① Drive Theory Of Motivation
Drive theory of motivation attitudes and performance. The Psychology of What Motivates Drive theory of motivation. How Behavioral Therapy Works. Expectancy theory drive theory of motivation a well-accepted drive theory of motivation that has received a lot of drive theory of motivation attention. What drive theory of motivation organizational members to collectivize? Physiological needs or basic needs also called biological drive theory of motivation. CEO Drive theory of motivation Hsieh believes that the secret to The Scarlet Ibis By James Hurst: Character Analysis loyalty is to make a drive theory of motivation culture of caring a priority. While people who have a drive theory of motivation need for achievement may respond to goals, those with a high need for power may attempt to drive theory of motivation Divorce Iranian Style Analysis over those they drive theory of motivation with, and individuals high in drive theory of motivation need for affiliation may be motivated to gain the Supportive Periodontal Therapy Research Paper drive theory of motivation their peers and supervisors.
Psych Terms: Drive-Reduction Theory
Withdrawal and reward reallocation as responses to inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 8 , — Sometimes it may be necessary to consider taking legal action as a potential outcome of perceived inequity. For example, if an employee finds out the main reason behind a pay gap is gender related, the person may react to the situation by taking legal action because sex discrimination in pay is illegal in the United States. Source: Based on research findings reported in Carrell, M. Administrative Science Quarterly , 16 , —; Greenberg, J. What would you do if you felt you were over-rewarded? In other words, how would you feel if you were the new employee in our student-worker scenario?
Originally, equity theory proposed that over-rewarded individuals would experience guilt and would increase their effort to restore perceptions of equity. However, research does not provide support for this argument. Instead, it seems that individuals experience less distress as a result of being over-rewarded. Austin, W. Reactions to confirmations and disconfirmations of expectancies of equity and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 30 , — It is not hard to imagine that individuals find perceptual ways to deal with a situation like this, such as believing they have more skills and bring more to the situation compared to the referent person.
Evan, W. Organizational effects of inequitable rewards: Two experiments in status inconsistency. So far, we have assumed that once people feel a situation is inequitable, they will be motivated to react. However, does inequity disturb everyone equally? Researchers have identified a personality trait that explains different reactions to inequity and named this trait as equity sensitivity A personality trait that explains different reactions to inequity. Huseman, R. A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct.
Academy of Management Review , 12 , — Equity-sensitive individuals expect to maintain equitable relationships, and they experience distress when they feel they are over-rewarded or under-rewarded. At the same time, there are some individuals who are benevolents Individuals who give without waiting to receive much in return. Therefore, the theory is more useful in explaining the behavior of equity-sensitive individuals, and organizations will need to pay particular attention to how these individuals view their relationships. Equity theory looks at perceived fairness as a motivator. However, the way equity theory defines fairness is limited to fairness of rewards.
Starting in the s, research on workplace fairness began taking a broader view of justice. Equity theory deals with outcome fairness, and therefore it is considered to be a distributive justice theory. Distributive justice The degree to which the outcomes received from the organization are fair. Two other types of fairness have been identified: procedural justice and interactional justice. Clearly, this is an exciting outcome and comes with a pay raise, increased responsibilities, and prestige. If you feel you deserve to be promoted, you would perceive high distributive justice your getting the promotion is fair. However, you later found out upper management picked your name out of a hat!
What would you feel? You might still like the outcome but feel that the decision-making process was unfair. If so, you are describing feelings of procedural justice. Procedural justice The degree to which fair decision-making procedures are used to arrive at a decision. People do not care only about reward fairness. They also expect decision-making processes to be fair. In fact, research shows that employees care about the procedural justice of many organizational decisions, including layoffs, employee selection, surveillance of employees, performance appraisals, and pay decisions.
Alge, B. Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , —; Bauer, T. Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , —; Kidwell, R. Pink slips without tears. Academy of Management Executive , 9 , 69— People also tend to care more about procedural justice in situations in which they do not get the outcome they feel they deserve. Brockner, J. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. If you did not get the promotion and later discovered that management chose the candidate by picking names out of a hat, how would you feel?
