President Buhari Congratulates New Ooni Of Ife

This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness. This attitude is what Mc Gregor termed theory X. this is substantially the theory of scientific management, with its emphasis on control and extrinsic reward. The second set of assumption sees people more favorable light in this case, employees are seen as liking work, which to them is as natural as rest or play, they do not have to be controlled and coerced, so long as they committed to the organization’s objectives. Under proper condition they will not only accept but also seek responsibility, more rather than less people are able to exercise imagination and ingenuity at work. They are the assumption of theory Y. they are so closely related to Maslow’s higher-level needs and so Schiens concept of self actualization theory x and theory have made their greatest impact in the managerial world rather than in the academic world. The two labels have become part of the folklore of management style, but there is danger that they may be seen only as polar extremes, representing an either be style. In real life a blend of the two theories is more likely to provide the best prescription for effective management. 4. Herzberg’s Motivated Hygienic Theory Herzberg concentrated on satisfaction at work. In the initial research some two hundred engineers and accountants were asked to recall when they had experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feeling about their jobs. Following the interviews, Herzberg’s team came to the conclusion that certain factors tended to lead to job satisfaction, while other had frequently to dissatisfaction. The factor giving rise to dissatisfaction was called hygiene factors. The motivators have their negative aspects e.g. lack of achievement can lead to satisfaction and that hygiene factors have their positive aspects e.g. salary can be source of satisfaction. The most important motivators or satisfiers to emerge are as follows: i. Achievement ii. Recognition iii. Work itself iv. Responsibility v. Advancement Herzberg pointed out that these factors were more related to the context or environment of work place than to its context. When in line with employee requirements such as factor could smooth the part of working life, but in a taken for granted way. When these factors were out of line with employee expectations, they could be a source of difficulty and complaint and definitely provided groups for dissatisfaction at work. The lack positive aspect of these factors led Herzberg to call them hygiene factors because while they contributed to the prevention of poor physiological health, they did not make a positive contribution to employee’s sense of wellbeing at least not in a lasting way. The key distinction between the motivation and hygiene factor is that, whereas motivation can bring about positive satisfaction, the hygiene factors can only serve to prevent dissatisfaction. To put in another way, if motivation is absent from the job, the employee is likely to experience real dissatisfaction. However, even if the hygiene factors are provided for, they will not in themselves bring about substantial job satisfaction. Hygiene, in other words, does not positively promote good health, but only acts to prevent ill health. In his contribution to the concept of motivation and its applicability to the world of work as Director of Studies of Social Research at the University of Michigan, U.S.A. This so called Michigan studies were describe by Likert in a text in which he theorized about high producing and low producing managers. According to his research, they were those achieved not only the highest productivity, but also the lowest cost and the highest levels of employee motivation. The latter, by comparison, produced high cost and low employees motivation. A dominant theme in Likert’s discussion of these new patters of management is the importance of supportive relationship between. The management and the employees. The management can achieve high performance when employees see their membership of a work personal worth and importance from belonging to its line of high producing managers, these can tend to foster good working relationship within and outside their group in the organization. In viewing his work on motivation, leadership and organization structures, Likert distinguished between four separate system or styles of management. There are founded on a number of different assumptions about human behavior aid are useful compared with Schien’ classification of man and McGregor’s theory X and Y. 1. Exploitative: authoritative where power direction come from the top downwards, where threats and punishment are employed where communication is poor and teamwork non existent. Productivity is mediocre. 2. Benevolent: Authoritative is similar to this above hut allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is fair to good, hut at the considerable absenteeism and turnover. 3. Consultation: Where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is both upwards and downward, and where teamwork is encouraged at least partially. Some involvement of employees serves as a motivation. Productivity is good with only moderate absenteeism etc. 4. Participative Group: This is the ideal system, under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully cooperative way. Communication is good both upwards, downward literally. Motivation is obtained by variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low. i. The first system above correspond! Closely to Schein’s rational economic and Mc Gregor theory X ii. The second system can be considered as a similar, but softer approach iii. The third system is fairly close to the idea of social man. iv. The fourth system is more like schein’s self-actualizing man and very close to the idea of theory Y. The first system, at one extreme is highly task oriented, while the system at the hand highly people oriented. 