PROCESS THEORY

In process theory, the emphasis is on the psychological processes or forces that affect motivation, as well as on basic needs. It is also known as cognitive theory because it is concerned with people’s perceptions of their working environment and the ways in which they interpret and understand it. According to Guest (1992a), process theory provides a much more relevant approach to motivation than the theories of Maslow and Herzberg, which, he suggests, have been shown by extensive research to be wrong.


Process or cognitive theory can certainly be more useful to managers than needs theory because it provides more realistic guidance on motivation techniques. The processes are:

● expectations (expectancy theory); 

● goal achievement (goal theory); 

● feelings about equity (equity theory).

Expectancy theory 

The concept of expectancy was originally contained in the valency–instrumentality–expectancy (VIE) theory which was formulated by Vroom (1964). Valency stands for value, instrumentality is the belief that if we do one thing it will lead to another, and expectancy is the probability that action or effort will lead to an outcome. This concept of expectancy was defined in more detail by Vroom as follows:

Where an individual chooses between alternatives which involve uncertain outcomes, it seems clear that his behaviour is affected not only by his preferences among these outcomes but also by the degree to which he believes these outcomes to be possible. An expectancy is defined as a momentary belief concerning the likelihood that a particular act will be followed by a particular outcome. Expectancies may be described in terms of their strength. Maximal strength is indicated by subjective certainty that the act will be followed by the outcome, while minimal (or zero) strength is indicated by subjective certainty that the act will not be followed by the outcome.

The strength of expectations may be based on past experiences (reinforcement), but individuals are frequently presented with new situations – a change in job, payment system, or working conditions imposed by management – where past experience is not an adequate guide to the implications of the change. In these circumstances, motivation may be reduced. 

Motivation is only likely when a clearly perceived and usable relationship exists between performance and outcome, and the outcome is seen as a means of satisfying needs. This explains why extrinsic financial motivation – for example, an incentive or bonus scheme – works only if the link between effort and reward is clear (in the words of Lawler (1990) there is a ‘line of sight’) and the value of the reward is worth the effort. It also explains why intrinsic motivation arising from the work itself can be more powerful than extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation outcomes are more under the control of individuals, who can place greater reliance on their past experiences to indicate the extent to which positive and advantageous results are likely to be obtained by their behaviour. 

This theory was developed by Porter and Lawler (1968) into a model, illustrated in Figure 18.2, which follows Vroom’s ideas by suggesting that there are two factors determining the effort people put into their jobs:

1. the value of the rewards to individuals in so far as they satisfy their needs for security, social esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization; 

2. the probability that rewards depend on effort, as perceived by individuals – in other words, their expectations about the relationships between effort and reward.

Thus, the greater the value of a set of awards and the higher the probability that receiving each of these rewards depends upon effort, the greater the effort that will be put forth in a given situation.