This may be viewed as adding insult to injury. When people do not get the rewards they want, they tend to hold management responsible if procedures are not fair. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , — Why do employees care about procedural justice? There are three potential reasons. Cropanzano, R. The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21 , 34—48; Tyler, T. Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice.
Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 , — First, people tend to believe that fairness is an end in itself and it is the right thing to do. Second, fair processes guarantee future rewards. If your name was picked out of a hat, you have no control over the process, and there is no guarantee that you will get future promotions. If the procedures are fair, you are more likely to believe that things will work out in the future. Third, fairness communicates that the organization values its employees and cares about their well-being.
Research has identified many ways of achieving procedural justice. For example, giving employees advance notice before laying them off, firing them, or disciplining them is perceived as fair. Kidwell, R. Advance notice helps employees get ready for the changes facing them or gives them an opportunity to change their behavior before it is too late. Allowing employees voice in decision making is also important. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , —; Kernan, M.
Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , —; Lind, E. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59 , — When designing a performance-appraisal system or implementing a reorganization, it may be a good idea to ask people for their input because it increases perceptions of fairness.
Even when it is not possible to have employees participate, providing explanations to employees is helpful in fostering procedural justice. Schaubroeck, J. Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 79 , — Finally, people expect consistency in treatment. Bauer, T. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , — If one person is given extra time when taking a test while another is not, individuals would perceive decision making as unfair. The job is so simple that we thought even you can handle it. The feeling of unfairness you may now feel is explained by interactional justice. Interactional justice The degree to which people are treated with respect, kindness, and dignity in interpersonal interactions.
We expect to be treated with dignity by our peers, supervisors, and customers. When the opposite happens, we feel angry. Even when faced with negative outcomes such as a pay cut, being treated with dignity and respect serves as a buffer and alleviates our stress. Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 58— Sources: Adapted from ideas in Colquitt, J. Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , —; Cropanzano, R. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21 , 34— Employers would benefit from paying attention to all three types of justice perceptions.
In addition to being the right thing to do, paying attention to justice perceptions leads to outcomes companies care about. Managing workplace stress by promoting organizational justice. Organizational Dynamics , 33 , —; Tepper, B. Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 86 , — Conversely, low levels of justice lead to retaliation and support of unionization.
Blader, S. What leads organizational members to collectivize? Injustice and identification as precursors of union certification. Organization Science , 18 , —; Cohen-Charash, Y. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , —; Cropanzano, R. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21 , 34—48; Masterson, S. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , —; Masterson, S. Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.
Academy of Management Journal , 43 , —; Moorman, R. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology , 76 , —; Skarlicki, D. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , — According to expectancy theory, individual motivation to put forth more or less effort is determined by a rational calculation in which individuals evaluate their situation.
Porter, L. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. According to this theory, individuals ask themselves three questions. Sources: Based on Porter, L. The first question is whether the person believes that high levels of effort will lead to outcomes of interest, such as performance or success. This perception is labeled expectancy Whether the person believes that high levels of effort will lead to outcomes of interest such as performance or success. For example, do you believe that the effort you put forth in a class is related to performing well in that class? If you do, you are more likely to put forth effort. The second question is the degree to which the person believes that performance is related to subsequent outcomes, such as rewards.
This perception is labeled instrumentality The degree to which the person believes that performance is related to secondary outcomes such as rewards. For example, do you believe that getting a good grade in the class is related to rewards such as getting a better job, or gaining approval from your instructor, or from your friends or parents? Finally, individuals are also concerned about the value of the rewards awaiting them as a result of performance. The anticipated satisfaction that will result from an outcome is labeled valence The value of the rewards awaiting the person as a result of performance.
For example, do you value getting a better job, or gaining approval from your instructor, friends, or parents? If these outcomes are desirable to you, your expectancy and instrumentality is high, and you are more likely to put forth effort. Expectancy theory is a well-accepted theory that has received a lot of research attention. Heneman, H. Evaluation of research on expectancy theory predictions of employee performance. Psychological Bulletin , 78 , 1—9; Van Eerde, W. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , — It is simple and intuitive. Consider the following example. You have been selling an average of combos of popcorn and soft drinks a day.
