drink when thirsty, it will eliminate that negative feeling of thirst.

[edit] Drive-reduction theory

There are a number of drive theories. The Drive Reduction Theory grows out of the concept that we have certain biological drives, such as hunger. As time passes the strength of the drive increases if it is not satisfied (in this case by eating). Upon satisfying a drive the drive's strength is reduced. The theory is based on diverse ideas from the theories of Freud to the ideas of feedback control systems, such as a thermostat. Drive theory has some intuitive or folk validity. For instance when preparing food, the drive model appears to be compatible with sensations of rising hunger as the food is prepared, and, after the food has been consumed, a decrease in subjective hunger. There are several problems, however, that leave the validity of drive reduction open for debate. The first problem is that it does not explain how secondary reinforcers reduce drive. For example, money satisfies no biological or psychological needs, but a pay check appears to reduce drive through second-order conditioning. Secondly, a drive, such as hunger, is viewed as having a "desire" to eat, making the drive a homuncular beinga feature criticized as simply moving the fundamental problem behind this "small man" and his desires. In addition, it is clear that drive reduction theory cannot be a complete theory of behavior, or a hungry human could not prepare a meal without eating the food before he finished cooking it. The ability of drive theory to cope with all kinds of behavior, from not satisfying a drive (by adding on other traits such as restraint), or adding additional drives for "tasty" food, which combine with drives for "food" in order to explain cooking render it hard to test. [edit] Cognitive dissonance theory

Suggested by Leon Festinger, cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual experiences some degree of discomfort resulting from an incompatibility between two cognitions. For example, a consumer may seek to reassure himself regarding a purchase, feeling, in retrospect, that another decision may have been preferable. While not a theory of motivation, per se, the theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, or actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

[edit] Need theories

[edit] Need hierarchy theory The content theory includes the hierarchy of needs from Abraham Maslow and the two- factor theory from Herzberg. Maslow's theory is one of the most widely discussed theories of motivation. The American motivation psychologist Abraham H. Maslow developed the Hierarchy of needs consistent of five hierarchic classes. It shows the complexity of human requirements. According to him, people are motivated by unsatisfied needs. The lower level needs such as Physiological and Safety needs will have to be satisfied before higher level needs are to be addressed. We can relate Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory with employee motivation. For example, if a manager is trying to motivate his employees by satisfying their needs; according to Maslow, he should try to satisfy the lower level needs before he tries to satisfy the upper level needs or the employees will not be motivated. Also he has to remember that not everyone will be satisfied by the same needs. A good manager will try to figure out which levels of needs are active for a certain individual or employee. The basic requirements build the first step in his pyramid. If there is any deficit on this level, the whole behavior of a human will be oriented to satisfy this deficit. Subsequently we do have the second level, which awake a need for security. Basically it is oriented on a future need for security. After securing those two levels, the motives shift in the social sphere, which form the third stage. Psychological requirements consist in the fourth level, while the top of the hierarchy comprise the self- realization So theory can be summarized as follows:

Human beings have wants and desires which influence their behavior. Only unsatisfied needs influence behavior, satisfied needs do not. Since needs are many, they are arranged in order of importance, from the basic to the complex. The person advances to the next level of needs only after the lower level need is at least minimally satisfied. The further the progress up the hierarchy, the more individuality, humanness and psychological health a person will show.

The needs, listed from basic (lowest-earliest) to most complex (highest-latest) are as follows:

Physiology (hunger, thirst, sleep, etc.) Safety/Security/Shelter/Health Belongingness/Love/Friendship Self-esteem/Recognition/Achievement Self actualization

[edit] Herzberg's two-factor theory Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory, a.k.a. intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, concludes that certain factors in the workplace result in job satisfaction, but if absent, they don't lead to dissatisfaction but no satisfaction.The factors that motivate people can change over their lifetime, but "respect for me as a person" is one of the top motivating factors at any stage of life. He distinguished between:

Motivators; (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility) which give positive satisfaction, and Hygiene factors; (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits) that do not motivate if present, but, if absent, result in demotivation.

