Introduction: Motivation is one of the most important factors affecting human behaviour and performance.

This is the reason why managers attach great importance to motivation in organizational setting. Rensis Likert, has called motivation as the core of management. Effective directing of people leads the organization to effectiveness, both at organizational and individual levels.

Motivation and Its Definition: The willingness to exert high level of effort to reach organizational goals, conditioned by the efforts ability to satisfy some individual need. Robert Dubin defines Motivation as the complex forces starting and keeping a person at work in an organization. Motivation is something that moves the person to action. and continues him in the course of action of action already initiated

Nature of Motivation: On the basis of the above description, the following characteristics of motivation can be identified 1.Motivation is a psychological concept. It is based on human needs which generate within an individual. Needs are feelings which influence the behaviour and activities of the individual. 2.Motivation is total, not piece-meal. A person cannot be motivated in parts. An employee is an indivisible unite and he needs are interrelated. He cannot be motivated by fulfilling some of his needs partly. 3.Motivation is a continuous process. It is not a time bound programme or a touch-and-go affair. Human needs are infinite. A soon as one need is satisfied new ones arise. 4.Motivation causes goal-directed behaviour. A person behaves in such a way that he can satisfy his goals or needs. 5.Motivation may be financial or non-financial. The form of motivation depends upon the type of needs. Financial incentives include pay, allowance, bonus and prerequisites. Non-financial incentives consist of recognition, praise, responsibility, participation in decision-making, challenging job ,etc., 6.Motivation is a complex process. There is no universal theory or approach to motivation. Moreover, individuals differ in what motivates them. Therefore, a manager has to analyze and understand variety of needs and has to use variety of rewards to satisfy them. He should not expect overnight results.

Theories of Motivation: A. Maslows Need Hierarchy Theory

B. Herzbergs Motivation-Hygiene Theory C. McGregors Theory X and Theory Y D. Theory Z E. Alderfers ERG Theory F. Vrooms Expectancy Theory G. Porter-Lawler Model of Motivation PORTER LAWLER THEORY OF MOTIVATION Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler developed a more complete version of motivation depending upon expectancy theory.

Actual performance in a job is primarily determined by the effort spent. But it is also affected by the persons ability to do the job and also by individuals perception of what the required task is. So performance is the responsible factor that leads to intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards. These rewards, along with the equity of individual leads to satisfaction. Hence, satisfaction of the individual depends upon the fairness of the reward. . Effort: Effort refers to the amount of energy exerted by an employee on a given task. Perceived reward probability refers to the individuals perception of the probability that differential rewards depend

upon differential amounts of effort. These two factors value of reward and perception of effort reward probability determine the amount of effort that the employee will put in. 2. Performance: Effort leads to performance but both these may not be equal; rather, performance is determined by the amount f effort and the ability and role perception of the individual. Thus, if an individual has little ability and/or inaccurate role perception, his performance may be ineffective in spite of his putting in great efforts. 3. Rewards: Performance is seen as leading to intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards. However, the intrinsic rewards are much more likely to produce attitudes about satisfaction that are related to performance. 4. Satisfaction: Satisfaction is derived from the extent to which actual rewards fall short, meet or exceed the individuals perceived level of equitable rewards. If actual rewards meet or exceed perceived equitable rewards, the individual will feel satisfied; if these are less than equitable rewards, he will be dissatisfied.

The process theory called the Porter-Lawler Model suggests that levels of motivation are based more on the value that individuals place on the reward. The components that effect motivation then, are called valence (what's important to you) and expectancy (can I do it). Porter and Lawler suggest that perceived inequality in this model plays a pivotal role in job satisfaction. Our motivation or effort leads to performance. Our performance is followed by intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. The perceived equity of those rewards leads to satisfaction. Discrimination in this model becomes relevant after performance. Our perceptions of equal or unequal rewards may cause us to be unsatisfied with the job, and less motivated to perform in the future (Luthans, 178). This is because the model is cyclical. If we are unsatisfied, we feel less motivated and less instrumental. As a result, effort and performance decrease. It becomes particularly critical then, for an organization to evaluate its rewards system. An employee's perception of inequality could be disastrous to a company! The Equity Theory and Porter-Lawler Model are only two motivational theories that demonstrate the importance of avoiding discriminatory practices in the workplace. It is imperative that employees receive equal treatment on the job. Though discrimination today is subtle, it continues to be problematic. If we continue to act preferentially, employee motivation will be adversely affected, and eventually performance will cease. By participating in such practices, we are steadily building the foundation for disaster.

