Pritchard and Ashwood motivational theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the motivation theory of Robert D. Pritchard and Elissa L. Ashwood , motivation is the process of dividing one's own resources into different tasks in such a way that a maximum satisfaction of needs is possible. This process takes place in several steps, whereby the chain of motivation can be interrupted at each step. If the chain of motivation is broken, there is no motivated action. The theory builds on the theory of Naylor, Pritchard and Ilgen (1980). It was developed with a special focus on motivation in the work context and should be used in practice.

Motivation theory according to Pritchard and Ashwood (2008)

Overview of the model

The basic idea of ​​the motivation theory of Robert D. Pritchard and Elissa L. Ashwood is shown in the left part of the figure. It is assumed that every person has a certain amount of physical, mental and emotional resources available. These resources form a person's energy pool. How much energy is available to everyone varies from person to person and can also be subject to fluctuations within the person (e.g. due to stress or sleep disorders). The idea that we have limited resources is also found with other authors. This energy of a person available will be used needs to satisfy.

There are a large number of models that describe human needs (e.g. Maslow's hierarchy of needs , Alderfer's ERG theory ). It is mostly assumed that everyone has the same needs. There is disagreement between the theories as to what needs these are. Pritchard and Ashwood also assume that everyone has the same needs. However, these are different in each person. In addition to the basic need for sufficient food, needs include, for example, the need for security, the need for recognition and the need to do a good job. When our needs are satisfied it leads to satisfaction, when our needs are not satisfied it leads to dissatisfaction. The more we assume that a certain action will satisfy our needs, the higher our motivation will be to perform that action. Needs act like magnets, so to speak, that direct our actions towards certain tasks. Motivation is seen as a process that distributes the available resources to tasks and activities in order to maximize the expected satisfaction of needs.

It is therefore an expectation theory (see also: Vroom , 1964; Heckhausen , 1991; Latham & Pinder, 2005). Motivation is geared towards the future. The expected satisfaction of needs influences action.

The motivational process

This process of resource allocation can be broken down into five components. These are shown on the right side of the figure. There are connections between the individual components.

The five components of motivation

Actions → results → evaluation → consequences → satisfaction of needs

Action is to invest energy in a certain act or task.

This expenditure of energy leads to certain results .

These results are evaluated in terms of their value (is the result good?).

Based on the evaluation of the action results, positive or negative consequences (rewards or punishments) arise .

Certain consequences lead to the satisfaction of needs . The more we think an episode will satisfy our needs, the more attractive the episode.

These five components are interrelated. According to the model, high motivation can only arise if a person has enough resources available, is convinced that these resources can be used for actions that lead to results that are assessed positively and thus trigger consequences that satisfy their needs.

Relationships between the components

The relationships between the components can be understood as contingencies . It's about the strength and direction of the relationship between any two components. The higher a contingency, the stronger and clearer the connection between the respective components. How strong a contingency actually is depends on several influencing factors. Precisely these influencing factors form starting points for strengthening the contingencies.

Action result contingency

The relationship between action and outcome denotes the degree of control a person has over the outcome that they produce. It's about the perceived relationship between the energy expended and the quality of the result. With a low action-outcome contingency, control over the generated results is low. The result hardly changes, no matter how much energy is used. This condition has a demotivating effect, as you yourself have no control over the results of your work. Motivated action is only possible if there is a high level of contingency. The level of contingency is determined by various influencing factors. These are the skills of a person, the materials available to him, the authority to perform certain tasks and existing work strategies. If an employee does not have the skills necessary to perform a particular task, their efforts will not produce the desired results. Likewise, if the necessary materials or tools are not at hand, he is not authorized to carry out certain work steps or he is using poor work strategies. These four factors can be used to strengthen the action result contingency and thus increase motivation.

Result evaluation contingency

This is about the perceived relationship between the amount of results produced and the evaluation of these results (e.g. by managers, customers, colleagues, etc.). How strong this contingency is depends on the respective evaluation system. Influencing factors here are knowledge of the desired results, consistency of the evaluation with the ideas of the organization, agreement between different assessors and an effective feedback system. If it is not clear which tasks are important, people may be spending their resources on the wrong activities. If an employee receives different reviews of the same job from two managers, they have no way of knowing whether they actually did a good job. It is therefore important to have fixed, measurable criteria against which performance can be assessed. Here, too, the influencing factors form starting points for increasing contingency and thus influencing motivation.

Evaluation consequences of contingency

The evaluation consequences Contingency represents the perceived relationship between the positivity of an evaluation and the amount of expected consequences. Consequences can be, for example: salary increases, increased career opportunities, recognition and praise (including criticism and public accusations as examples of negative consequences). The strength of this contingency is influenced by the number of episodes and the consistency of the episodes over time and across different people. If the same consequences arise in different evaluations (e.g. it has no effect if you are friendly or unfriendly to the customer, the customer buys anyway), the evaluation consequences contingency is low. The low contingency leads to low motivation as it doesn't seem to make any difference what results are achieved.

Follow-Need Satisfaction Contingency

This context describes the relationship between the consequences and the expected satisfaction of needs. Different needs are important to each person. These can be satisfied by various consequences. If it is expected that a certain sequence can satisfy one or more needs, the contingency is high and so is the motivation. The consequence-need satisfaction contingency is influenced by the strength of the current need, the number of needs that are satisfied by a consequence, the fairness of rewards and expectations, and comparisons with others.

For high motivation, the contingencies between all components must be high. However, if the chain of motivation is interrupted at one or more points (low contingency between two components), motivation remains low.

Application of theory

This motivation theory is already being put into practice in the work context. For example, Pritchard developed a questionnaire that can be used to inquire about the motivation situation in a company, the Motivation Assessment System (MAS). With this questionnaire, the individual contingencies and their respective influencing factors are queried. In this way, it can be determined which points should be intervened in order to increase the motivation of the employees and thus to increase performance and productivity.

In addition, the motivation theory of Pritchard and Ashwood, together with the theory of Naylor, Pritchard and Ilgen (1980) on which it is based, forms the basis for the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System ( ProMES ) or Participatory Productivity Management ( PPM ), as it is in German is called. ProMES is an intervention that aims to increase work performance through regular feedback.

See also

literature

  • 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 and Action . 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 , No. 74 (1989), pp. 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 , No. 79 (1994), pp. 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 , No. 56 (2005), pp. 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 Diaz Granados, Melissa J. Guzman: The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System. A meta-analysis . In: Journal of Applied Psychology , No. 93 (2008), pp. 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 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Pritchard & Ashwood: Managing Motivation: A Manager's Guide to Diagnosing and Improving Motivation . 2008.
  2. ^ A b Pritchard et al .: The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: A Meta-Analysis . 2008, p. 540.
  3. ^ Pritchard & Ashwood: Managing Motivation: A Manager's Guide to Diagnosing and Improving Motivation . 2008, p. 14.
  4. ↑ Kanfer & Ackerman: Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative / aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition [monograph] . 1989, p. 659.
  5. ↑ Kanfer et al .: Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective . 1994, p. 826.
  6. ^ Pritchard & Ashwood: Managing Motivation: A Manager's Guide to Diagnosing and Improving Motivation . 2008, p. 24.
  7. ↑ Harrell: The Relationship between Leader Behavior, Follower Motivation, and Performance . 2008, p. 1; 9-10.
  8. ^ Schmerling: Supporting the Pritchard-Ashwood Theory of Motivation and the Motivation Assessment System . in press.