The document summarizes three theories of motivation: Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory, Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, and Equity Theory. Vroom's Expectancy Theory states that motivation depends on expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Herzberg's theory identifies motivator and hygiene factors that can satisfy or dissatisfy employees. Equity Theory proposes that employees compare their own inputs and outcomes to others.

1. Group Members:
Kulsoom
Abdullah
Sania Gul

2. Motivation
 Motivation is psychological process that helps
you achieve your goal. It is the drive that pushes
you to work hard. It is the energy that gives you the
strength to get up and keep going – even when
things are not going your way.

3. Two Theories of Motivation
 Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
 Herzberg Two Factor Theory
 John Adam’s Equity Theory

4. Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
 The basic idea of the theory is that people will be
motivated because they believe that their decision
will lead to their desired outcome.
 If people expect a positive and desirable outcome,
they will usually work hard to perform at the level
expected of them.

5. Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
The theory states that individuals have different
sets of goals and can be motivated if they believe
that:
 There is a positive correlation between efforts and
performance.
 Favorable performance will result in a desirable
reward.
 The reward will satisfy an important need

6. Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory is based on three
elements:
Expectancy
Instrumentality
Valence

7. Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
Expectancy
 A person’s belief that more effort will result in
success. If you work harder, it will result in better
performance.
 For example, if a person works hard, he may except
to perform better and increase productivity.

8. Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
Instrumentality
 The person’s belief that “if I complete certain
actions then I will achieve the goal”. If you perform
well , you will get reward.
 They will be motivated to come to work in any
conditions
 This reward may come in the form of a pay
increase and promotion etc

9. Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
Valence
 It refers to the emotional orientations which
people hold with respect to rewards.
 The depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic
(money, promotion, benefits) or intrinsic
(satisfaction) rewards.

10. Herzberg Two Factor Theory
 The Two-Factor Theory of Motivation was
developed by American psychologist Frederick
Herzberg in the 1959.
 The Two-Factor Theory developed from data
collected by Herzberg from interviews with 203
engineers and accountants.
 Its also known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene
theory and dual-factor theory.

11. Herzberg Two Factor Theory
According to Herzberg, there are some job factors
that result in satisfaction while there are other job
factors that prevent dissatisfaction.
According to his theory, people are influenced by
two sets of factors:
1. Motivator Factors
2. Hygiene Factors

12. Herzberg Two Factor Theory
Motivator Factors:
These are factors that lead to satisfaction and
motivate employees to work harder. These
factors motivate the employees for a superior
performance.
 Achievement
 Recognition
 Growth
 Responsibility

13. Herzberg Two Factor Theory
Hygiene Factors:
Hygiene factors are those job factors which are
essential for existence of motivation at work place.
These do not lead to positive satisfaction. But if
these factors are absent at workplace, then they
lead to dissatisfaction.
Pay/ Salary
Company Policy
Interpersonal relations

14. Herzberg Two Factor Theory
According to the Two-Factor Theory there
are four possible combinations:
 High Hygiene + High Motivation:
The ideal situation where employees are highly
motivated and have few complaints.
 High Hygiene + Low Motivation:
Employees have few complaints but are not highly
motivated.

15. Herzberg Two Factor Theory
 Low Hygiene + High Motivation:
Employees are motivated but have a lot of
complaints.
 Low Hygiene + Low Motivation:
This is the worst situation where employees are not
motivated and have many complaints.

16. Equity Theory
 Equity theory was developed by Jane Stacy Adam
in 1963.
 It is the concept that people derive job satisfaction
and motivation by comparing their efforts (Inputs)
and income (Outputs) with those of the other
people in the same or other
firms.

17. Equity Theory
 Employees seek to maintain equity between the
inputs that they bring to a job and the outcomes
that they receive from it against the perceived
inputs and outcomes of others.
 Equity Equations:
1. Equity
2. Under rewarded inequity / Negative Inequity
3. Over rewarded inequity / Positive Inequity

18. Equity Theory
 Equity:
A person feels equitable treated when his outcome
and input ratio is equal to other person’s outcome
and input ratio.
Individual’s outcome = Other’s outcome
Individual’s input Other’s input

19. Equity Theory
 Under rewarded inequity / Negative inequity:
A person feels under rewarded when his outcome
and input ratio is less than whom the person
compare himself.
Individual’s outcome < Other’s outcome
Individual’s input Other’s input

20. Equity Theory
 Over rewarded inequity / Positive inequity:
A person feels over rewarded when his outcome
and input ratio is greater than whom the person
compare himself.
Individual’s outcome > Other’s outcome
Individual’s input Other’s input

21. Inputs & Outputs
 Inputs:
Efforts, loyalty, hard work, time, skill, ability, etc.
 Outputs:
Salary, job security, praise, recognition, bonus, etc.

22. When employees perceive inequity, they can be
predicted to make one of the following choice:
 Workers can change their inputs
 Workers can change their outcomes
 Workers can try to change others outcomes and
inputs
 Workers can change their perceptions
 Workers can change their reference person
 Workers can change jobs

23. Conclusion
 Adam’s stated that if an employee believes that
their work outputs are not equal or greater than
their inputs then the employee will become de-
motivated. He said that the employee will often
compare their colleague’s work inputs and outputs
with their own.