Introduction:

Technology has improved significantly in past few decades. Technology brought revolution
in today’s business world and affect of this revolution is massive on every aspect of a
working life. Our life has changed entirely because of this technological revolution. But
human being has something within them which technology can’t provide which is the
inspiration, spirit, encouragement to achieve goal and do well in a workplace. Only a
motivated employee can set the goal and achieve it in the long run.

Motivation is the force that makes a human being to do things. Motivation is one of the
most important management functions. If a manager wants to learn the behaviour of an
organisation, he or she has to learn the motivation factor first. According to Miyamoto
(2007, pg 198), motivation refers to forces from within a person that account for the wilful
direction, intensity, and persistence of the person’s efforts toward achieving specific goals
that are not due to ability or to environment demands.

This essay will explore Vroom’s expectancy theory and McClelland’s acquired needs theory
of motivation of employees in the workplace. This essay will discuss about these two
theories and how important they are for the managers in today’s workplace. This essay will
also explain the implications of these two theories on culture.

Expectancy theory:
According to Miyamoto (2007, pg 207), the first process theory to recognize the efforts of
multiple sources of motivation was victor Vroom’s expectancy theory. Expectancy theory
refers three factors that people consider in deciding whether to apply effort toward action.
First factor states that a certain level of performance needs a certain level of effort. For
example, an associate considers the probability that working more hours on a particular
report will lead to improvement in that report. This probability is referred to as expectancy.

The second factor that individuals consider is the probability that certain outcome requires
a certain amount of performance. For example, the associate mentioned above considers
some potential outcomes from that report which may make the report a better one. He or
she may believe that a better report will lead to (a) admire from the manager and (b) more
interesting and challenging new assignments. The person may also think that this report will
increase the pay scale. So the person thinks of three possibilities. The sum of these
individual probabilities is known as an instrumentality.

The third factor is the importance of each predicted outcome to the associate in question.
For example, the associate may question that good report may bring those outcomes and
may bring her satisfaction. Becker (1992)

Reinharth & Wahba (1986) argues that expectancy theory is widely researched theory of
motivation although its assumptions limits its explanation to the logical part of human
behaviour , it also served as the basis for research in such diverse areas such as decision
making, learning theory, verbal conditioning, attitudes and organisation behaviour. He also
states that there are proposed models made by Vroom, and one of them is valence of
outcome model, which states that valence of outcome is an anticipated satisfaction of a job
performed. Valence can be negative or positive because some outcomes are desirable and
some are undesirable. He also gives the formula which states that how people implement
expectancy theory in making decision.

The second factor is expectancy, which states the relationship between perceived efforts
and perceived performance. It is also stated that expectancy is a monetary belief concerning
the likelihood that a particular act will be followed by a particular outcome. Lindner (1998)
The third factor is instrumentality, which refers the perceived performance reward
relationship. Here an employee believes that a particular performance will lead to some
possible outcomes. The employee believes that he or she will get a reward if he or she can
exceed the performance. For example, if an individual employee believes that good
performance will lead to good results that is promotion or high pay, or if he believes that
high performance will be instrumental for avoiding other outcomes that is the fear of being
fired, then that employee will place high valence upon performing a good job. Wood et al
(2004)

As suggested by Lee, (2007) Expectancy theory is built upon the simple cultural value of
working hard and achieving success. The expectancy element of the theory encompasses
the principal of minimizing one’s pain and maximizing gains. Hence, there is a strong
perceptual basis to the theory. It is therefore no surprise that a person’s sense of self-
efficacy has a remarkable effect on overall performance. In a case study conducted to
analyze perceptual differences and their implications on proceeding to the next step of
Vroom’s model (instrumentality) it was found that a group with a sense of “helplessness”
and thus a lowered sense of control suffered immense perception damages with respect to
achieving a specified task. On the other hand, a group with a greater sense of control and a
healthier state of self-efficacy were able to anticipate much better. Based on these findings,
Vroom’s expectancy theory provides extensive support that perception plays a significant
role in determining an individual’s prospect of a certain result.

Another study which supports the Vroom’s expectancy theory is carried out by Stecher &
Rosse, (2007) in which he argues that Expectancy theory is one of the most central
motivation theories, and considerable evidence supports the view that expectancy theory
can predict effort and performance. In another case study based on expectancy theory, 320
faculty members at 10 business schools were studied in an attempt to elaborate on the
factors that motivate research. The results suggest that a diverse range of rewards are
assigned to conducting research (in particular extrinsic and intrinsic awards). However, as
long as high ratings are applied to the rewards by the individuals involved, increased
productivity results – unaffected by ethnicity or race. Chen, Gupta & Hoshower (2006).