5. Expectancy theory The development of this theory of motivation has been the work of the American Vroom (2000); a key point of this theory is that an individual’s behavior in formed not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality but on his or her subject perception of that reality. It relates to how a person perceives the relationship between three efforts, performance and rewards. He concluded that there were such factors, each based on the individual perception of the situation. These were: i. Expectancy:i.e. the extent of the individuals’ perception or belief that a particular act will produce a particular outcome. ii. Instrumentally: i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective performance will lead to desired rewards. iii. Valance: I,e the strength of the belief that attracts rewards are potential available. The approach to the concept of human motivation with its emphases on the psychological mechanism that trigger efforts is quite different from that of content theories. It is important to not that Vroom distinguishes valance from value. He does so be defining the former, in terms of the anticipated satisfaction the individual hopes to obtain from the outcome or reward, and defining value in terms of the actual satisfaction obtained by individual. According to Vroom, the three factors-expectancy, instrumentality valence and value combine together to create a driving force (force), which motivates an individual to put in efforts, achieve a level of permanence and obtained rewards at the end. Vroom suggested that FORCE was a multiple of expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy and valance (encompassing instrumentality_in the formula. Force=expectancy x valance (or F-Ex V) i. It takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process ii. It indicates that individuals will act when they have reasonable expectancy that their behavior will lead to desired out comes. iii. It stresses the importance of individual perceptions of reality in the motivational process. iv. It implies that job satisfaction follows effective performance rather than the other way around v. It has led to development in work design, where emphasis has been laid on intrinsic job factors, such as variety, anatomy tasks, identify and feedback. Nigeria’s president, Muhammadu Buhari, has joined other Nigerians to congratulate the newly selected Ooni of Ife, Prince Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi. Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Prince Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi Prince Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi Ogunwusi, a real estate magnate was appointed the 51th Ooni of Ife following the death of the former Ooni Oba Okunade Sijuwade at a London clinic on August 10. Buhari, in a statement signed by his special adviser on media and publicity, Mr. Femi Adesina urged the new Ooni to show fairness to all his subjects and sustain peace in the land. “On behalf of the Federal Government and people of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari congratulates Prince Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi on his emergence as the 51st Ooni of Ife and successor to the late Oba Okunade Sijuwade. READ ALSO: 10 Things To Know About The New Ooni Of Ife “President Buhari rejoices with Prince Adeyeye on his nomination as Ooni by the kingmakers of Ife after a keenly contested but peaceful selection process, and confirmation yesterday by Governor Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State. “As he prepares to begin the rites of ascension to the revered throne of his great ancestors, President Buhari urges the Ooni-designate to commit himself to carrying all his subjects along to a new era of peace, stability and progress in Ife, Yorubaland and Nigeria as a whole. “The President calls on Prince Adeyeye to be prepared to put his new position as Ooni and principal custodian of the rich cultural heritage and traditions of the Yorubas to good use in the service of his people and country. READ ALSO: What Nigerians Are Saying About The New Ooni of Ife “President Buhari also urges the Ooni-designate to dedicate himself to building on, and surpassing the worthy legacies of his much-acclaimed predecessor, Oba Sijuwade, and working with government and other traditional rulers across the country to foster greater harmony, peaceful co-existence and faster socio-economic development of his people and all Nigerians. “As Prince Adeyeye ascends to the grand throne of the Ooni of Ife, the President prays that God Almighty will grant him the immense wisdom and courage he will require to oversee further progress and greater prosperity for his people. “He wishes the new Ooni a long and highly successful reign in the service of his people and country,” the statement reads. The Senate president Bukola Saraki, on Monday 26, congratulated the newly selected Ooni of Ife-designate, Prince Adeyeye Ogunwusi and advised him to concentrate on further solidifying the role of the Yoruba people in national unity. Also, the Osun state APC said it expect the new king to to take off from where the late Sijuwade ended his glorious reign as it is looking forward to the eventful reign of the new Ooni. 6. Equity Theory The basic of equity theory is that people make ocmparising between themselves and others in terms of what they invest in their works(inputs) and what outcomes they receive form it. As in the case of expectance theory, this theory is also founded on people’s perceptions, in this case of the inputs an outcome is involved. Thus, their sense of equity (I.e. fairness) is applied to their subjective view of conditions and not necessarily perceives an equal situation. The theory states that people perceive and unequal situation; they experience equity tension which they attempt to reduce by appropriate behavior. This behavior may be to act positively to improve their performance and/or to seek improved reward, or may be to act negatively, for example working more slowly on the grounds of being under rated or lender paid. In his review research, Robins(1993), suggests that when people perceive an inequitable situation for themselves they can be predicted to make one six choices. i. Change their inputs(e.g. not exerting as much effort). ii. Change their outcomes (e.g individuals paid on a piece rate basis increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units even if of a lower quality). iii. Distort their perception of (e.g. I used to think I work at a moderate pace but now realize I work a lot harder than everone else). iv. Distort perception other (e.g X’s job isn’t at desirable as I first thought). v. Choose a different reference point (e.g. I may not be doing as well as my Brother, but I’m doing better than our Father did at my age) vi. Leave the field (i.e. quit the job) Equity theory cannot apply in the same way to intrinsic rewards such as which by their very nature as personal to the individual, entirely subjective and therefore, less capable of comparison in any credible sense. As Jaques (1961) discovered more than thirty years ago question of equitable payment in relation to the discretion or anatomy available to an individual in the job are a key factor in achieving a sense or fairness at work. In a subsequent handbook for managers, Jaques (1964) commented that, individuals privately possess common standards as to what contributes fair payment for given levels of work, these norms of fair payment are relative i.e they indicate what differentials in payment are felt to be fair in relation to differential in payment are felt to be fair in restatement of individual perception of fairness.