The name Hygiene factors is used because, like hygiene, the presence will not make you healthier, but absence can cause health deterioration. The theory is sometimes called the "Motivator-Hygiene Theory" and/or "The Dual Structure Theory." Herzberg's theory has found application in such occupational fields as information systems and in studies of user satisfaction (see Computer user satisfaction). [edit] Alderfer's ERG theory Alderfer, expanding on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, created the ERG theory. This theory posits that there are three groups of core needs existence, relatedness, and growth, hence the label: ERG theory. The existence group is concerned with providing our basic material existence requirements. They include the items that Maslow considered to be physiological and safety needs. The second group of needs are those of relatedness- the desire we have for maintaining important interpersonal relationships. These social and status desires require interaction with others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow's social need and the external component of Maslow's esteem classification. Finally, Alderfer isolates growth needs' an intrinsic desire for personal development. These include the intrinsic component from Maslow's esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization. [edit] Self-determination theory Self-determination theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, focuses on the importance of intrinsic motivation in driving human behavior. Like Maslow's hierarchical theory

and others that built on it, SDT posits a natural tendency toward growth and development. Unlike these other theories, however, SDT does not include any sort of "autopilot" for achievement, but instead requires active encouragement from the environment. The primary factors that encourage motivation and development are autonomy, competence feedback, and relatedness.

[edit] Broad theories

The latest approach in developing a broad, integrative theory of motivation is Temporal Motivation Theory. Integrating theories of motivation. Introduced in their 2007 Academy of Management Review article, it synthesizes into a single formulation the primary aspects of all other major motivational theories, including Incentive Theory, Drive Theory, Need Theory, SelfEfficacy and Goal Setting. Notably, it simplifies the field of motivation considerably and allows findings from one theory to be translated into terms of another. Also, Achievement Motivation is an integrative perspective based on the premise that performance motivation results from the way broad components of personality are directed towards performance. As a result, it includes a range of dimensions that are relevant to success at work but which are not conventionally regarded as being part of performance motivation. Especially it integrates formerly separated approaches as Need for Achievement with e.g. social motives like dominance. The Achievement Motivation Inventory is based on this theory and assesses three factors (17 separated scales) relevant to vocational and professional success.

[edit] Cognitive theories

[edit] Goal-setting theory Goal-setting theory is based on the notion that individuals sometimes have a drive to reach a clearly defined end state. Often, this end state is a reward in itself. A goal's efficiency is affected by three features: proximity, difficulty and specificity. An ideal goal should present a situation where the time between the initiation of behavior and the end state is close. This explains why some children are more motivated to learn how to ride a bike than to master algebra. A goal should be moderate, not too hard or too easy to complete. In both cases, most people are not optimally motivated, as many want a challenge (which assumes some kind of insecurity of success). At the same time people want to feel that there is a substantial probability that they will succeed. Specificity concerns the description of the goal in their class. The goal should be objectively defined and intelligible for the individual. A classic example of a poorly specified goal is to get the highest possible grade. Most children have no idea how much effort they need to reach that goal.

[edit] Models of behavior change

Social-cognitive models of behavior change include the constructs of motivation and volition. Motivation is seen as a process that leads to the forming of behavioral intentions. Volition is seen as a process that leads from intention to actual behavior. In other words, motivation and volition refer to goal setting and goal pursuit, respectively. Both processes require self-regulatory efforts.

Several self-regulatory constructs are needed to operate in orchestration to attain goals. An example of such a motivational and volitional construct is perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is supposed to facilitate the forming of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans, and the initiation of action. It can support the translation of intentions into action.

[edit] Unconscious motivation

Some psychologists believe that a significant portion of human behavior is energized and directed by unconscious motives. According to Maslow, "Psychoanalysis has often demonstrated that the relationship between a conscious desire and the ultimate unconscious aim that underlies it need not be at all direct.

[edit] Intrinsic motivation and the 16 basic desires theory

Starting from studies involving more than 6,000 people, Professor Steven Reiss has proposed a theory that found 16 basic desires that guide nearly all human behavior. The 16 basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities as:

Acceptance, the need for approval Curiosity, the need to learn Eating, the need for food Family, the need to raise children Honor, the need to be loyal to the traditional values of one's clan/ethnic group Idealism, the need for social justice Independence, the need for individuality Order, the need for organized, stable, predictable environments Physical activity, the need for exercise Power, the need for influence of will Romance, the need for sex Saving, the need to collect Social contact, the need for friends (peer relationships) Status, the need for social standing/importance Tranquility, the need to be safe Vengeance, the need to strike back/to win

In this model, people differ in these basic desires. These basic desires represent intrinsic desires that directly motivate a person's behavior, and not aimed at indirectly satisfying other desires. People may also be motivated by non-basic desires, but in this case this does not relate to deep motivation, or only as a means to achieve other basic desires.