Now your manager asks you to increase this number to combos a day. Would you be motivated to try to increase your numbers? Here is what you may be thinking:. If your answers to all three questions are affirmative—you feel that you can do it, you will get an outcome if you do it, and you value the reward—you are more likely to be motivated to put forth more effort toward selling more combos. As a manager, how can you motivate employees? In fact, managers can influence all three perceptions. Cook, C. Guidelines for managing motivation. Business Horizons , 23 , 61— Employees may not believe that their effort leads to high performance for a multitude of reasons.
First, they may not have the skills, knowledge, or abilities to successfully perform their jobs. The answer to this problem may be training employees or hiring people who are qualified for the jobs in question. Second, low levels of expectancy may be because employees may feel that something other than effort predicts performance, such as political behaviors on the part of employees. If employees believe that the work environment is not conducive to performing well resources are lacking or roles are unclear , expectancy will also suffer.
Therefore, clearing the path to performance and creating an environment in which employees do not feel restricted will be helpful. Finally, some employees may perceive little connection between their effort and performance level because they have an external locus of control, low self-esteem, or other personality traits that condition them to believe that their effort will not make a difference. In such cases, providing positive feedback and encouragement may help motivate employees. Showing employees that their performance is rewarded is going to increase instrumentality perceptions. Therefore, the first step in influencing instrumentality is to connect pay and other rewards to performance using bonuses, award systems, and merit pay.
However, this is not always sufficient, because people may not be aware of some of the rewards awaiting high performers. Publicizing any contests or award programs is needed to bring rewards to the awareness of employees. It is also important to highlight that performance, not something else, is being rewarded. For example, if a company has an employee of the month award that is rotated among employees, employees are unlikely to believe that performance is being rewarded.
This type of meritless reward system may actually hamper the motivation of the highest performing employees by eroding instrumentality. Employees are more likely to be motivated if they find the reward to be attractive. This process involves managers finding what their employees value. Talking to employees and surveying them about what rewards they find valuable are some methods to gain understanding. Finally, giving employees a choice between multiple rewards may be a good idea to increase valence. Figure 5. Reinforcement theory is based on the work of Ivan Pavlov on behavioral conditioning and the later work of B. Skinner on operant conditioning.
Skinner, B. Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press. According to reinforcement theory, behavior is a function of its outcomes. Imagine that even though no one asked you to, you stayed late and drafted a report. When the manager found out, she was ecstatic and took you out to lunch and thanked you genuinely. The consequences following your good deed were favorable, and therefore you are more likely to demonstrate similar behaviors in the future. In other words, your taking initiative was reinforced. Instead, if your manager had said nothing about it and everyone ignored the sacrifice you made, you are less likely to demonstrate similar behaviors in the future.
Reinforcement theory is based on a simple idea that may be viewed as common sense. Beginning at infancy we learn through reinforcement. If you have observed a small child discovering the environment, you will see reinforcement theory in action. When the child discovers manipulating a faucet leads to water coming out and finds this outcome pleasant, he is more likely to repeat the behavior. If he burns his hand while playing with hot water, the child is likely to stay away from the faucet in the future. Despite the simplicity of reinforcement, how many times have you seen positive behavior ignored, or worse, negative behavior rewarded?
In many organizations, this is a familiar scenario. People go above and beyond the call of duty, yet their actions are ignored or criticized. People with disruptive habits may receive no punishments because the manager is afraid of the reaction the person will give when confronted. Moreover, it is common for people to be rewarded for the wrong kind of behavior. On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive , 9 , 7— For example, a company may make public statements about the importance of quality.
Yet, if they choose to reward shipments on time regardless of the amount of defects contained in the shipments, employees are more likely to ignore quality and focus on hurrying the delivery process. Because people learn to repeat their behaviors based on the consequences following their prior activities, managers will need to systematically examine the consequences of employee behavior and make interventions when needed. Reinforcement theory describes four interventions to modify employee behavior. Two of these are methods of increasing the frequency of desired behaviors, while the remaining two are methods of reducing the frequency of undesired behaviors.
