Motivation Theory: Three significant points to recall

Motivation Theory:Three significant points to recall

By: Leontes Dorzilme

Three significant points to recall in motivation theory is the relation with goal-setting theory, expectancy theory, and the social cognitive theory or self-efficacy. 

First the motivation can be issued of goal-setting theory. Goals are playing an energizing function (Locke and Latham, 2002). That means, the higher the goals, they may lead to greater efforts in order to complete the task. According to Bandura and Cervone (1983), on a single repetitive task, individual tend to perform better by having more difficult task by deploying higher level of efforts. The goal-setting theory suggest that individual may set personal goals in relation to personal needs, as stated by Maslow (1940). The higher the indiviudla need to succeed in a particular area of life or professional, the greater will be the deployed efforts to accomplish personal goals. The goal–performance relationship is strongest when people

are committed to their goals. Seijts and Latham (2000) suggested that the relationship goal and commitment is stronger when people are committed to their goals. That being said, leadership may be interested in knowing more about individual personal desire and goals. That will allow leadership to set goals that make individual feeling working not only to achieve the organizational goals, but also to reach personal goals. In case where individual personal goals are not put into account, it may result incompatibility between personal and personal goals, which can be the source of the intention to quit. At this point, the individual will balance the decision to quit based on the equation (Expectancy=Instrumentality x Valence). 

The second aspect is the expectancy theory defined by Nelson and Quick (2000) as “the belief that effort leads to performance”. The individual may understand if he/she tries harder, he/she can do better. Individual may set higher goals when higher return or reward is expected. This is a clear relation between expectancy and goal-setting. In fact, the concept of rewards has been evolved from the industrial revolution formula “carrot and stick” or “incentive and fear”; to diverse types of rewards such as prestige, expertise and tacit knowledge. 

The third aspect is the relationship between self-efficacy and goal setting. Individual may be motivated by the idea he/she can attain the goal (self-efficacy). The individual may believe that the effort put forth will result in greater performance in order to attain the goal. Contrary to managers who try to be little employees by thinking same will ignite the desire to do better, self-efficacy approach consists of effective training, information sharing, efficient communication flow with subordinate in order to boost individual confidence tin own capability to get or surpass the expected goals. According to White and Locke (2000), self-efficacy information sharing may facilitate strategies and goals alignment. In that perspective, bass (1985) suggested that transformational leadership may increase self-efficacy by the way leadership inspiring messages stimulate subordinates. A great work environment may increase the “Hygiene” factors such as achievement, recognition, and advancement which amplify job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1959). 

Considering how leadership input can elevate individual self efficacy is very important in order for people to perform well. Even an individual with high intrinsic factors to be motivated may feel discouraged by the surrounding negative models. To create sustainable development in a community, leadership may know how to motivate people in order to get them perform to their best both on organizational and community level. The relation between expectancy and culture could be also studied in order to discover if in “transitional collectivism culture” such as Haiti where values are highly impacted by USA individualistic culture, whether or not it is better to tie goals to team or individual.  

References 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. 

Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017–1028. 

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. 1959. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. Retrieved from https://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2002-15790-003&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (2004). What Should We Do Abut Motivation Theory? Six Recommendations For the Twenty-First Century. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 388-403.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. doi:10.1037/h0054346

Nelson, D. L. Quick, J.C. (2000). Organizational behavior: Foundations, realities and challenges. OH: South-Western

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, B. W. (2001, June). Can goal orientation be induced? Further exploration of the state versus trait debate. In C. Sue-Chan (Chair), Justice, efficacy, goal orientation, culture, and creativity: New findings in motivation. Symposium of the Canadian Psychological Association, St. Foy, Quebec, Canada. 

White, S., & Locke, E. (2000). Problems with the Pygmalion effect and some proposed solutions. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 389–415.