Theory X
In this theory, which has been proven counter-effective in most modern practice, management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can and that they inherently dislike work. As a result of this, management believes that workers need to be closely supervised

and comprehensive systems of controls developed. A hierarchical structure is needed with narrow span of control at each and every level. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can. According to Michael J. Papa, if the organizational goals are to be met, theory X managers rely heavily on threat and coercion to gain their employees' compliance. Beliefs of this theory lead to mistrust, highly restrictive supervision, and a punitive atmosphere. The Theory X manager tends to believe that everything must end in blaming someone. He or she thinks all prospective employees are only out for themselves. Usually these managers feel the sole purpose of the employee's interest in the job is money. They will blame the person first in most situations, without questioning whether it may be the system, policy, or lack of training that deserves the blame. A Theory X manager believes that his or her employees do not really want to work, that they would rather avoid responsibility and that it is the manager's job to structure the work and energize the employee. One major flaw of this management style is it is much more likely to cause Diseconomies of Scale in large businesses.

[edit] Theory Y
In this theory, management assumes employees may be ambitious and self-motivated and exercise self-control. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties. According to Papa, to them work is as natural as play[1]. They possess the ability for creative problem solving, but their talents are underused in most organizations. Given the proper conditions, theory Y managers believe that employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility and to exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing objectives to which they are committed. A Theory Y manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work. They believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation. Many people interpret Theory Y as a positive set of beliefs about workers. A close reading of The Human Side of Enterprise reveals that McGregor simply argues for managers to be open to a more positive view of workers and the possibilities that this creates. He thinks that Theory Y managers are more likely than Theory X managers to develop the climate of trust with employees that is required for human resource development. It's human resource development that is a crucial aspect of any organization. This would include managers communicating openly with subordinates, minimizing the difference between superior-subordinate relationships, creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can develop and use their abilities. This climate would include the sharing of decision making so that subordinates have say in decisions that influence them.

McGregor and Maslow's hierarchy

Theory X and Theory Y relates to Maslow's hierarchy of needs in how human behavior and motivation is the main priority in the workplace in order to maximize output. In relations to Theory Y the organization is trying to create the most symbiotic relationship between the managers and workers which relates to Maslow's hierarchy of needs of Self Actualization and Esteem. For Self Actualization the manager needs to promote the optimum workplace through morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. It

can relate to Esteem when the manger is trying to promote self esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, and respect by others.

Theory X Assumptions:
People inherently dislike work People must be coerced or controlled to do work to achieve objectives People prefer to be directed

Theory Y Assumptions:
People view work as being as natural as play and rest People will exercise self-direction and -control towards achieving objectives they are committed to People learn to accept and seek responsibility

FAMOUS MODELS Motivation Theories

Over the years many psychologists have attempted to define and categorise what motivates people. This became particularly important after the Second World War as the Western nations attempted to rebuild their drained industrial economies, and during the '50s and '60s much was researched and written about Human Relations. It was

recognised that people who worked in organisations were more than just numbers and, if properly managed, could not only produce more, but also contribute more. This is not the place to cover the work of every motivational theorist: we've simply chosen a couple that have entered the mainstream management vocabulary: Theory X / Theory Y Herzberg's Motivation - Hygiene Theory In addition, Abraham Maslow has his own page here.

THEORY X / THEORY Y
Douglas McGregor published "The Human Side of Enterprise" in 1960, in which he suggested that traditional management methods (which he called Theory X) might not be the only way to get people motivated. Instead, you could take a different approach (based on Theory Y) and achieve the same if not more. Theory X is the traditional view of direction and control, based on these assumptions: 1. The average person inherently dislikes work and will avoid it if at all possible. 2. As a result, most people have to be coerced, controlled and threatened if they are to put in enough effort to achieve the organisation's goals. 3. In fact the average person prefers to be directed, avoids responsibility, isn't ambitious and simply seeks security. Theory Y, based on the integration of individual and organisational goals, assumes: 1. The physical and mental effort of work is as natural as play or rest, so the average person doesn't inherently dislike work. 2. We are capable of self-direction and self-control, so those factors don't necessarily have to come from elsewhere. 3. Our commitment to an objective is a function of the rewards for its achievement. 4. The average person learns not only to accept but to seek responsibility. 5. Most people have a capacity for imagination, ingenuity and creativity. 6. The intellectual potential of most people is under-used in modern industrial life. Theory Y is not a soft option. In fact it can take as much management effort as Theory X, but the effects of a Theory Y approach will last longer. The Theory X manager is a dying breed (although it has to be said he's not yet extinct), and Theory Y lies behind most modern approaches to motivation. Nowadays the terminology is used as a polite way of referring to the old command-and-control approach to management: the trouble is the diehard Theory X manager won't pick up the subtle criticism!

