1. 1
Part (a)
How would management determine the motivation levels of employees?
Motivation is a key organizational concept. This topic has been a principle concern for
organizations and managers because a low level of motivation in work performance can cause a
failure of an organization. Organizations seek motivated employees, and view managers who
have the ability to motivate others as successful. Therefore, an imperative need of study,
comprehending and implementing employee motivation is one of the most important tasks for
managers. In this task, management is required to assess how motivated their employees are and
to bring about an environment within which employees are highly motivated for performance.
This essay is to discuss how management would determine the motivation levels of employees
using various strategies as proposed by the cited literature.
The concept of motivation refers to the external environment and interpersonal drive that
stimulates enthusiasm and persistence to pursue a certain course of action of goal. What
motivates people is important to any organization as it sets the foundation to ones drive which if
managed can produce a model employee. (Ramlall 2004, 52). Employee motivation has been
defined variously. According to Kanungo and Mendonca, (1994), it is “a basic psychological
process which explains why employees behave the way they do in the workplace”. Alternatively,
it is described as “the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals,
conditioned by the effort’s ability to satisfy some individual need” (Robbins, 1996:212).
Employee motivation is the "psychological forces that determine the direction of a person's
behavior in an organization, a person's level of effort and a person's level of persistence".
According to Larking, (2011) in an attempt to determine employees’ levels of motivation in the
work place, a manager needs to first think what the drivers of motivation are. Secondly, a
manager needs to need to give some thought as to what the desired outcomes are. Then there
must also be ongoing monitoring of employees’ performance. In terms of outcomes, the manager
needs to be well aware of how the factors of leadership, culture and composition interact in
influencing employee motivation. Under leadership, the potential outcome is employees having a
positive impression of leadership within the organization. If the employees exhibit a positive

2. 2
attitude towards the manager as a leader and figurehead, they are more likely to heed good
advice and contribute positively to the accomplishment of goals. Within such an environment,
the employees genuinely feel valued and respected by their manager as a leader rather than boss.
According to Robbins, (1996) management needs to consider how culture influences the
organization. The expected outcome is that employees feel that within the organizational culture
they are generally cared for and are allowed to care for each other with management concerned
about their welfare. Secondly employees like the culture in the organization and feel proud about
working there. This can be exhibited in the way employees are inspired to perform their job
tasks, collaboration, time keeping, efficiency and effectiveness. The expected outcomes of
composition are that employees have positive relationships with their colleagues. Employees
respect diversity among those they work with and feel respected by others. A wholesomely
motivated work force will value each other’s work regardless of hierarchy. Those in superior
positions will not look down upon junior staff but will regard each other as of essential
contribution to the organization.
To obtain a more specific and closer view of employees’ levels of motivation, it may be
necessary to carry out a formal survey using a questionnaire that may test the various variables of
motivation desired within the organization. According to Blaire, (2004) staff surveys are usually
very helpful in establishing whether staff in the company are motivated and therefore performing
to best effect. Larking, (2011) says aside from the information that questionnaires reveal, the
process of involving and consulting with staff is hugely beneficial and motivational in its own
right. Surveys are effective if unique to the company, staff issues, industry and culture. Surveys
help towards establishing facts rather than making assumptions about employees’ motivation in
the organization.
There are identified principles that can be applied by managers in assessing levels of employee
motivation. According to Stanley, (2008) it is necessary to relate motivation expectations to the
primary aim of the company. Employees may be more motivated if they understand the primary
aim of the business. In this regard, the assessment would involve trying to establish how clear
employees are about the company's principles, priorities and mission. If employees do not well
understand this basic aspect, they may be deemed to be less motivated or otherwise motivated by