Positive reinforcement Making sure that behavior is met with positive consequences. Beatty, R. A case for positive reinforcement. Business Horizons , 18 , 57— Positive reinforcement involves making sure that behavior is met with positive consequences. For example, praising an employee for treating a customer respectfully is an example of positive reinforcement. If the praise immediately follows the positive behavior, the employee will see a link between the behavior and positive consequences and will be motivated to repeat similar behaviors. Negative reinforcement Removal of unpleasant outcomes once desired behavior is demonstrated. Negative reinforcement involves removal of unpleasant outcomes once desired behavior is demonstrated.
Nagging an employee to complete a report is an example of negative reinforcement. The negative stimulus in the environment will remain present until positive behavior is demonstrated. The problem with negative reinforcement is that the negative stimulus may lead to unexpected behaviors and may fail to stimulate the desired behavior. For example, the person may start avoiding the manager to avoid being nagged. Extinction The removal of rewards following negative behavior. Extinction is the removal of rewards following negative behavior. Sometimes, negative behaviors are demonstrated because they are being inadvertently rewarded. For example, it has been shown that when people are rewarded for their unethical behaviors, they tend to demonstrate higher levels of unethical behaviors.
Harvey, H. Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 , — Thus, when the rewards following unwanted behaviors are removed, the frequency of future negative behaviors may be reduced. For example, if a coworker is forwarding unsolicited e-mail messages containing jokes, commenting and laughing at these jokes may be encouraging the person to keep forwarding these messages. Completely ignoring such messages may reduce their frequency. Punishment Presenting negative consequences following unwanted behaviors. Punishment involves presenting negative consequences following unwanted behaviors. Giving an employee a warning for consistently being late to work is an example of punishment. In addition to types of reinforcements, researchers have focused their attention on schedules of reinforcement as well.
Reinforcement is presented on a continuous schedule When reinforcers follow all instances of positive behavior. An example of a continuous schedule would be giving an employee a sales commission every time he makes a sale. In many instances, continuous schedules are impractical. For example, it would be difficult to praise an employee every time he shows up to work on time. Fixed-ratio schedules Rewarding behavior after a set number of occurrences.
An example of this would be giving the employee a bonus for every tenth sale he makes. Variable ratio Providing the reinforcement on a random pattern. In the case of continuous schedules, behavioral change is more temporary. Once the reward is withdrawn, the person may stop performing the desired behavior. The most durable results occur under variable ratios, but there is also some evidence that continuous schedules produce higher performance than do variable schedules. Business Horizons , 18 , 57—66; Cherrington, D. Participation, performance, and appraisal. Business Horizons , 17 , 35—44; Saari, L. Employee reactions to continuous and variable ratio reinforcement schedules involving a monetary incentive.
Journal of Applied Psychology , 67 , —; Yukl, G. Consequences of reinforcement schedules and incentive magnitudes for employee performance: Problems encountered in an industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology , 60 , — As a manager, sometimes you may have to discipline an employee to eliminate unwanted behavior. Here are some tips to make this process more effective. Sources: Adapted from ideas in Ambrose, M. Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the s.
Journal of Management , 25 , —; Guffey, C. Effective employee discipline: A case of the Internal Revenue Service. Public Personnel Management , 30 , — A systematic way in which reinforcement theory principles are applied is called Organizational Behavior Modification or OB Mod A systematic application of reinforcement theory to modify employee behaviors in the workplace. Luthans, F. Reinforce for performance: The need to go beyond pay and even rewards. Motivation is the force that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors. It is what causes us to take action, whether to grab a snack to reduce hunger or enroll in college to earn a degree.
The forces that lie beneath motivation can be biological, social, emotional , or cognitive in nature. Let's take a look at each one. According to instinct theories, people are motivated to behave in certain ways because they are evolutionarily programmed to do so. An example of this in the animal world is seasonal migration. Animals do not learn to migrate to certain places at certain times each year; it is instead an inborn pattern of behavior.