A further theory that supports vroom’s work suggests that benefits such as pay, can act as a
motivator providing employees see link between what they achieve and the benefit are
given, this is known as the expectancy valence theory. This study will see how theories can
relate to benefits. Vroom suggest that everyone is motivated by the same things, you only
have to look at people who work for charity or in artistic profession who often get low pay
compared to the city employees to whom pay is a strong motivation. He also argues that
organisations where there is mixture of employees types and job roles, flexible benefit plans
can be a good way of accommodating individual factors that influence motivation. So these
theories such as Vroom’s theory can be helpful in motivating employees with different pay
roles. Conversely, these theories failed to explain the usefulness of these theories where
pay is not considered as the factor of motivation. For example where some employees work
in the interest of the organisation and not for the money, they will be motivated by some
other factors. Employees benefits, (2006)

Another study explains that understanding the employee’s motivation is often made easier,
if the company attempts to select employees with specific values, beliefs and needs that
support the company’s culture. In this study the relation between Hosftede cultural
dimension and Vroom’s expectancy is carried out for the purpose of determining whether
Hofstede dimension can be used to predict an individual’s motivation potential in an
organisation environment. The study was carried out by using a web based surveys of US
and German workers. Even though the hypotheses concerning the relationship between
culture-based perceptions and expectancies and instrumentalities were not heavily
supported, several of the relationships between an employee's cultural values and valences
were supported. This suggests that motivation, to some extent, can be predicted by
knowledge of an employee's culture-based values, Emery and Oertel (2006). From this study
it can be clearly predicted that with the help of expectancy theory, managers can examine
that motivation can directly linked with employees’ cultural background and their beliefs.
The findings of these two studies further support the fact that expectancy theory can be
applied broadly against any group whether he or she is a manager, non manager or a
follower.

However, it is very important to care when applying the expectancy theory to the actual
world. Even though the above case studies are correct due to the controlled structure of
the experiment and the reliability of the participants and any fault does not exist in the
result that might affect the outcomes. Limitations such as the accuracy of measurement
represent an important role in determining the outcome of a study and the formulation of
theories. Kominis & Emmanuel, (2007). The articles continues to involve the difficulties
encountered with multiple scales, since it is very difficult to rate one’s job performance. The
fact that the sample selected for most case studies is not of a random nature, from a
statistical viewpoint, limits the results of the study to a particular group. The methods and
results used to reach conclusions about specific applications of expectancy theory thus pose
as a potential downfall.

McClelland’s acquired needs theory:

McClelland’s needs theory describes a different approach towards motivation. This theory
states that needs are acquired throughout the life. Needs are inherent, but are learned and
developed as a result of one’s life experience. This theory was developed by David
McClelland, also uses needs classification and focuses on the needs for achievement, need
for affiliation and need for power. These needs are also known as learned needs as they are
influenced by cultural background and can be acquired through training. These three needs
are also viewed as independent, means a person can be high or low on any one all three
needs.

The first need is the need for achievement is defines as the behaviour towards competition
with a standard of excellence, this need for achievement need emphasise the desire for
success, for mastering task and for attaining gaols. For example people with high need for
achievement want to do things better than others. This need for achievement is valued in
the US societies and in many other countries as well. People those are high on this need can
do well in difficult situations and tasks. research has also shown that managers who ae high
on achievement manage quite differently from those who are low achievers because they
are more gaol oriented same as in the case of expectancy theory which supports the fact
that motivation is dependent on goal oriented nature of the managers. Miyamoto (2007, pg
203)

The second need is the need for affiliation, which states that people with high need for
affiliation have a strong desire to be liked by the other employees and to stay on a good
terms with other employees in the organisation. Generally affiliated people turned to make
good managers because they treat differently to various employees according to their
culture and nature.

