In every human organization, what induces people to work may differ or change with times. At a time, a worker may perform to the highest expectation, but in another time, the same worker may perform a similar task in a lazy manner. Similarly, in a place of work, a person may always be on time, perform a good day’s work and remains even after the office hours. Another person may be less punctual and may tend to get through the day with minimal amount of efforts. Of course, the above working conditions can be attributed to motivation. Within the school organization, motivation can be seen as the totality of the activities of an individual which initiates, sustains and directs the behaviours of staff in response to a situation in the school environment.
The various efforts of managers to motivate workers have led to a number of theories. The effort of the author here is to relate the functional ones to school organization.
Theories of Motivation
Hierarchy of Needs Theory: The hierarchy of need theory is associated with Abraham Maslow (1908-1970). The basic assumptions of the theory according to Mondy, Sharplin & Premeaux (1991) are as follows:
· Unsatisfied needs motivate or influence behaviour;
· Satisfied needs do not motivate behaviour;
· Needs are arranged in hierarchy; and
· Needs at any level of the hierarchy emerge as a significant motivator only when the lower-level needs are reasonably well satisfied.
Self-
actualization
Esteem
Social
Safety
Physiological On the basis of the above assumptions, Maslow hypothesized that within every human being, there exist a hierarchy of five needs. The hierarchy is presented thus:
Table 1: Hierarchy of Needs.
Source: Robbins & Sanghi, (2005)
1. Physiological needs: hunger, thirst, sex and other basic bodily needs;
2. Safety need: Protection from all forms of physical and emotional harm;
3. Social needs: affection, belongingness, acceptance and friendship;
4. Esteem needs: self-respect, autonomy, achievement, status, recognition and attention; and
5. Self-actuation needs: growth, achieving one’s potentials and self-fulfillment.
Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders. Physiological and safety needs are the lower-order while social, esteem and self-actualization are higher-order needs. The lower-order needs correspond to the extrinsic motivation factors while the higher-order needs correspond to the intrinsic motivation factors. In another classification (Abba, Anazodo & Okoye, 2004) the last three sets of needs at the bottom are called deficiency needs because they must be satisfied for the individual to be fundamentally comfortable. The top two sets of needs are termed growth needs because they focus on personal growth and development.
The management policies in this regard should not only aim at motivating the workers by appealing to the lower-order needs (rewards, praises and punishment at times) but should also aim at satisfying the higher-order needs. One way to this is job enrichment – the vertical expansion of jobs, increasing the degree to which the worker controls the planning, execution and evaluation of his or her work (Robbins & Sanghi 2005). This can give the worker a feeling of achievement, recognition, responsibility and personal growth in performing the job.
Growth
Relatedness
Existence
ERG Theory: Clayton Alderfer, extended and refined Maslow’s need hierarchy to align it more closely with empirical research. He argues that there are three basic categories of need (Robbins & Sanghi, 2005; Abba, Anazodo & Okoye, 2004). They include: (1) Existence (E) needs; (2) Relatedness (R) needs; and (3) Growth (G) needs. The Alderfer’s hierarchy of needs is presented thus:
Table 2: Alderfer’s Hierarchy of Needs
Sources: Mondy, Sharplin & Premeaux (1991).
The existence group is concerned with the provision of the basic things necessary for human existence. They include the items which Maslow considered physiological and safety needs. The second group of needs relatedness includes people’s desire to have and maintain important interpersonal relationships. These social and status desire require interaction with others if they are to be satisfied, and they align with Maslow’s social need and external component of Maslow’s esteem classification (Abba, Anazodo & Okoye, 2004). In the third category, Alderfer isolates growth needs. They are all the intrinsic desires for personal development. These include the intrinsic component from Maslow’s esteem category and the characteristics included under self-actualization (Robbins &Sanghi; 2005).
Aside from subsisting three needs for five, Alderfer’s hierarchy of needs differs from Maslow’s need hierarchy. The characteristic features of ERG theory include:
1. More than one need may be operative at the same time as motivators;
2. If the gratification of a higher-level need is stifled, the desire to satisfy a lower-level need increases;
3. ERG theory does not assume that there exists a rigid hierarchy in which a lower need must be substantially satisfied before moving to the next need in the hierarchy;
4. Frustration-regression dimension. The ERG theory believes that when a higher-order need level is frustrated, the individual’s desire to increase a lower-level need takes place. For instance, the inability to satisfy a need for social interaction, might increase the desire for more money or better working conditions. This means that frustration can lead to a regression to a lower need.
