Uso y logro de aprendizaje en comunicación Hipótesis específico 3

The content models attempt to identify what motivates people at work. The process theories, on the other hand, are more concerned with the cognitive antecedents that go into work motivation or effort and more important, with the way they relate to one another.

First level Outcomes

Figure: Vroom’s Expectancy or VIE theory of Work Motivation .

As figure above shows the expectancy notion from cognitive theory makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the complete processes involved in work motivation

Expectancy Motivational Force F = ∑ valence x expectancy Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Instrumentalit ies Outcome1 a Outcome1 b Outcome2 a Outcome2 b Outcome2 c

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation:

The Expectancy theory of work motivation has its roots in cognitive concepts of pioneering psychologists Kurt Levin and Edward Jolman as shown in figure above. However, the first to formulate an expectancy theory directly aimed at work motivation was Victor Vroom. Contrary to most critics, Vroom proposed his expectancy theory as an alternative to content models which he felt were inadequate explanations of the complex process of work motivation. The figure above summarizes the Vroom model. As shown, the model is built around the concepts of valence, instrumentality and expectancy and is commonly called the VIE theory.

By ‘Valence’, Vroom means the strength of an individual’s preference for a particular outcome. Other terms that might be used include value, incentive, attitude and expected utility. In order for the valence to be positive, the person must prefer attaining the outcome to not attaining it. A valence of zero occurs when the individual’s indifferent towards the outcome; the valence is negative, individual prefers not attaining the outcome to attaining it. Another major input into the valence is instrumentality of the first – level outcome in obtaining a desired second – level outcome. For example, a person would be motivated toward superior performance because of the desire to be promoted. The superior performance (first – level outcome) is seen as being instrumental in obtaining a promotion (second – level outcome).

Another major variable is Vroom motivational process is expectancy, although psychological theorists all agree that expectancies are mental, or cognitive, states, there is little agreement about the nature of these states. Expectancy relates efforts to first level outcomes, while instrumentality relates first level outcomes and second level outcomes. In other words, expectancy in Vroom’s theory is the probability (ranging from 0 – 1) that a particular action or effort will lead to a particular first level outcome. Instrumentality refers to the degree to which a first – level outcome will lead to a desired second – level outcome. In summary a certain act will depend on the algebraic sum of the products of the Valences for the outcomes multiplied by the expectancies.

Probably the major reason Vroom’s model has emerged as an important modern theory of work motivation and has generated so much research is that it does not take a simplistic approach. The content theories oversimplify human motivation. Yet these remain extremely popular with practicing managers because the concepts are easy to appreciate and to apply to their own situations. On the other hand VIE theory recognize the complexities of work motivation, but is relatively difficult to understand and apply. Thus, from a theoretical stand point, the VIE model seems to help managers appreciate the complexities of motivation, but it does not give them much practical help in solving their motivational problem.

THE PORTER – LAWLER MODEL: There is a lot of controversy over the relationship between satisfaction and performance that has existed the human relationship movement. The content theories implicitly assume that satisfaction leads to improved performance and dissatisfaction detracts from performance. The Herzberg model is really a theory of job satisfaction, but still it does not deal with the relationship between satisfaction and performance. Although satisfactions make an input into Vroom’s concept of valence and although the outcomes have performance implications, it was Vroom’s model that the

relationship between satisfaction and performance was dealt with directly by a motivation model.

Porter and Lawler start with the premise that motivation (effort or force) does not equal satisfaction or performance. Motivation satisfaction and performance are assumed. Figure below depicts the multivariable model used to explain the complex relationship that exists between Motivation, Performance and Satisfaction.

Figure: Porter and Lawler Model

As shown in the model above, boxes 1, 2 & 3 are basically the same as vroom equation. It is important, however, that porter and Lawler point out that effort (force or motivation) does not lead directly to performance. The rewards that follows and how these are perceived will determine satisfaction, in other words, Porter – Lawler model suggest, this is a significant turn of events from traditional thinking – that perform leads to satisfaction.

This model has had a fair degree of research support over the years. For example, a recent field study found that effort level and directions of efforts are important in explaining individual performance in an organization. Also a comprehensive review of research verifies the importance of rewards in the relationship between performance and satisfaction. Specifically will be more strongly related when rewards are made contingent upon performance than when they are not.

Value of reward (1) Abilities and Traits (4) Perceived Equitable rewards Satisfactio n Intrinsic rewards Extrinsic Rewards Performance (Accomplishme nt) Effort (3) Perceived effort – reward probability Role perceptions (5)

Contributions to Work Motivation: The Porter and Lawler model has definitely made a significant contribution to the better understanding of work motivation and the relationship between performance and satisfaction. But, to date, it has not had much impact on the actual practice of human resources management. Yet the expectancy models provide certain guidelines that can be followed by human resources management. For example, on

the front end (the relationship between motivation and performance) it has been suggested that the following barriers must be overcome:

(1) Doubts about ability, skill or knowledge. (2) The physical or practical possibility of the job.

(3) The interdependent of the job with other people/activities. (4) Ambiguity surrounding the job requirements.

In addition on the backend (relationship between performance and satisfaction) guidelines such as the following have been suggested:

(1) Determine what rewards each employee values. (2) Define desired performance.

(3) Make desired performance attainable. (4) Link valued rewards to performance.

CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF WORK MOTIVATION: