Theories of Motivation - Essay Example

THEORIES OF MOTIVATION By Theories of Motivation A range of different theories guides the processes of motivation. In general, these theories are classified into content theories of motivation and process theories (Hoffmann, 2007; Miner, 2012). The content theories of motivation include the humanist theory and theory X and Y, while the process theories comprise of the goal-setting theory and the equity theory. The distinguishing aspects in these theories involve their approaches with regard to the relationship between individuals and tasks. Motivation is a process that involves interplay of various factors within an individual and the environment in ways that determine the nature of outcomes and the level of attachment between the agent and the task. Content theories are concerned with the causative agents of behavior. The humanist theory explores the subject of motivation alongside Maslow’s theory of needs. The processes of motivation, according to the theory depend on the sequential pursuit of needs in accordance with the hierarchy determined by Maslow (1970). Understanding of humanist needs must begin with the comprehension of the processes of adjustment, which takes place whenever some form of inequilibrium occurs. In general, such processes entail a determination of a range of issues that affect the state of equilibrium of needs. Essentially, groups and individuals will seek to adjust themselves and situations around them in ways that minimize the effects of stress. Motivation, in the sense of humanist theory, is understood as some kind of kinetic force the offers the necessary propulsion in an individual or a group towards the attainment of some specified goals, which are consistent with their needs (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2009, p. 61). One of the characteristics of motivation is that it seeks the determination of goals based on the particular needs of the individual. The pursuit of motivation is considered a subject endeavor arising out of the unique needs of the individual (Miner, 2007, p. 40). For instance, an individual aspiring to attain a certain level of professional competence will invest more efforts in training and practical experience in a consistent and orderly manner. On this score, it becomes appropriate to consider the fact that some of the goals achieved through the efforts as understood within the humanist theory are suited for particular motives and limited to certain subjective interests. In essence, the humanist needs work in such a manner that individuals will seek to satisfy some pressing basic needs before focusing on other kinds of needs. The pursuit of the pressing needs is assumed to be the motivating factor for such an individual. Some of the criticisms leveled against this theory is that it fails to take into account situations where some needs at the higher levels of the hierarchy are met before others that are comparatively more pressing. For instance, a football star from a poor background may dedicate more effort in attempting to reach a certain level of skill before seeking ways of addressing some more basic needs such as shelter and security. Furthermore, critics have observed that the theory does not spell out specific stages at which the different needs are met (Beck, 2004). Some of the tenets of this theory are more suited towards the pursuit of certain goals as compared to others. As such, it lacks a sense of universalism in the sense that it cannot apply to different situations in the same manner. Theory X and theory Y also fall within the category of content theories. A comparison between theory X and theory Y should focus in their perspective of the employee. Theory X is founded on the thought that human beings are self-centered, lazy, resistant to change, and lack ambition. As a result they require total control in order to convert them into productive beings. On the other hand, theory Y anchors on the idea that human beings have an inherent vitality that yearns for growth, responsibility, success, and freedom. Given some conducive environment, humans can be productive with the least amount of control. Theory Y thrives on the link among freedom, self-realization and control. On the other hand, Theory X promotes the sense of order, discipline, regulation, and method towards specific goals. Unregulated freedom, according to proponents of theory X would create chaos at the work place. A second category of theories of motivation is the process theories. One characteristic of process theories is that they determine the manner in which motivation occurs. Much of the focus is on the evolutionary stages of motivation. Equity theory and goal-setting theory are the two main examples that make up the process theories of motivation. Equity theory is founded on the assumption that the act of motivation in a worker usually aligns with the balance between wants and expectations. The motivating factor revolves around the desire and effort to reconcile particular needs through the process of work. The essence of equity is considered to have been achieved when the processes and the outcome are commensurate. On the other hand, a state of inequity is assumed to