School heads should aim at gratifying the needs of the teachers. This will make them to be more enthusiastic and committed to their job. Similarly, anything that can frustrate the teachers should be a voided. All things being equal, a frustrated employee may not contribute positively toward the realization of the organizational goals.
Two-Factor Theory: The two-factor theory has, over the time, played a major role in managerial thinking about motivation. In the belief that an individual’s relation to work is basic and that one’s attitude toward work can, to a great extent, determine success or failure, Fredrick Herzberg began his study by asking his respondents to recall times when they felt especially satisfied and motivated by their jobs and times when they felt particularly dissatisfied and unmotivated. He further asked them to describe what caused good and bad feelings (Robbins & Sanghi, 2005). The responses were then tabulated and categorized.
From the categorized responses, Herzberg found that entirely different sets of factors were associated with the two kinds of feelings about work. That is, the replies people gave when they felt good about their jobs were significantly different from the replies given when they felt bad. He equally discovered that the absence of what made a worker dissatisfied about his job may not necessarily make him feel satisfied when it is present. Thus, the opposite of satisfaction is therefore not dissatisfaction as was traditionally believed. Herzberg therefore identified two distinct classes of factors relevant to behaviour on the job. They are hygiene factors (dissatisfier) and motivators (satisfier). The two factor theory is presented thus:
Hygiene Factors
Motivators
Dissatisfaction
The Environment
No Dissatisfaction
The Job
Job Satisfaction
· Pay
· Status
· Security
· Working conditions
· Fringe benefits
· Policies and administrative practices
· Interpersonal relations
· Meaningful and challenging work
· Recognition for accomplishment
· Feeling of achievement
· Increased responsibility
· Opportunity for growth and advancement
· The job itself
Table 3: Two-Factor Theory.
Source: Mondy, Sharplin & Premeaux (1991)
Hygiene factors relate to the job context. Thus, they are usually present within the environment rather than within the work itself. The term, “hygiene” is used to suggest prevention rather than cure. Attention to these factors will prevent a worker from feeling unhappy but they will not make him feel happy. As Mondy, Sharplin & Premeaux (1991: 301) put it, “hygiene factors maintain an employee in the way dental hygiene maintains the teeth and gums.”
Motivators, on the other hand, produce high level of satisfaction and increased productivity. Motivators are concerned mainly with the job content. While absence of motivators will not cause a worker to be necessarily unhappy, their presence is a powerful force indeed. They can cause people to work far beyond their normal level of productivity, to adopt a creative approach and enjoy feelings of high job satisfaction.
Herzberg assertion represents a powerful contribution to human resource motivation. In the school organization, teachers, for instance, should be handled in a way that they should have an opportunity to experience a sense of personal achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement and personal growth. School heads can create environment conducive for effective work. Good interpersonal relationships between staff and staff, staff and students and students and students should not only be encouraged but nurtured.
Theory X and Theory Y: Douglas McGregor (1906 – 1964) formulated theory X and theory Y. McGregor (1960) perceives the manager’s style as closely associated with his or her fundamental beliefs about human beings and thus devises the two contradictory views of human behaviour – theory X and they Y (Cunningham & Cordiro, 2000).
The basic assumptions of theory X are as follows:
· The average man is by nature indolent – he works as little as possible and as such must be coerced, controlled or threatened with punishment to achieve goals;
· He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility, prefers to be led;
· He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs;
· He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the charlatan and the demagogue.
McGregor’s alternative to theory X is theory Y (Ikediugwu, 1999). In this theory, he shows the positive orientation towards the workers’ interests and capabilities. The basic assumptions are as follows:
· The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct behaviour toward organizational goals are all present in people. Management does not put them there;
· People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is just as normal as play or rest.
· The average human being does not inherently hate work. Given the controlled conditions, work may bring about satisfaction, leading to voluntary performance or a source of punishment and will be avoided where possible. Man leans under proper conditions not only to accept but to seek responsibility;
· The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the solution of organizational problem is widely distributed and not narrowly confined in the population.
· People are not naturally passive or resistant to organizational needs. They only become so, due to the nature of their experience in the organization.
· External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about toward organizational objectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed.
· Commitment to objectives is a function of the reward associated with their achievement.
The practice of both theories is evident, in almost, all human organizations. Managers who believe theory X tend to be autocratic in their leadership style. Here, decision making is centralized. The next officer down the line is only an agent expected to emphasize production like his boss. Conversely, managers who believe in theory Y resort to democratic leadership style. As a result of the belief that the ability to solve problems creatively, ingeniously is widely distributed in the population, decision-making is decentralized.