HERZBERG'S MOTIVATION - HYGIENE THEORY

Frederick Herzberg studied and practised clinical psychology in Pittsburgh, where he researched the work-related motivations of thousands of employees. His findings were published in "The Motivation to Work" in 1959. He concluded that there were two types of motivation: Hygiene Factors that can demotivate if they are not present - such as supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, and salary. Hygiene Factors affect the level of dissatisfaction, but are rarely quoted as creators of job satisfaction. Motivation Factors that will motivate if they are present - such as achievement, advancement, recognition and responsibility. Dissatisfaction isn't normally blamed on Motivation Factors, but they are cited as the cause of job satisfaction. So, once you've satisfied the Hygiene factors, providing more of them won't generate much more motivation, but lack of the Motivation Factors won't of themselves demotivate. There are clear relationships to Maslow here, but Herzberg's ideas really shaped modern thinking about reward and recognition in major companies.

Motivation & Objective

Motivations and Drivers
Embedded systems are specialised computers used in larger systems or machines to control equipments such as automobiles, home appliances, communication, control and office machines. The fact that such systems are everywhere and in our everyday life has been well recongnized by different European actors, through the launching of the ARTEMIS (http://www.artemis-office.org) platform for embedded systems that has the objectives, among others, of keeping Europes leading position in the field, accelerate innovation, and promote education in embedded systems. Such pervasivity is particularly evident in immersive realities, i.e., scenarios in which invisible

embedded systems need to continuosly interact with human users, in order to provide continuous sensed information and to react to service requests from the users themselves. Examples of such scenarios are digital libraries and eTourism, automotive, next generation buildings and infrastructures, eHealth, domotics. Having the users at the centre poses many new challenges to the current middleware and service technologies for embedded systems, in terms of

Dynamicity: sensors and services are no more static, as in classical networks, e.g., for environmental monitoring and management or surveillance, but the overall distributed system (consisting of all the sensors and devices and appliances) need to continuously adapt on the basis of the user context, habits, etc., by adding/removing/composing on-the-fly basic elements (services offered by sensors/devices/appliances);

Scalability: in order to really immerse the users in the system, the number of sensors/devices/appliances should be huge, at least an order of magnitude more than the current situations. As an example, the current best-in-class smart houses count for tenths of sensors/devices/appliances, the next generation smart houses for all (see further in the proposal for this concept) will count hundreds of devices;

Dependability: when the users are at then centre, they heavily depend and thrust on the environment/system itself, and therefore it should be highly dependable;

Security and privacy: when the users are at the centre, the security of the overall invisible environment is crucial; moreover, such an environment, if hacked, could potentially provide any sensible information on the users (this is especially critical when the users have some disease, disabilities, etc.), and therefore the design of such a system should pay specific attention to privacy preservation, that should be built-in in the system, and not added-on later, as in current design practices. These considerations require, in the Consortium opinion, novel techniques and middleware technologies targeted to person-centric embedded systems (i.e., usable in immersive scenarios).

adams' equity theory

j stacey adams - equity theory on job motivation

John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioural psychologist, put forward his Equity Theory on job motivation in 1963. There are similarities with Charles Handy's extension and interpretation of previous simpler theories of Maslow, Herzberg and other pioneers of workplace psychology, in that the theory acknowledges that subtle and variable factors affect each individual's assessment and perception of their relationship with their work, and thereby their employer. However, awareness and cognizance of the wider situation - and crucially comparison - feature more strongly in Equity Theory than in many other earlier motivational models. The Adams' Equity Theory model therefore extends beyond the individual self, and incorporates influence and comparison of other people's situations - for example colleagues and friends - in forming a comparative view and awareness of Equity, which commonly manifests as a sense of what is fair. When people feel fairly or advantageously treated they are more likely to be motivated; when they feel unfairly treated they are highly prone to feelings of disaffection and demotivation. The way that people measure this sense of fairness is at the heart of Equity Theory. Equity, and thereby the motivational situation we might seek to assess using the model, is not dependent on the extent to which a person believes reward exceeds effort, nor even necessarily on the belief that reward exceeds effort at all. Rather, Equity, and the sense of fairness which commonly underpins motivation, is dependent on the comparison a person makes between his or here reward/investment ratio with the ratio enjoyed (or suffered) by others considered to be in a similar situation.

adams' equity theory

Adams called personal efforts and rewards and other similar 'give and take' issues at work respectively 'inputs' and 'outputs'. Inputs are logically what we give or put into our work. Outputs are everything we take out in return. These terms help emphasise that what people put into their work includes many factors besides working hours, and that what people receive from their work includes many things aside from money.

