Essay on the Miscellaneous Theories of Motivation

H.A. Murray (1938) discussed about Manifest Needs Theory, which is basically a multivariate approach to the structure of needs. The basic difference between Murray’s formulation and formulations of Maslow and Alderfer is that Murray does not suggest a hierarchical order of various types of needs. Based on several years of clinical observations at the Harvard Psychological Clinic, Murray argues that intensities of various personality-related needs, taken together, represent a central motivating force.

R.W. White’s Competence Motive Theory (1959), (quite similar to the Power Motive Theory of Adler) relates motivation to the desire of employees for mastery over physical and social environs (Cornell Study).

S. Schachter’s Affiliation Motivation Theory (1959) relates motivation to the strong need for affiliation.

C. Argyris’ Maturity-Immaturity Theory (1957) relates motivation to an environment which serves both the needs of the organization and the needs of the members of the organization (Yale study).

Image Source: mwfitness.co.uk

W.F. Whyte’s Money Motivation Theory (1955) suggests that people are motivated primarily by the desire to make money. However, Whyte contends that monetary incentives should not be considered in isolation from other non-monetary incentives.

R. Likert and D. Katz’s Michigan studies (1948) have emphasized the vital point that a productivity-motivated work-team is really a function of a particular type of supervisory style. Since, productivity has its root in the motivation of employees; it can be harnessed by carefully designing an organization, in which the individual develops a feeling that he has some importance in the organizations.

Leon C. Megginson, for the sake of our convenience, has classified the leading theories of motivation into three groups that are stated below.

(i) Perspective Theories:

Taylor’s Scientific Management Approach, various human relations theories, McGregor’s Theory Y and Theory X, which, in reality, tell management to motivate people.

(ii) Content Theories:

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory, Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory, McClelland’s Achievement Need Theory, etc., which try to identify the causes of behaviour.

(iii) Process Theories:

Various behaviouristic theories, which believe in stimulus-response relationship vis-a-vis motivation (e.g., Skinner’s Behaviour Modification Theory) and Cognitive Theories (e.g., Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and Porter-Lawler’s Future-Oriented Expectancy Theory) which deal with the genesis of behaviour.

The brief discussions above regarding different motivation theories, studies and experiments, taken together, reflect our basic understanding of the concept of motivation and related aspects in a systematic manner.

Our next phase of discussion has mainly focused on the relevant Indian studies in this field in order to understand the underlying motive forces determining the behaviour and performance of the Indian employees.

In India, not many empirical studies on motivation and its related aspects have been carried out. There are some studies on the industrial workers and some on technical personnel, supervisors and managers. The most of the studies in India have attempted to find out the job-satisfaction variables, which have been construed as the motivational variables.

The first such study in India is by S.K. Bose (1951) on industrial workers and that has paved the way for other researchers to investigate into the perceived importance of job-factors to workers.

Most of the studies relating to the industrial workers, during the period 1951-1971, have rated adequate earnings, job security and personal life as the main factors which determine their behaviour.

H.C. Ganguli’s study (1964) on first-line supervisors (N* = 44), has ranked incentive, adequate income, promotional opportunities, job security and sympathetic treatment from superiors as the important job-factors vis-a-vis motivation.

D.K. Lahiri and S. Srivastava’s study (1967), on the middle-management personnel (N=93), has ranked good organizational policies and administration, better scope for promotion, good salary, good superior-subordinate relationship and opportunity for growth as the major determinants of satisfaction.

M.P. Sawalapurkar and others’ study (1968), on middle-level managers (N=30), has ranked nine job-factors in the following order of importance: job content, opportunity for advancement, job security, superior, company, working conditions, facilities, working hours, and grievance alleviation. N indicates number of people surveyed, i.e., the sample size.

O. Padaki and A.M. Dolke’s study (1970), on job attitudes of supervisors (N=15) (based on Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory), has found the lack of recognition, unfavorable superior-subordinate relationship, lack of technically-competent supervision, unfavorable organizational policies and administration and inadequate salary as the major dissatisfying factors. Another study conducted by them has also found more or less the same as perceived dissatisfaction.

G.V.S. Rao’s study (1970), on bank managers (N=60), with a view to testing the Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory, has found promotion, company policies and salary on the dissatisfaction scale.

L. Narain’s study (1971), on public-sector managers (N=1213), has ranked eight factors in the following order of importance: feeling of worthwhile accomplishments, recognition, decision-making authority, opportunity for personnel growth and development, promotional opportunity, prestige of the organization in the community, pay and fringe benefits and job security. So, as far as the need-deficiencies are concerned, he has found that promotion, recognition and personal growth and development respectively show very high degrees of dissatisfaction in that order.

S.K. Bhattachaiyya’s study (1972), on managers (N=210), has shown lack of participation in goal-setting, inadequate pay, inadequate job-authority and ‘lack of opportunity given to help people’ on the dissatisfaction scale.

D.M. Pestonjee and G. Basu’s study (1972), on executives (N=80), has shown promotion and growth, recognition, prestige, organizational policies and administration and autonomy as the major determinants of satisfaction.

S. Singhal and H.S. Upadhyay’s study (1972) on supervisors (N=22), has also found opportunities for promotion, job security, working conditions, work group, opportunities for training, competent and sympathetic supervisors, adequate income and other facilitates, etc., as major motivational factors.

K.G. Agarwal (1977) has sharply criticized the Indian studies on work motivation, alleging that such researches suffer from a number of inconsistencies mainly because those have been carried out practically as a part of the job done for the employees with a view to helping them reduce production costs.

Thus, the measures, suggested by such researchers, have always proved to be short-term remedies, and much-spoken-about theories on motivation have come more like fads or fashions than something substantial and lasting. Thinking in line with U. Pareek (1974), he has developed a Stratification Model of Work Motivation with variables like, social system, self-status and role. Pareek has assumed the societal system as a very important variable in the field of motivation that causes or determines that behaviour of an individual in an organization.

B.R. Sharma’s study (1981), on administrators in Delhi (N = 67), has found power-motive as the main guiding force for motivation.

Sharma’s study (1982), on supervisors (N = 3378), drawing samples from fifty manufacturing organizations, both in the public sector and the private sector, has obtained score values for different factors that influence motivation. The score values are presented below:

The study has been carried out on a three-point scale—low, medium and high frequencies.

S. Neelamegham and D.K. Vaid’s study (1986), on motivation of the sales force (N=116), has found the highest need-deficiencies with respect to prospects of promotion and recognition for good work.

It is important to note that the major Indian studies are on supervisory and managerial personnel. Another important feature of the Indian studies is that most of the studies have been carried out with a small sample, using only conventional methods like ranking, percentage calculation, etc. Some studies have been carried out simply to authenticate Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory, while some others are highly opinionated studies without much adherence .to the norms of sampling and survey methods.

Even, in most of the cases, suitable structured close-ended questionnaire was not administered. Those are simple inferences after informal discussions with the samples, mostly drawn without following any proper sampling procedure. Another feature is that most of the studies are based on experiences of single industrial units. Representative results are difficult to obtain from a survey based on a small sample drawn from a single unit.