One fact to note about McGregor’s assumptions is that when people are deprived of opportunities to grow professionally they can behave exactly as we might predict – with indolence, passivity, resistant to change, lack of responsibility, willingness to follow the demagogue, unreasonable demands for economic benefits. This means that the deprivation of the opportunity for growth and development has behavioural consequences. It is therefore logical to argue that it would be a mistake to attribute the worker’s resultant passivity, hostility or refusal to accept responsibility to his human nature because those forms of behaviours can be symptoms of deprivation.
McGregor’s theories could be applied in educational management especially in human resource management. School heads who adopt management style consistent with theory X will be more concerned with their teachers behaviours rather than growth and development. Teachers capacities here are largely as static, unimprovement and not very impressive. To compensate for the teachers deficiencies, the school heads can adopt management styles which involve coercing (forcing) them to perform their duties. They are likely to adopt the autocratic leadership style to enable them to discipline, control, punish, threaten, cajole and as well exercise constant surveillance over their work.
On the other hand, school managers who adopt management style consistent with theory Y are democratic and as such more concerned with teachers’ potentials for growth and development. Theory Y seeks to explore the limits of human capacity and a manager who adopts this style is constantly involved in change and innovations. The implication of this theory is that, under the right condition, many people will find sufficient satisfaction in their works and they will invest more effort than if they are coerced or forced.
The author would rather adopt the human resource model accepting the fact that teachers, like other workers in Nigeria can react to conditions around them. If these conditions are favourable, for instance, if they are treated with respect and made to enjoy good relationship with management and co-workers, they may work hard, accept responsibilities, and show many other desirable actions in implementing policies. Conversely, if conditions are negative, that is, if they feel exploited and do not have confidence in the school management, they may adopt a far less positive pattern of work. Argyri’s Maturity Theory: This theory model was developed by Chris Argyris. According to Hoy & Miskel (1978) Argyris asserts that individuals form the complex organism that produces work energy for personal gain, which can be understood in terms of individual need. It should be noted that Argyris’ discussion of human needs as they relate to human resources management differs from the theories of Maslow, Alderfer, Herzberg and McGregor. As Flippo (1976:377) puts it, “though the human being may be ‘constructed’ at birth with all the Maslow needs and ‘Theory Y’ potential embedded in embryonic form, Chris Argyris emphasizes that development from that point is naturally in the direction of maturation.” He proposes several dimensions of maturation through which the person will develop to achieve good mental health. They are as follows:
Infants begin as….
being dependent and submissive To parents (or other significant adults)
Adults strive toward..
relative independence, autonomy and control over their immediate worlds
Having few skills
Developing many abilities
Having surface or shallow abilities
Developing a few abilities in dept.
Having a short time perspective
Developing a long time perspective
Table 4: Argyris’ predisposition model for motivation
Source: Hoy & Miskel, (1978).
As shown in the above model, human beings or employees develop from left to right, that is, they begin from infancy (immaturity) and strive for adulthood (maturity). These innate human development processes are neither easily suppressed or altered.
. In view of the above, Flippo (1976) states that when an employee is faced with the incongruity of organizational demands and mature human needs, he would adapt to the environment in any of the following ways:
· quitting the job that insults his personal integrity;
· advance to a higher position where there is more freedom and autonomy;
· resigning to the frustrating situation;
· adopting an attitude of apathy or indifference.
The implication is that, within the school organization, tasks should be structured in a way that individuals can develop naturally toward the adult end of the continua. Tasks that provide individuals with opportunities to develop many abilities and to have increasing autonomy would normally be a sources of maximum motivation
McClelland’s Theory: According to Robbins & Sanghi (2005), McClelland’s theory of needs was developed by David McClelland and his associates. In identifying human needs, Abba, Anazodo & Okoye (2004:152) quotes McClelland who argues that:
If you want to find out what is on a person’s mind, don’t ask him because he can’t always tell you. Study his fantasies and dreams. If you do this over a period of time, you will discover themes to which his mind returns again and again. These themes can be used to explain his action . . . . The degree to which an individual is motivated by the various needs differ from person to person.
In the strength of the above, he developed the Thematic Appreciation Test (TAT) which consisted of a series of pictures to which he requested his respondents to write stories about the characters in the pictures. The result is his identification of the three categories of human needs – achievement, power and affiliation.
Need for Achievement (n Ach): This involves the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive to succeed. The characters of a person with high need for achievement are noted as follows:
· Wants to take personal responsibility for finding solutions to problems;
·;
· Has a high level of energy and is willing to work hard.
This set of people tends to gravitate toward entrepreneurial and sales positions. Robbins & Sanghi (2005:169) summarize high achievers in the following words: “High achievers are not gamblers; they dislike succeeding by chance. They prefer the challenge of working at a problem and accepting the personal responsibility for success or failure rather than leaving the outcome to chance or the actions of others”.
