Part
3
factors Affecting Employee Behaviour
176
However, the universality of goal theory has
been questioned. For example, Pintrich (2000) noted
that people have different goals in different circum-
stances and that it is hard to justify the assumption
that goals are always accessible and conscious. And
Harackiewicz et al (2002) warned that goals are
only effective when they are consistent with and
match the general context in which they are pursued.
But support for goal theory was provided by
Bandura and Cervone (1983) who emphasized the
importance of self-efficacy (a belief in one’s ability
to accomplish goals).
Equity theory
Equity theory, as defined by Adams (1965), is con-
cerned with the perceptions people have about
how they are being treated as compared with others.
He proposed that employees assess the fairness or
otherwise of their rewards (outcomes) in relation to
their effort or qualifications (inputs) and that they
do this by comparing their own input/output ratio
against that of other individuals. If the input/output
ratio is perceived to be unfavourable, they will feel
that there is reward inequity.
Equity theory explains only one aspect of the pro-
cesses of motivation and job satisfaction, although
it may be significant in terms of morale and, possibly,
of performance.
Social learning theory
Social learning theory as developed by Bandura
(1977) combines aspects of both reinforcement and
expectancy theory. It recognizes the significance of
the basic behavioural concept of reinforcement
as a determinant of future behaviour but also
emphasizes the importance of internal psychological
factors, especially expectancies about the value of
goals and the individual’s ability to reach them.
The term ‘reciprocal determinism’ is used to denote
the concept that while the situation will affect
individual behaviour individuals will simultaneously
influence the situation.
Cognitive evaluation theory
Cognitive evaluation theory contends that the use
of extrinsic rewards may destroy the intrinsic moti-
vation that flows from inherent job interest. It was
formulated by Deci and Ryan (1985). Referring
to their research, they stated that: ‘Rewards, like
feedback, when used to convey to people a sense
of appreciation for work well done, will tend to be
experienced informationally and will maintain or
enhance intrinsic motivation. But when they are used
to motivate people, they will be experienced con-
trollingly and will undermine intrinsic motivation.’
Deci et al (1999) followed up this research by
carrying out a meta-analysis of 128 experiments on
rewards and intrinsic motivation to establish the
extent to which intrinsic motivation was under-
mined by rewards. The results of the study indicated
that for high-interest tasks, rewards had significant
negative effects on what the researchers called ‘free-
choice measures’, which included the time spent on
the task after the reward was removed.
But as noted by Gerhart and Rynes (2003: 52):
‘The vast majority of research on this theory has
been performed in school rather than work settings,
often with elementary school-aged children.’ But
that did not stop other commentators assuming
that the results were equally significant for working
adults. It is interesting to note that research in in-
dustry conducted by Deci and Ryan (1985), while it
found that financial incentives did decrease intrinsic
motivation in high-control organizational cultures,
also established that in organizations with the
opposite high-involvement culture, intrinsic and ex-
trinsic motivation were both increased by monetary
incentives. Context is all important. Moreover, a
meta-analysis of 145 studies conducted by Cameron
et al (2001) led to the conclusion that rewards do
not inevitably have negative effects on intrinsic
motivation.
Purposeful work behaviour
A more recent integrated motivation theory formu-
lated by Barrick and Mount (2013) focused on the
impact on motivation of individual factors, such as
personality and ability, and situational factors, such
as job characteristics. The motivation to engage in
purposeful work behaviour depends on both these
factors.
Comment on process theories
Process theories are not based on suspect assump-
tions about the universality of needs, as are content
theories. Process theories emphasize the importance
of individual decision-making on work behaviour.
As pointed out by Shields (2007: 85) They ‘ac-
knowledge the importance of social and job context