The third and the final need is the need for power which means the desire to influence
people and events. It s generally believed that the people those are high on need for
institutional power are high performing managers and have the required skills for increasing
morals of the employees as compared to people those have low power. Duffy, (2007)

McClelland’s theory of needs is the most successful theories from the various other
motivational theories because of its capability to carry all motivational practices; such
activities include managers being able to identify meaningful individual employees reward
based on the motivational drivers and to link rewards to job performance fo motivational
quickening. And also through McClelland’s theory, a sound system of communication is
feasible as managers are able to receive feedback from their colleagues due to the learning
nature of the theory. People in the companies can be trained to find out achievements
affiliation and power. Hitt. (2006)

Possibly the most productive strength of McClelland’s motivational content theory is its
ability to exactly pinpoint what qualities effective leaders possess.
According to McClelland, the best managers are called institutional managers. They have
low affiliation motivation (the need to be liked) and thus they are able to apply consistent
discipline without being affected by empathy for particular individuals. Institutional
managers are ranked high in embarrassment. They present a desire to achieve by behaving
toward competition with a standard of excellence. Certainly the most important part of the
McClelland’s theory is the need for power – in particular, institutional power. Institutional
power is drawn from empowering people rather than personal power where managers
control people. McClelland & Burnham (2003)

As demonstrated by a case study conducted in USA to investigate whether the need for
affiliation has an effect on the persistence behaviour among the entrepreneurs. This study
was done by field survey in USA. At the end the results found out that the need for
affiliation is positively related to entrepreneurial persistence. This study also found out that
for complex tasks, a strong need for affiliation should be accomplished with moderate
business goals. From this study it can be clearly indicate that the need for affiliation has a
direct impact upon the performance of an employee. Matthews & Dagher, (2007)

In recent times, a school of thought has gained increasing popularity which presents modern
leadership as “doing the right thing”. However, growing accustom to leadership as being
well intended with benign implications is both misleading and irresponsible. Failure to
understand and evaluate the dark side of leadership dynamics may have serious
consequences on its authenticity. Perhaps the following summarizes this striking paradox
best: “Many books on leadership seem to be about the power of positive thinking. I fear
they feed a common delusion among leaders that their efforts are always well intended,
their power always benign. Clements & Washbush (1999)

It is within this problematic truth that lays a critical weak point of McClelland’s theory of
needs. Its powerlessness to distinguish between the good and bad of effective leadership is
ultimately the theory's change, as both can have dramatic but very different social
implications. Luckily, through proper education leadership’s negative face often fuelled by
selfishness, and an unwillingness to let go can be managed to an extent in an organizational
environment. Konig (2006)

The above studies and analysis of the McClelland’s needs theory, the conclusion is that, the
theory not only stresses on the employee to stand out in the working environment but also
through more light on the fact that good managers need a combination of achievement
needs, affiliation needs and power needs to be a successful manager. Because of this
leadership importance that the theory is widely applied to judging the managerial
capabilities of an individual rather than their loyalty and loyalty capacity, which are of
massive importance since leaders are meaningless without followers. Strode, (2006)

Motivation is the most important things in our life. Motivation derives from needs that we
need to satisfy. These needs vary from person to person and every individual has their
needs to motivate themselves. It has been shown that acquired needs theory is an effective
tool for modern managers to identify the rewards their subordinates seek, use motivation to
increase work performance, and use it as a method for feedback and teaching leadership
qualities, Crowe & Richard, (1990). The theory can also be used by managers who seek
institutional power by empowering those around them. On the other hand, it has also been
shown that the theory has difficulty distinguishing between the effectiveness of “dark side”
and “doing the right thing” leadership. Expectancy theory explained by Victor Vroom has
strengths in being able to accurately pinpoint the “how” of motivation – as opposed to the
“why”. It has shown that strength can be drawn from perception to enhance motivation and
thus performance. Expectancy theory has shown that it can be applied to anyone regardless
of differences.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, it is obvious from above studies done by various researchers on Vroom’s
expectancy theory and McClelland’s acquired needs theory that both these theories are
different from each other in regard to motivation. Vroom’s expectancy theory emphasis on
efforts by employees to obtain performance and McClelland’s theory based on three needs
factors. With the help of these three needs factors managers can identify meaningful
rewards based on these factors and link rewards with performance. Vroom’s theory only
uses efforts to obtain or achieve performance. But performance not only comes from effort
but also comes from needs to gain something. So it’s crystal clear that McClelland’s acquired
needs theory is much more supportive for managers than Vroom’s expectancy theory while
motivating employees.