Need for Power (n Pow): This is the need to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise. A person with a high need for power tends to be one who:
· Is concerned with acquiring, exercising or retaining power or influence over others;
· Likes to compete with others in situations that allow him or her to be dominant; and
· Enjoys confrontations with others
Relying on an extensive amount of research, Mondy, Sharplin & Premeaux (1991) made some reasonably well-supported predictions based on Mclelland’s theory.
1. Most effective managers have high need for power, a moderate need for achievement, and a low need for affiliation;
2. The best managers have a moderate need for achievement, one not strong enough to interfere with the management process;
3. People with high needs for both power and achievement have high managerial motivation, but they may not make the best managers.
4. Outstanding salespeople tend to be high in the need for achievement and moderately high in the need for power.
5. The probability that a person will perform a job effectively and efficiently depends on a combination of:
a. The strength of the need relative to other needs;
b. The possibility of success in performing the task; and
c. The strength value of the incentive or reward for performance.
The implication is that school heads should study their staff to discover their needs and try to satisfy them as the non-satisfaction of such needs can lead to apathy.
Expectancy Theory: The expectancy theory was formulated by Victor Vroom. Vroom’s model proposes that motivation (M) is a function (F) of expectancy (E), valence (V) and instrumentality (I). Thus, M = f (E x V x I). Expectancy means the employee’s perception of the probability that an effort will lead to performance.
Valence means the employee’s perception of the value of the projected outcome – that is how much the employee likes or dislikes receiving those outcomes.
Instrumentality means the employee’s perception of the probability that certain outcomes, whether positive or negative, will be attached to performance (Hoy & Miskel, 1978).
The expectancy theory states that the strength of a tendency to act in a particular way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual.
Amobi & Nnabuife (1999:142) postulate that:
Expectancy theory states that employees will always evaluate various categories of behaviour, for example, working hard and not working hard and then choose the particular strategy that they believe will lead to those work related reward that they value such as pay increase or promotion. If the individual believes that working hard everyday will earn him a promotion, then that is the behaviour he would adopt.
This explains that, the extent to which an organizational reward satisfies the employee’s personal needs is the attractiveness of the potential reward for the employee. This assumption is very important in school management. School heads should find ways to motivate teachers towards the achievement of the school goals.
Equity Theory: The equity theory was formulated by J. Stacy Adams (Abba, Anazodo & Okoye, 2004; Ikediugwu, 1999). This theory postulates that individuals (or workers) compare their job inputs and outcomes with those of others and then respond to eliminate any inequities. As Mondy, Sharplin & Premeaux (1991:306) put it,
According to equity theory, individuals are motivated to reduce any perceived inequity. They strive to make the ratios of outcomes to inputs equal. When inequity exists, the person making the comparison strives to make the ratios equal by changing either the outcomes or the inputs.
Ikediugwu (1999) further notes that the “striving” to restore equality is the explanation given for work motivation. The equity theory is thus illustrated:
Ratio Comparisons
Perception
o/`A< o/`B à
Inequity due to being under rewarded
o/`A = o/`/B à
Equity
O/`A > o/`B à
Inequity due to being over rewarded
Table 5: Equity theory
Source: Robbins & Sharplin, (2005)
Key: o/`A = the employee; o/`B = relevant others
As shown above, an employee compares the ratio of his job inputs to his job outcomes or rewards and then compares it to that of another co-employee with whom he does practically the same job. Three results can possibly be arrived at:
a. Feeling of under-rewarded – o/1A< o/1B;
b. Feeling of equitably rewarded – o/1A = o/1B; and
c. Feeling of over-rewarded – o/1A > o/1B.
In order to find out whether inequity exists, Mondy, Sharplin & Premeaux (1991) propose four questions:
1. What inputs does the person make to the situation? What is the person’s level of education, effort or experience?
2. What benefits or outcomes, does the person receive? What is the level of job complexity, pay, or status of that person?
3. What is the ratio of inputs to outcomes?
4. Is the ratio the same as, greater than, or less than the ratio of comparison others?
Both Robbins & Sanghi (2005), and Abba, Ananzodo & Okoye (2004) quote G.W. Walster (1978) who argue that, when employees perceive an inequity, they can be predicted to make one of six choices:
1. Change their inputs (for example, don’t exert as much effort)
2. Change their outcomes (for example, individuals paid on a piece-rate basis can increase their pay by producing a higher quality of units of lower quality).
3. Distort perceptions of self (for example “I used to think I worked at a moderate pace, but now I realize that I work a lot harder than everyone else”.)