exist whenever the outcome of the processes and the tasks involved are ascertained to have some kind of a mismatch. It follows that some of the basic ideas that relate to the challenges between the two tasks must strike some form of balance within the understanding of motivation. The theory of equity addresses the process of motivation in terms of the movement of actions towards addressing certain imbalances in the system. Behavioral approaches and cognitive approaches determine the level of motivation according to circumstances and the nature of tasks. Behavioral approaches are used mostly in the increasing or decreasing of the input for the purpose of achieving a certain element of equity (DuBrin, 2008). Cognitive approaches, on the other hand, might involve the alteration of the outcomes with the view of reducing the identified inequity. Critics contend that such changes are superficial in nature and that they do not address the actual state of imbalances that might exist within the system (Lussier, & Achua, 2009). As such, they fail to meet the required threshold of motivation. Over the times, the equity theory has found sufficient backing and application in various discourses that connect to the element of motivation. Its justification results from the relevance of organizational changes that aim at empowering groups, individuals, and systems within organizations. However, critics adopt the position that the equity theory has not found sufficient empirical support to justify its relevance, reliability, and applicability. However, the positive features of the theory seem to outweigh the shortcomings as identified by the critics. Goal-setting theory remains one of the most influential process theories due to its universal acceptance and popularity (Werner, & DeSimone, 2008). This theory proposes the determination of clear and specific goals as the necessary guides to motivation. The theory advocates the setting of higher goals, which would demand a focused approach in ways that would spur higher intensity of action and motivation. The theory seeks to develop a consistent link between the processes and the set goals (Gorman, 2004). The theory insists on the value of method and procedure as some of the important guides towards the attainment of the set goals. According to the goal-setting theory, the task of motivation should be guided by goals that are specific, measurable, action-oriented, realistic, relevant, and time-based. The goals set should also be clear, challenging, achievable, and must entail some element of commitment. Critics contend that the theory tends to neglect the subconscious aspect in motivation (Koontz, & Weinhrich, 2006). Conclusion The process of motivation is guided by various theories that fall in the two broad categories of content and process theories. Content theories relate to causes of motivation while process theories relate to the stages of motivation. Theory X and Y and the humanist theory constitute the content theories. In comparison, theory X promotes control and discipline among employees owing to the belief that humans are naturally lazy and disorder, which makes it necessary for strategic controls. Theory Y promotes the essence of self-actualization founded on the belief about the inherent potentials in humans. According to this theory, humans require freedom and less management in order to achieve high levels of productivity. The humanist theory explores the process of motivation within the framework of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The pursuit of needs at various levels determines the nature of motivation. Process theories include equity theory and the goal setting theory. Equity theory works through adjustment of systems, tasks, effort, structures, and definitions with the objective of correcting the existence of imbalances within the system. Goal setting theory approaches the subject of motivation through specific methods and processes that are tailored to meet certain goals. According to the theory, the desired goals are the key determinants of motivation levels. All the theories of motivation have important strengths and weaknesses that either suits them of disengage them from certain situations, organizations, and processes. Works Cited Ahlstrom, D, & Bruton, G, D 2009, International Management: Strategy and Culture in the Emerging World, Cengage Learning, London. Beck, R, C 2004, Motivation: theories and principles, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. DuBrin, A, J 2008, Essentials of Management, Cengage Learning, London. Gorman, P 2004, Motivation and Emotion, Routledge, London. Hoffmann, S 2007, Classical Motivation Theories - Similarities and Differences Between Them, GRIN Verlag, New York. Koontz, H, & Weinhrich, H 2006, Essentials Of Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New York. Lussier, R, N, & Achua, C, F 2009, Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development, Cengage Learning, London. Miner, J, B 2007, Organizational Behavior 4: From Theory to Practice, M.E. Sharpe, New York. Miner, J, B 2012, Role Motivation Theories, Routledge, London. Werner, J, M, & DeSimone, R, L 2008, Human Resource Development, Cengage Learning, London. Read More