3. 3
other factors. Stanley, (2008) further asserts that the organization may have certain obstacles
hindering employees from performing their best. Especially if performance levels have dropped
drastically or improved significantly, it is important to check what has caused the change. In
their assessment of employee motivation, employers would therefore inquire about what
employees are tolerating in their work and home lives. The company can eliminate practices that
zap motivation.
The essential question in determining what motivates employees is “what really motivates the
staff?” It is often assumed that all people are motivated by the same things. Actually we are
motivated by a whole range of factors. Include questions to elicit what really motivates
employees, including learning about their values. Management should intelligently understand
what, within the culture of their organization really motivate the workers: Are they motivated by
financial rewards, status, praise and acknowledgment, competition, job security, public
recognition, fear, perfectionism, results and other factors. This is really important as what
motivates employees in one organization may not be the same for another. Beyond this, it would
be necessary to study the attitudes of a few employees who are currently well motivated to
identify what really keeps them afloat. Similarly, study should be taken of those who are the
most dissatisfied and least motivated. Significant lessons can be learnt from patches of high and
low motivation in a company (Steers, et al, 2004).
Employee empowerment is worth assessing if it is to be determined how employees are
motivated. Blaire, (2004) asserts that managers may assess whether the employees feel they have
job descriptions that give them some autonomy and allow them to find their own solutions or
they are given a list of tasks to perform and simply told what to do. Employers may find that
employees who are well informed about their jobs and are less closely supervised are better
motivated. According to Pratt and Nikolova, (2006:259) in most cases, employee motivation is
largely affected by recent changes in the company such as change of management, redundancies,
loss of key people due to resignations, large scale job terminations, changes in the conditions of
service and changes in management attitude towards workers’ plight, among others.
Management needs to collect information from employees about their fears, thoughts and
concerns relating to these events. Even if they are unfounded, it may be prudent to treat them
with respect and honesty.

4. 4
Scholars recognize that it is not up to employees alone to be inspired by whatever the
organization wishes. Remedios and Boreham, (2004), contend that firstly, the company needs to
establish how it wants individuals to spend their time based on what is most valuable. Secondly
this needs to be compared with how individuals actually spend their time. Management may find
employees are highly motivated but about the "wrong" priorities. Therefore, an alignment of
employee and company goals is essential. In addition, how the employees feel about the
company affects their motivation. Do they feel safe, loyal, valued and taken care of? Or do they
feel taken advantage of, dispensable and invisible? Such questions need to be asked in order to
determine what would improve their loyalty and commitment. Further questions should be asked
regarding how involved employees are in company development: Do they feel listened to and
heard? Are they consulted? And, if they are consulted, are their opinions taken seriously? Are
there regular opportunities for them to give feedback (Remedios and Boreham, 2004).
An additional aspect that is necessary for assessing employees’ motivation is whether the
company's internal image is consistent with its external one. The company may present itself to
the world as the 'caring' or 'forward thinking'. The employees would have been influenced, and
their expectations set, to this image when they joined the company. If management does not
mirror this image within the company in the way they treat employees they may notice
motivation problems. It is therefore necessary to find out what the disparity is between the
employees’ image of the company from the outside and from the inside (Larking, 2011).
From the discussion developed in this essay, it is evident that management have a salient
responsibility to, not only motivate their employees but to also determine whether such
motivation is in line with the organization’s mission, goals and strategies and what factors are
responsible. Management can use various strategies to ensure that they identify what intrinsic
and extrinsic factors affect employees and help in achieving organizational goals. It may be
difficult to find formats of employee level measurement as there is no specific format for this
unless and until managers learn and try to measure this using scientific tools such as surveys.

5. 5
Part (b)
Identify one theory of motivation you know well. Explain the theory.
Expectancy Theory
There are many theories of motivation classified under various headings. From the process
theories group, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory is discussed. Vroom presented his Expectancy
Theory in 1964 where he assumed that humans are capable of making choices which are formed
by experiences of the past. Vroom proposed three elements: valance, instrumentality and
expectancy. Valence is about what employees expect to be the outcome of their effort whereas
the term instrumentality deals with the factors that influence the valence (Stetcher, 2007).
Expectancy is the probability that the person predicts they will achieve the task with a given
level of effort.
The expectancy theory which is Vroom’s formula states that Motivation Expectancy Valence
depends on how much people want something and how likely they are to get it. The theory is
based on the following assumptions: Both internal (needs) and external (environment) factors
affect behavior, behavior is the individual’s decision. People have different needs, desires, and
goals, People make behavior decisions based on their perception of the outcome.
There are two important variables in Vroom’s formula which can be met for motivation to take p
lace and these are Expectancy and Valence. Expectancy refers to the person’s perception of his
or her ability (probability) to accomplish an objective. As a result, the higher one’s expectancy
is, the better the chance for motivation. When employees do not believe that they can accomplish
objectives, they will not be motivated to try. Also important is the perception of the relationship
between performance and the outcome or reward. Generally, the higher one’s expectancy of the
outcome or reward is, the better the chance for motivation. This is called instrumentality. If
employees are certain to get a reward or to be successful, they probably will be motivated. When
they are not sure, employees may not be motivated. For example, Dan believes he would be a
good supervisor and wants to get promoted. However, Dan has an external locus of control and
believes that working hard will not result in a promotion anyway. Therefore, he will not be
motivated to work for the promotion. On the other hand, Valence is also another important