4. Distort perceptions of others (for example, Mike’s job isn’t as desirable as I previously thought it was”).
5. Choose a different referent (for example, “I may not make as much as my brother-in-law, but I’m doing a lot better than my Dad did when he was my age.”)
6. Leave the field (for example, quit the job).
Since a perceived inequity is a potential source of apathy, the implication of this theory is that equity should be the basis of action of school heads. Justice or fair play is the best policy. This is imperative for the realization of the school goals or objectives.
Reinforcement Theory: Reinforcement theory is primarily based on the research of B.F. Skinner. The reinforcement theory states that human behaviour can be explained in terms of the previous positive or negative outcomes of that behaviour.
In arriving at this theory, Skinner constructed a box in which a rat deprived of food is placed. As soon as the hungry rat depressed the lever (bar), pellet of food will drop for it. The rat quickly learnt that by pressing the bar, pallet of food would drop. Ebenebe & Unachukwu (1995:14) state that:
Skinner observed that after a few accidental bar presses, the rat would start pressing the bar frequently and on each occasion it received a pellet of food. The rat’s operant action (pressing the bar) produced its own reward i.e receiving of a pellet of food. Thus an original accidental behavioiur became converted into an instrumental behaviour pattern. The rat’s behaviour had been conditioned to strengthen bar pressing, while all other behaviour such as wondering around the box were weakened.
Skinner therefore contends that people’s behavioiur can be controlled and shaped by reinforcing (rewarding) desired behaviour and ignoring undesiring behavioiurs.
Reinforcement theory is useful to managers especially when applied as a technique for organizational behaviour modification. Research findings indicate that organization behaviour modification has been used in many organizations to improve workers’ performance. In this regard, Mondy, Sharplin & Premeaux (1991:308) state that:
In one firm, positive reinforcement was used to reduce absenteeism. Each day an employee came to work on time, the person received a playing card. At the end of the week, the person with the highest poker hand received $20. Over a three-month period, the absenteeism rate of the experimental group decreased 18 percent, whereas that of a control group increased.
The above finding indicates that the management systematically reinforced each successive step that moved the individual worker closer to the desired response. A school head can as well do this through appropriate motivation.
According to Robbins & Sanghi (2005) there are four ways of organizational behaviour modification:
1. Positive reinforcement: To follow a response with something pleasant, for instance, praises for a job well done.
2. Negative reinforcement: To withdraw something unpleasant for the purpose of terminating an undesirable behaviour.
3. Punishment: To cause an unpleasant condition so as to eliminate an undesirable behaviour.
4. Extinction: To eliminate any reinforcement which maintains behavioiur. On a general analysis the author is recommending that school managers who desire to utilize the organizational behaviour modification can do so in the following process:
· First, identify the desired performance in specific terms – for example, commitment to the school goals of or improved attendance rates to school.
· Second, identify the rewards that will reinforce the desired behaviour – for example, praise, recognition or award.
· Third, make the reward a direct consequence of the behaviour – for example, each time a class performs excellently in an exam, the teacher of the class receives an award.
The next step is to select the optimum reinforcement schedule – for example, weekly or termly.
Conclusion
In the discourse above, each motivation theory attempts to describe what human beings are and what human beings can become. Of course, the content of each theory can help school managers, for instance, to understand the world of dynamic engagement in which the school organization operates by depicting the relationship that exists or should exist for realization of school goals or objectives. Since motivation deal with people’s development (in the present case, teachers), it is expected that school heads should understand the contents of each motivation theory and use them to overcome the dynamics of school organizational life.
REFERENCES
Abba, U.E.,Anazodo, R.O. & Okoye, J.C. (2004) Management and Organizational Behaviour. Onitsha:Abbot Books Ltd
Amobi, D.S.C & Nnabuife, K.E.N. (1999). Management: An operational Perspective. Awka: J’ Goshen Pub.
Cunnigham, W.C. & Cordiro, P.A. (2000) Educational Administration: A Problem -Based Approach. Bosto: Allyn & Bacon.
Ebenebe, R.C. & Unachukwu, G.C. (1995). Psychology ofLearning: Theories into Classroom Practice. Amawbia: Lumo Printing Press
Flippo, R.B (1976) (4th Ed). Principles of Personnel Management New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company
Ikediugwu, N. P.N (1999): Basic Theories and Concepts in Educational Administration. Enugu: OKFIC Publisher.
Mondy, R.W. Shaplin, A. & Premeaux, S.R. (1991). Management: Concepts, Principles and Skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Robbins S.P. & Sanghi, S. (2005). Organizational Behaviour. Delhi: Pearson Education.