Theory Developer In 1964, Victor H. Vroom developed the Expectancy theory through his study of the motivations behind decision making. He wanted to better understand why people chose to behave in a certain way. Vrooms theory is relevant to the study of management and has become even more important as managers try to gain a better understanding of what motivates their employees to behave in certain ways. Vroom has written nine books, however his book Work and Motivation (1964) is regarded as a breakthrough in the study of leadership and decision making within organizations. Currently, Vroom is a John G. Searle Professor of Organization and Management at the Yale University School of Management. Key Elements The Expectancy Theory of Motivation explains the behavioral process of why individuals choose one behavioral option over another. It also explains how they make decisions to achieve the end they value. Vroom introduces three variables within the expectancy theory which are valence (V), expectancy (E) and instrumentality (I). The three elements are important behind choosing one element over another because they are clearly defined: effort-performance expectancy (E>P expectancy), performanceoutcome expectancy (P>O expectancy).[4] Three components of Expectancy theory: Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence 1. 2. Expectancy: Instrumentality: Effort Performance Performance Outcome (EP) (PO)

3. Valence- V(R) Expectancy- Probability (EP) Expectancy is the belief that one's effort (E) will result is attainment of desired performance (P) goals. Usually based on an individual's past experience, self confidence (self efficacy), and the perceived

difficulty of the performance standard or goal. Factors associated with the individual's Expectancy perception are self efficacy, goal difficulty, and control. Self efficacy is the persons belief about their ability to successfully perform a particular behavior. Goal difficulty happens when goals are set too high or performance expectations that are made too difficult are most likely to lead to low expectancy perceptions. Control is one's perceived control over performance. In order for expectancy to be high, individuals must believe that they have some degree of control over the expected outcome. Instrumentality- Probability (PR) Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a reward if the performance expectation is met. This reward may come in the form of a pay increase, promotion, recognition or sense of accomplishment. Instrumentality is low when the reward is given for all performances given. Factors associated with the individual's valence for outcomes are trust, control and policies. If individuals trust their superiors, they are more likely to believe their leaders promises. When there is a lack of trust on leadership, people often attempt to control the reward system. When individuals believe they have some kind of control over how, when, and why rewards are distributed, Instrumentality tends to increase. Formalized written policies impact the individuals' instrumentality perceptions. Instrumentality is increased when formalized policies associates rewards to performance. Valence- V(R) Valence is the value the individual places on the rewards based on their needs, goals, values and Sources of Motivation. Factors associated with the individual's valence for outcomes are values, needs, goals, preferences and Sources of Motivation Strength of an individuals preference for a particular outcome. The valence refers the value the individual personally places on the rewards. -1 0 +1 -1= avoiding the outcome 0= indifferent to the outcome +1=welcomes the outcome In order for the valence to be positive, the person must prefer attaining the outcome to not attaining it. Expectancy Theory of motivation can help us people understand how individuals make decisions regarding various behavioral alternatives. The model below shows the direction of motivation, when behavior is energized. When deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the greatest motivational force (MF). Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence When deciding among behavioral options, individuals select the option with the greatest motivational force (MF). Expectancy and instrumentality are attitudes (cognitions) that represent an individual's

perception of the likelihood that effort will lead to performance that will lead to the desired outcomes. These perceptions represent the individuals subjective reality, and may or may not bear close resemblance to actual probabilities. These perceptions are tempered by the individual's experiences (learning theory), observations of others (social learning theory), and self-perceptions. Valence is rooted in an individuals value system.

One example of how this theory can be applied is related to evaluating an employees job performance. Ones performance is a function of the multiplicative relationship between ones motivation and ability [P=f (M*A)] [1] Motivation can be expressed as [M=f (V*E)],[6] or as a function of valence times expectancy. In laymans terms, this is how much someone is invested in something along with how probable or achievable the individual believes the goal is. Critics of Expectancy Theory Some of the critics of the expectancy model were Graen (1969) Lawler (1971), Lawler and Porter (1967), and Porter and Lawler (1968).[9] Their criticisms of the theory were based upon the expectancy model being too simplistic in nature; these critics started making adjustments to Vrooms model. Edward Lawler claims that the simplicity of expectancy theory is deceptive because it assumes that if an employer makes a reward, such as a financial bonus or promotion, enticing enough, employees will increase their productivity to obtain the reward.[10] However, this only works if the employees believe the reward is beneficial to their immediate needs. For example, a $2 increase in salary may not be desirable to an employee if the increase pushes her into a tax bracket in which her net pay is actually reduced. Similarly, a promotion that provides higher status but requires longer hours may be a deterrent to an employee who values evening and weekend time with his children. Lawlers new proposal for expectancy theory is not against Vrooms theory. Lawler argues that since there have been a variety of developments of expectancy theory since its creation in 1964; the expectancy model needs to be updated. Lawlers new model is based on four claims.[11] First, whenever there are a number of outcomes, individuals will usually have a preference among those outcomes. Two, there is a belief on the part of that individual that their action(s) will achieve the outcome they desire. Three, any desired outcome was generated by the individuals behavior. Finally, the actions generated by the individual were generated by the preferred outcome and expectation of the individual. Instead of just looking at expectancy and instrumentality, W.F. Maloney and J.M. McFillen [11] found that expectancy theory used concentrated could explain the motivation of those individuals who were employed by the construction industry. For instance, they used worker expectancy and worker instrumentality. Worker expectancy is when supervisors create an equal match between the worker and

their job. Worker instrumentality is when an employee knows that any increase in their performance leads to achieving their goal. In a chapter entitled "On the Origins of Expectancy Theory" published in Great Minds in Management by Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt, Vroom himself agreed with some of these criticisms and stated that he felt that the theory should be expanded to include research conducted since the original publication of his book.

REFERENCE www.google.com www.laynetworks.com Management Tutorials www.scribd.com/doc/20111492/Motivation-Theory www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/.../motivation.shtml www.icmrindia.org/courseware/.../OB-DS8.htm www.oppapers.com/.../porter-lawler-theory-of-motivation-page1.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy_theory