6. 6
variable of expectance theory and it refers to the value a person places on the outcome or reward.
Generally, the higher the value (importance) of the outcome or reward is, the better the chance of
motivation. For example, the supervisor, Jean, wants an employee, Sam to work harder. Jean
talks to Sam and tells him that working hard will result in a promotion. If Sam wants a
promotion, he will probably be motivated. However, if a promotion is not of importance to
Sam, it will not motivate him (Amentor and Forsyth, 1995).
According to Evans, Margheim and Schlacter, (2012) motivating with Expectancy Theory can
accurately predict a person’s work effort, satisfaction level, and performance but only if the
correct values are plugged into the formula. Therefore, this theory makes accurate predictions in
certain contexts but not in others. The following conditions should be implemented to motivate
employees: Clearly define objectives and the necessary performance needed to achieve them, tie
performance to rewards that is High performance should be rewarded so when one employee
works harder to produce more than other employees and is not rewarded, he or she may slow
down productivity. Hence, employers must be sure how rewards are of value to the employees.
The supervisor should get to know his or her employees as individual and develop good human
relation; make sure your employees believe you will do as you promise instrumentality. For
example, they must believe you will promote them if they do work hard. And you must do as you
promise, so employees will believe and have trust in you. Expectancy theory also works best
with employees who have an internal locus of control because if they believe they control their
destiny, their efforts will result in success.

7. 7
Part (c)
What are the limitations of the theory which you identified in (b)?
Limitations of the Expectancy Theory
Expectancy Theory does, however, have its limitations. Expectancy Theory mainly focuses on
extrinsic motivational factors such as paychecks, bonuses, and employee recognition. Some
employees may not be motivated by those types of rewards. Therefore, it is important for
managers to understand what their employees’ desire when it comes to rewards before utilizing
the expectancy theory model (Guest, 1997). Another weakness in Expectancy Theory is that it
assumes that employees have the necessary abilities, resources and opportunities to perform well.
Simply knowing what motivates an employee to perform at a desired level may not help if they
do not possess the resources to complete their job functions (Guest, 1997). Also, it is limited
because in some organizations rewards may be tied directly to a person’s positions, his or her job
responsibilities, and his or her education. Expectancy Theory does not take into consideration
that an employee’s beliefs, wants and needs might change over time. When an organization
utilizing the theory understands that a person’s valence belief changes, they are given the
opportunity to reevaluate the effectiveness of the theory (Mitchell and Beach 2006). Expectancy
theory does not work well with employees who have an external locus of control because they do
not believe their efforts result in success.
Despite its weaknesses, the Expectancy Theory is one of the most useful in the work place.
According to Mayes, (1998) the key to Expectancy Theory is to understand employees’ goals
and the connection between effort and performance, performance and rewards, and rewards as
they relate to the individual’s goal satisfaction. Expectancy, instrumentality and valence are
important components of the Expectancy Theory when motivating employees to perform and
achieve desired goals. I feel that it is a useful performance strategy because it allows individuals
to choose desired outcomes in exchange for the rewards they need and desire to achieve their
goals and to have job satisfaction. The Expectancy Theory gives organizations the ability to
understand the importance of demonstrating appreciation for their employees’ hard work, and as
a result, employees will be strong performers and show loyalty toward the organization.