References
 1. Becker, D. A. 1992. The effects of audit decision aid design on the intrinsic motivation and
performance of auditors predicting corporate bankruptcy. University of Wisconsin. Madison.
Proquest database.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=0&did=745196161&SrchMode=1&sid=22&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa
me=PQD&TS=1208168636&clientId=22212

(Accessed on 4th April 2008)

2. Chen, Y, A, Gupta and L, Hoshower. 2006. Factors That Motivate Business Faculty to
Conduct Research: An Expectancy Theory Analysis. Journal of education for business. 81 (4):
179. Proquest database.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=10&did=1036255041&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VN
ame=PQD&TS=1208336657&clientId=22212&cfc=1

(Accessed on 2nd April 2008)

3. Clements. C and J. B. Washbush. 1999. The two faces of leadership: considering the dark side
of leader-follower dynamics. Journal of workplace learning. 11 (5): 170. Proquest database.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=0&did=115927316&SrchMode=1&sid=17&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa
me=PQD&TS=1208231818&clientId=22212

(accessed on 10th April 2008)

4. Crowe and W, Richard. 1990. Motivation factors influencing community college leaders: A
study of selected chief executive officers. The University of Texas. Austin. Proquest database.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=0&did=747569891&SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNam
e=PQD&TS=1208311251&clientId=22212
(Accessed on 11th April 2008)

5. Duffy, J. 2007. Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research, and Practice. Canadian
psychology. 48 (4): 275. Proquest database.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=7&did=1429801881&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa
me=PQD&TS=1208755148&clientId=22212

(Accessed on 16th April 2008)

6. Emery, R. C and S, Oertel. 2006. An examination of employee culture- based perceptions as a

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=4&did=1291468911&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa
me=PQD&TS=1208166072&clientId=22212&cfc=1

(Accessed on 17th April 2008)

7. Hitt, M.A., C.C. Miller, and A. Colella. 2006, Organizational behaviour: a strategic

approach, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ

8. Kominis, G and C. R. Emmanuel. 2006. The expectancy–valence theory revisited: Developing

http://www.sciencedirect.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMY-
4MHPHNW-
1&_user=41361&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&
_acct=C000004498&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=41361&md5=f1901160ad230da8944164f6
52d74cab

(Accessed on 13th April 2008)

http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=16&sid=11a0dab5-11a5-
4ab8-92aa-335d6fb014dc%40sessionmgr8

(Accessed on 15th April 2008)

10. Lee, S. 2007. Vroom’s expectancy theory and the public library customer motivation model.
Library review. 56 (9): 788. Proquest database.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=7&did=1366080921&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa
me=PQD&TS=1208336260&clientId=22212&cfc=1

(Accessed on 7th April 2008)

11. Lindner, R. J. 1998. Understanding Employee Motivation. Journal of extention. 36 (3).

http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.html

(Accessed on 18th April 2008)

12. McClelland, D.C. 1961, The Achieving Society, D. Van Nostrand Company Inc., New

York, NY

13. McClelland, D. C and H. D. Burnham. 2003. Power is the great motivator. Harvard business
review. 81 (1) 117- 126. proquest database.
http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=17&did=272453541&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa
me=PQD&TS=1208752774&clientId=22212

(Accessed on 14th April 2008)

14. Miyamoto, Y. 2007. Organisational behaviour .Queensland, Australia. John Wiley & Sons.

15. MOTIVATION: It needn't end in tears. 2006. Employee Benefits Magazine. August 16.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=3&did=1095875681&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa
me=PQD&TS=1208166072&clientId=22212

(Accessed on 5th April 2008)

16. Reinharth, L and M. A, Wahba. 1975. Expectancy theory as a predictor of work motivation,
effort expenditure. Academy of management journal. 18(3) : 520. Proquest database.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=14&did=941080&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=
PQD&TS=1208310448&clientId=22212&cfc=1

(Accessed on 7th April 2008)

17. Stecher, D. M, and J. G, Rosse. 2007. Understanding Reactions to Workplace Injustice

http://jme.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi/reprint/31/6/777

(Accessed on 8th April, 2008)

18. Strode, J. P. 2006. Donor motives to giving to intercollegiate athletics. The Ohio State
University. Proquest database.
http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=0&did=1158517011&SrchMode=1&sid=27&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VN
ame=PQD&TS=1208169964&clientId=22212

(Accessed on 10th April 2008)

19. Wood, J. P., J. Wallace, R. M. Zeffane, J. Capman, M. Fromholtz, and V. Morrison. 2004.
Organisational behaviour: A global prospective. Queensland, Australia. John Wiley & Sons.

20. Wu, S, Mathews and J. K. Dagher. 2007. Need for achievement, business goals, and
entrepreneurial persistence. Management research news. 30, (12): 928. Proquest database.

http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?
index=1&did=1395829761&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNa
me=PQD&TS=1208336878&clientId=22212

(Accessed on 15th April 2008)