Adams used the term 'referent' others to describe the reference points or people with whom we compare our own situation, which is the pivotal part of the theory. Adams Equity Theory goes beyond - and is quite different from merely assessing effort and reward. Equity Theory adds a crucial additional perspective of comparison with 'referent' others (people we consider in a similar situation). Equity theory thus helps explain why pay and conditions alone do not determine motivation. In terms of how the theory applies to work and management, we each seek a fair balance between what we put into our job and what we get out of it. But how do we decide what is a fair balance? The answer lies in Equity Theory. Importantly we arrive at our measure of fairness Equity - by comparing our balance of effort and reward, and other factors of give and take - the ratio of input and output - with the balance or ratio enjoyed by other people, whom we deem to be relevant reference points or examples ('referent' others). Crucially this means that Equity does not depend on our input-to-output ratio alone - it depends on our comparison between our ratio and the ratio of others. We form perceptions of what constitutes a fair ratio (a balance or trade) of inputs and outputs by comparing our own situation with other 'referents' (reference points or examples) in the market place as we see it. In practice this helps to explain why people are so strongly affected by the situations (and views and gossip) of colleagues, friends, partners etc., in establishing their own personal sense of fairness or equity in their work situations. Adams' Equity Theory is therefore a far more complex and sophisticated motivational model than merely assessing effort (inputs) and reward (outputs). The actual sense of equity or fairness (or inequity or unfairness) within Equity Theory is arrived at only after incorporating a comparison between our own input and output ratio with the input and output ratios that we see or believe to be experienced or enjoyed by others in similar situations. This comparative aspect of Equity Theory provides a far more fluid and dynamic appreciation of motivation than typically arises in motivational theories and models based on individual circumstance alone.

For example, Equity Theory explains why people can be happy and motivated by their situation one day, and yet with no change to their terms and working conditions can be made very unhappy and demotivated, if they learn for example that a colleague (or worse an entire group) is enjoying a better reward-to-effort ratio. It also explains why giving one person a promotion or pay-rise can have a demotivating effect on others. Note also, importantly, that what matters is the ratio, not the amount of effort or reward per se. This explains for example why and how full-time employees will compare their situations and input-to-output ratios with part-time colleagues, who very probably earn less, however it is the ratio of input-to-output - reward-to-effort - which counts, and if the part-timer is perceived to enjoy a more advantageous ratio, then so this will have a negative effect on the full-timer's sense of Equity, and with it, their personal motivation. Remember also that words like efforts and rewards, or work and pay, are an oversimplification - hence Adams' use of the terms inputs and outputs, which more aptly cover all aspects of what a person gives, sacrifices, tolerates, invests, etc., into their work situation, and all aspects of what a person receives and benefits from in their work and wider career, as they see it.

Model
Vrooms model uses cognitive variables, variables which are used by persons in their thought process according to their perception or thinking of a situation. Vrooms VIE model is built around the concepts of valence, instrumentality, and expectancy.

Valence according to Vroom is the strength of an individuals preference for a particular outcome. This comes out of the value of the outcome for the individual. Valence is the anticipated value of the outcome. The valence will be positive, when the person prefers attaining the outcome to not attaining it. When the person is indifferent, valence will be zero for an outcome.

Instrumentality is a concept that refers to action that will give rise to an outcome desired by a person. If a person wants to eat a particular dish, he has to cook it. Cooking is the instrumental

act that a person has to do to eat the dish. In an organization context, the person has to do certain tasks adequately to get the salary which he desires.

Expectancy relates the tasks a person has to do to get the output of the instrumental act with successful outcome at the instrumental act level. Is he or she confident that they can cook the dish properly? Is the person confident that he can do the tasks properly and complete the work assigned to him to the satisfaction of the customer or superior and get the reward desired.

According to the model, the strength of motivation to perform a certain act will depend on the algebraic sum of the products of the valences for the outcomes times the expectancies.

How managers can use this model?

They have to find out the rewards the persons under them want. They have to create a link between the business outputs and the personal rewards the employees strongly desires. Then they have to ensure that the employee has the basic capabilities to perform the tasks required to achieve the business outcomes or goals. They have to act as coaches to develop the employee.

Vroom's 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.