8. 8
The theory neglects cultural and situational context that directs a person’s achievement and
therefore has a non-specific end while neglecting meaning and purpose related goal experiences.
In other words achievement can lead to alternative rather than consistent types of actions, can
account for directions of one’s general orientation but cannot predict specific ways the goal will
manifest (Thrash & Elliot, 2001). Furthermore Affiliation need is criticized to be individualistic
orientated therefore cannot be used in collective cultures. The reason for this is due to the value
differences a person places with solitude versus spending time with others. That it is inconsistent
in personalities but more so in situations. A perceived skill in social interaction does not
correlate to a person engaging with others unless they are interested (McClelland, 1985).
Expectancy theory has some questionable limits to the validity of method and measurement
(Wood et al, 2010) similarly discussed by Vroom & Jargo (1978) on their experiment with a
number of managers testing the ability with decision making processes in predicting decision
outcomes. One significant point made is the concept of organizations being ‘open systems’
accounting for a number of unaccounted variables that cannot be measured. Too many
inconsistencies lead to a conclusion that no model can possibly test this accurately. In addition
Greiger & Cooper (1996) conclude evidence of applying this theory to their experiment is true
for the majority but not for all individuals.
Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory has its relevance in organizations. It can help motivate
people by reward success opportunities. It also predicts how much effort a person will expend to
achieve a task; is from an individual decision making basis model which is determined by a
person’s beliefs about effort-performance relationship and work outcomes. Thus, despite the
identified weaknesses, the theory cannot be discounted as ineffective but can be relied on as an
essential process theory.

9. 9
References
Amentor, J & Forsyth, C. J. (1995) Determinants of job satisfaction among social workers.
International Review of Modern Sociology, 25, (20), 51-63.
Blaire, P., (2004) Situation Leadership: Principles of Improving Employee Motivation and
Empowerment. Alan Chapman Center for Leadership Studies.
Evans, K. R., Margheim, L. and Schlacter. L. C. (2012) "A Review Of Expectancy Theory
Research In Selling." Journal Of Personal Selling & Sales Management 2.2, 33.
Geiger, M.A., & Cooper, E.A. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons using Expectancy Theory to
assess student motivation. Issues in Accounting Education, 11(1), 113-126.
Guest, D. E. "Human Resource Management And Performance: A Review And Research
Agenda." International Journal Of Human Resource Management 8.3 (1997): 263-276.
Kanungo, R.N. and Mendonca, M. (1994). ‘Introduction: Motivational Models for Developing
Societies.’ In Kanungo, R.N. and Mendonca, M.(eds.) Work Motivation: Models for Developing
Counties. New Delhi: Sage.
Larking, E., (2011) Measuring Motivation Levels. HTC Consulting, 27 July, 2011.
Mayes, B. T., (1998) "Incorporating Time-Lag Effects Into The Expectancy Model Of
Motivation: A Reformulation Of The Model." Academy Of Management Review 3.2: 374-380.
McClelland D.C., (1985). How motives, skills & values determine what people do [Electronic
version]. American Psychologist, 40(7), 812-825.
Mitchell, T. R., and Lee R. B., (2006)"A Review Of Occupational Preference And Choice
Research Using Expectancy Theory And Decision Theory." Journal Of Occupational Psychology
49.4 (2006): 231-248.
Stecher, M., (2007). Understanding reactions to workplace injustice through process theories of
motivation: A teaching module and simulation: Journal of Management Education 31, 777-792.
Thrash, T.M., & Elliot, A.J., (2001). Delimiting & Integrating achievement motive and goal
constructs, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Available from
http://www.site.ebrary.com/lib/acap/doc?id=10053382
Wood, J, Zeffane, R. And Fromholtz M., (2010). Organisational Behaviour, Core concepts &
applications. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Australia, Ltd. Milton Qld.
Pratt, J. & Nikolova, N. (2006) International Management, 2nd Edition, Pearson Education
Australia.
Ramlall, S. 2004. A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee
retention within organizations: Journal of American Academy of Business 5 (1): 52-63.
Remedios, R. and Boreham, N. (2004), ‘Organisational Learning and Employees’ Intrinsic
Motivation’, Journal of Education and Work, Vol.17,no.2, June 2004, pp.18.

10. 10
Robbins, S.P. (1996). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications. 7th
Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stanley, TL. (2008). A motivated workplace is a marvelous sight: Super Vision 69 (3): 5-8.
Steers, R, Mowday, R and Shapiro, D. (2004). The future of work motivation theory: academy of
Management Review 29 (3): 379-387.