User:Emma Wagner/P-A Theory of Motivation

In their Motivation Theory Robert D. Pritchard and Elissa L. Ashwood describe motivation as the process of allocating energy to different tasks, in order to maximally satisfy needs. The process consists of several steps, with all steps having to work correctly in order for motivation to be high. The theory builds upon the Naylor, Pritchard and Ilgen theory (NPI theory, 1980). It was developed for the work context and practical application.

Motivationtheory by Pritchard and Ashwood (2008)

Overview

The main idea of the Pritchard-Ashwood theory (P-A theory) is shown in the left part of the figure. It posits that everybody has a certain amount of physical, mental and emotional resources at his disposal. These resources form the energy pool of a person. How much energy one can use at any given time differs from person to person and also within the person (e.g. because of strain or problems sleeping). The idea of resources being limited is not unique. It can also be found in other theories. People use their energy to satisfy needs.

There are multiple models trying to explain human needs (e.g. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, ERG theory by Alderfer). Most need theories posit that everybody has the same needs,but they differ in which needs there are exactly. Pritchard and Ashwood also believe that everybody has the same needs, but that there are differences in the strength of needs between people. Next to basic needs, like having enough food, they also list needs like a need for safety, a need for recognition or the need to do a good job. When our needs are satisfied, this leads to satisfaction and when our needs are not satisfied, this leads to dissatisfaction. The more we expect a certain action to satisfy our needs, the higher our motivation to do the action. Needs are like magnets which direct our actions. Motivation is seen as the process of allocating our energy to tasks in order to maximize need satisfaction.

The theory is an expectancy theory (see also Vroom, 1964; Heckhausen, 1991; Latham & Pinder, 2005). Motivation is oriented towards the future. The expected need satisfaction influences our actions.

The motivation process

The process of allocating energy can be broken down into five components. These components are depicted on the right side of the figure. Between the components, there are connections.

The five components of motivation

Actions → Results → Evaluations → Outcomes → Need Satisfaction

Action is investing energy into a specific task.

Using energy for a task produces results.

These results are evaluated concerning their value (How good is the result?)

Based on the evaluation of results positive and negative outcomes are generated (rewards and punishments).

Certain outcomes lead to need satisfaction. The more we think an outcome will satisfy our needs the more attractive this outcome.

These five components are connected with each other. According to the theory, motivation can only be high when a person has sufficient energy and believes he or she can apply this energy to actions that will produce results that will be positively evaluated and lead to outcomes that satisfy needs.

Connections

The connections between the components can be seen as contingencies. They are about the strength and direction of the connection between two components at a time. The higher a contingency is, the stronger and clearer the connection between the respective components. How strong a contingency actually is depends on several determinants. It is exactly these determinants, where you can strengthen the contingencies.

Actions-to-Results Connections

The connection between actions and results is the degree to which we believe we have control over the results we produce. It's about the perceived relationship between energy used and the quality of the result. If this connection is low, the control over produced results is low. The result barely changes no matter how much energy I apply to the task. Such a situation would be highly demotivating, since you don't have the control over your results. Only when actions-to-results connections are high motivation can be high. There are different determinants influencing the strength of the connection. These are the abilities of a person, the available working materials, the authority to do certain jobs and work strategies. If an employee doesn't have the needed abilities to carry out a task, his efforts will not lead to the expected results. The same thing is true, if he doesn't have the needed materials or tools to do the job or if he doesn't have the needed authority or is working with inefficient strategies. These four determinants are the screws that can be turned to strengthen actions-to-results connections and ultimately motivation.

Results-to-Evaluation Connections

These connections are about the relation of the amount of results produced and the favorableness of the evaluation. The strength of this connection depends on the respective evaluation system. Determinants on this connection are knowledge about favored results, consistency of evaluations with the broader organization, agreement between different evaluators and an effective feedback system. When an employee doesn't know which results are valued he might use his energy on the wrong tasks. If he gets different evaluations by two different supervisors for the same thing, he won't know if he actually did a good job. Therefore, it is important to have a fixed, measureable criteria with which performance is evaluated. Again, the determinants are the screws to strengthen the connection and subsequently motivation.

Evaluation-to-Outcome Connections

The evaluation-to-outcome connections represent the perceived relationship between the favorableness of an evaluation and the amount of the expected outcome. Influencing this connection are the number of potential outcomes and consistency of outcomes between persons and over time. If there are the same outcomes, no matter how positive or negative the evaluation, the evaluation-to-outcome connection will be low. This weak connection leads to low motivation since it makes no difference which results are actually generated. Therefore, outcomes should be tied to performance.

Outcome-to-Need Satisfaction Connections

This connection represents the relationship of outcomes and expected need satisfaction. Every person favors different outcomes, depending on the needs that are most important to them. If an employee expects an outcome to satisfy one or more needs, the connection is high and with this motivation can be high. Determinants for the outcome-to-need satisfaction connections are the current need state, number of needs an outcome satisfies, fairness as well as expectations and comparisons.

In order for motivation to be high, all the connections between the components must be high. If the motivation chain is broken in one or more places (low connections between two components) motivation is low.

Application of the theory

The P-A theory is already being applied in the work setting. For example, Pritchard developed a questionnaire with which organizations can assess the motivational climate in their company. The Motivation Assessment System (MAS). The questionnaire contains questions assessing the different connections as well as their determinants. Through this it is possible to determine the places where to take action to successfully enhance employee motivation and subsequently performance as well as productivity.

Furthermore, P-A theory in combination with NPL theory is the basis for the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES). ProMES is an intervention which uses regular feedback to enhance productivity.

See also

Motivation

Further reading

• Robert D. Pritchard, Elissa L. Ashwood: Managing Motivation. A Manager’s Guide to Diagnosing and Improving Motivation. Routledge, New York 2008, ISBN 978-1-841-69789-5.
• Melissa M. Harrell: The Relationship between Leader Behavior, Follower Motivation, and Performance. Dissertation, University of Central Florida 2008.
• Heinz Heckhausen, Jutta Heckhausen: Motivation und Handeln. Springer, Berlin 2006, ISBN 978-3-540-25461-4.
• Ruth Kanfer, Phillip L. Ackerman: Motivation and cognitive abilities. An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. In: Journal of Applied Psychology /Monograph, Nr. 74 (1989), S. 657–690, ISSN 0021-9010.
• Ruth Kanfer, Phillip L. Ackerman, Todd C. Murtha, Brad Dugdale, Leissa Nelson: Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance. A resource allocation perspective. In: Journal of Applied Psychology, Nr. 79 (1994), S. 826–835, ISSN 0021-9010.
• Gary P. Latham, Craig C. Pinder: (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. In: Annual Review of Psychology, Nr. 56 (2005), S. 485–516, ISSN 0066-4308.
• James C. Naylor, Robert D. Pritchard, Daniel R. Ilgen: A theory of behavior in organizations. Academic Press, New York 1980, ISBN 978-0-125-14450-6.
• Robert D. Pritchard, Melissa M. Harrell, Deborah DiazGranados, Melissa J. Guzman: The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System. A Meta- Analysis. In: Journal of Applied Psychology, Nr. 93 (2008), S. 540–567, ISSN 0021-9010.
• Daniel Schmerling: Supporting the Pritchard-Ashwood Theory of Motivation and the Motivation Assessment System. Dissertation, University of Central Florida, in press.
• Victor H. Vroom: Work and motivation. Wiley, New York 1964, ISBN 978-0-471-91205-7.

Weblinks

• University of Central Florida, Department of Psychology
• ProMES

References

Category:Human behavior Category:Experimental psychology Category:Cognition