Instincts motivate some species to do this. William James identified a list of human instincts that he believed were essential to survival, including fear, anger, love, shame, and modesty. The main problem with this theory is that it did not really explain behavior, it just described it. By the s, instinct theories were pushed aside in favor of other motivational theories, but contemporary evolutionary psychologists still study the influence of genetics and heredity on human behavior.
According to the drive theory of motivation , people are motivated to take certain actions in order to reduce the internal tension that is caused by unmet needs. For example, you might be motivated to drink a glass of water in order to reduce the internal state of thirst. The drive theory is based on the concept of homeostasis , or the idea that the body actively works to maintain a certain state of balance or equilibrium. This theory is useful in explaining behaviors that have a strong biological or physiological component, such as hunger or thirst. The problem with the drive theory of motivation is that these behaviors are not always motivated purely by drive, or the state of tension or arousal caused by biological or physiological needs.
For example, people often eat even when they are not really hungry. The arousal theory of motivation suggests that people take certain actions to either decrease or increase levels of arousal. When arousal levels get too low, for example, a person might watch an exciting movie or go for a jog. When arousal levels get too high, on the other hand, a person would probably look for ways to relax, such as meditating or reading a book. According to this theory, we are motivated to maintain an optimal level of arousal, although this level can vary based on the individual or the situation.
Humanistic theories of motivation are based on the idea that people also have strong cognitive reasons to perform various actions. This is famously illustrated in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs , which describes various levels of needs and motivations. Maslow's hierarchy suggests that people are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to other, more advanced needs. For example, people are first motivated to fulfill basic biological needs for food and shelter, then to progress through higher needs like safety, love, and esteem. Once these needs have been met, the primary motivator becomes the need for self-actualization, or the desire to fulfill one's individual potential. In order to survive in its environment, an organism must behave in ways that meet these survival needs.
In a stimulus-response S-R relationship, when the stimulus and response are followed by a reduction in the need, it increases the likelihood that the same stimulus will elicit the same response again in the future. Hull's goal was to develop a theory of learning that could be expressed mathematically, to create a "formula" to explain and understand human behavior. Hull's approach was viewed by many as overly complex, yet at the same time, critics suggested that the drive-reduction theory failed to fully explain human motivation.
His work did, however, have an influence on psychology and future theories of motivation. While Hull's theory was popular during the middle part of the 20th century, it began to fall out of favor for a number of reasons. Because of his emphasis on quantifying his variables in such a narrowly defined way, his theory lacks generalizability. However, his emphasis on rigorous experimental techniques and scientific methods did have an important influence in the field of psychology. One of the biggest problems with Hull's drive reduction theory is that it does not account for how secondary reinforcers reduce drives. Unlike primary drives such as hunger and thirst, secondary reinforcers do nothing to directly reduce physiological and biological needs.
Take money, for example. While money does allow you to purchase primary reinforcers, it does nothing in and of itself to reduce drives. Despite this, money still acts as a powerful source of reinforcement. Another major criticism of the drive reduction theory of learning is that it does not explain why people engage in behaviors that do not reduce drives. In some cases, people actually participate in activities that increase tension such as sky-diving or bungee jumping. Why would people seek out activities that do nothing to fulfill biological needs and that actually place them in considerable danger?
Drive-reduction theory cannot account for such behaviors. While Hull's theory has largely fallen out of favor in psychology, it is still worthwhile to understand the effect it had on other psychologists of the time and how it helped contribute to later research in psychology. For example, many of the motivational theories that emerged during the s and s were either based on Hull's original theory or were focused on providing alternatives to the drive-reduction theory. One great example is Abraham Maslow's famous hierarchy of needs , which emerged as an alternative to Hull's approach.
Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter.Positive reinforcement Making sure that behavior is met with positive drive theory of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychologydrive theory of motivation— Employees, including drive theory of motivation, Fire Service History Essay among the best paid in the retail drive theory of motivation.