It's just an idea.. just read it and make your own..
Expectancy theory makes two assumptions: (1) workers are motivated to receive positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes and (2) workers are rational, careful processors of information. Expectancy theory identifies three factors that determine motivation: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. The most comprehensive and widely accepted explanation of employee motivation to date is Victor room's expectancy theory. Although the theory has its critics, most research evidence supports it. expectancy theory states that an individual tends to act in a certain way based on the expectation that he act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual. it includes three variables or relationships
This explanation of motivation might sound complex, but it really isn't that difficult to visualize. It can be summed up in the questions: How hard do I have to work to achieve a certain level of performance, and can I actually achieve that level? What reward will performing at that level get me? How attractive is the reward to me, and does it help me achieve my goals? Whether you are motivated to put forth effort (that is, to work) at any given time depends on your particular goals and your perception of whether a certain level of performance is necessary to attain those goals. Let's look at the theory's features and go through an example of how it works.
First, what perceived outcomes does the job offer the employee? Outcomes (rewards) may be positive— things such as pay, security, companionship, trust, fringe benefits, a chance to use talents or skills, or congenial relationships. Or the employee may view the outcomes as negative—fatigue, boredom, frustration, anxiety, harsh supervision, or threat of dismissal. Keep in mind that reality isn't relevant here. The critical issue is what the individual perceives the outcomes to be, regardless of whether the perceptions are accurate.
Second, how attractive are the outcomes or rewards to employees? Are they valued positively, negatively, or neutrally? This obviously is a personal and internal issue that depends on the individual's needs, attitudes, and personality. A person who finds a particular reward attractive—that is, values it positively—would rather get it than not get it. Others may find it negative and, therefore, prefer not getting it. Still others may be neutral about the outcome.
Third, what kind of behavior must the employee exhibit in order to achieve these rewards? The rewards aren't likely to have any effect on an individual employee's performance unless he or she knows, clearly and unambiguously, what must be done to achieve them. For example, what is "doing well" in terms of performance appraisal? What criteria will be used to judge the employee's performance?
Finally, how does the employee view his or her chances of doing what is asked? After an employee has considered his or her own skills and ability to control those variables that lead to success, what's the likelihood that he or she can successfully perform at the necessary level?
Frederick Hertzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory proposes that intrinsic factors are related to job satisfaction and motivation, whereas extrinsic factors are associated with job dissatisfaction. Believing determines success or failure, Herzberg investigated the question "What do people want from their jobs?" He asked people for detailed descriptions of situations in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs.
Herzberg concluded from his analysis of the findings that the replies people gave when they felt good about their jobs were significantly different from the replies they gave when they felt badly. Certain characteristics were consistently related to job satisfaction (factors on the left side of the exhibit) and others to job dissatisfaction (factors on the right side). Those factors associated with job satisfaction were intrinsic and included things such as achievement, recognition, and responsibility. When people felt good about their work, they tended to attribute these characteristics to themselves. On the other hand, when they were dissatisfied, they tended to cite extrinsic factors such as company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, and working conditions.
In addition, Herzberg believed that the data suggested that the opposite of satisfaction was not dissatisfaction, as traditionally had been believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job would not necessarily make that job more satisfying (or motivating). As shown in Exhibit 16.4,
Herzberg proposed that his findings indicated the existence of a dual continuum: The opposite of "satisfaction" is "no satisfaction," and the opposite of "dissatisfaction" is "no dissatisfaction.
0 comments:
Post a Comment