Human Motivation And Workers Productivity
[A CASE STUDY OF BETA GLASS PLC UGHELLI, DELTA STATE, NIGERIA]

5)    McGREGOR’S THEORY X AND THEORY Y
McGregor postulated his theory on employee motivation. Theory X centre on traditional view of management whereby it is assumed that employee must be forced to do their job. Mc Gregor theory X believe that the following statements are true about workers.
•    The average person naturally dislikes work and will avoid it when possible.
Most workers must be coerced, controlled, directed, or threatened with punishment to get them to work towards the achievement of organizational objective
•    The average worker need to be directed and avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition and want security.
THEORY Y
This is Mcgregor humanistic view of management whereby it is assumed that workers like to work and that under proper condition, employee will seek out responsibility in an attempt to satisfy their social, esteem and self-actualization needs.
Mc gregor describe the assumption behind theory Y in the following ways:
•    The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.
•    People will exercised self direction and self control to achieve objective to which they are committed.
•    People will commit to objective when they realized that the achievement of those goals will bring them personal reward
•    The average person will accept and seek responsibility
•    Imagination, ingenuity and creativity can help solve organizational problems, but most organization do not adequately use these characteristic in their employee.
•    Organization today do not make full use of workers intellectual potential.
Mcgregor theory on motivation can enhance productivity if employee are given challenges, self direction and self control.
GENERAL LIMITATION OF CONTENT THEORIES
i.    It seems difficult to identify needs and motive that are universal and that is important and effective for everybody independent of time and space.
ii.    Also lacking is the clarification of the mechanism by which specific needs and motive leads to specific behaviors. Work motivation theories are met to predict behaviour and job performance in view of the above, the content theories are distal, i.e. distant from action
2.6. PROCESS THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
Process theories or extrinsic theories attempt to identify the relationship among the dynamic variables which makes up motivation and the action required to influence behavior and action.
Major approaches and leading writer under this heading includes:
i.    Expectancy theory based model-Vroom, Porter and Lawler
ii.    Equity theory –Adam
iii.    Goal theory-Locke
iv.    Attribution theory-Helder and Kelley
v.    Reinforcement theory-Skinner
1] EXPECTANCY THEORY OF MOTIVATION
Expectancy theory of motivation states that people are influenced by the expected result of their action. Motivation is a function the relationship between
i.    Effort expended and perceive level of performance
ii.    The expectation that rewards [desire outcome] will be related to performance
iii.    There is also the expectation that rewards [desire outcome] are available.
The relationship that determines the strength of the (motivational link). The behavioral choices is anchored on expectation of the most favourable consequences.
A person’s behavior reflects a conscious choice between the comparative evaluations of alternative behavior. There are many approaches to expectancy theory, among which are works of Vroom, Porter, and Lawler. Both works shall be reviewed in this work.
VROOM EXPECTANCY THEORY
In Vroom work, motivation theory are based on three key variables.
•    VALENCE: This is the attractiveness of, or preference for, a particular outcome of the individual. The anticipated satisfaction from an outcome which may be different from the value of the outcome.
•    INSTRUMENTALITY: This is the valence of outcome derived, therefore, from their instrumentality. This leads to a distinction between first level outcome and the second level outcome.
The first-level outcome is performance related. The quantity of output or the comparative level of performance. Individual may wish to perform well for “its own sake” and without thought to expected consequences of their actions; this way leads to high productivity.
The second-level outcome is need-related. People receive reward for what they have achieved. Needs may include praise from Supervisor, High wages, Promotion, Friendship of co–worker. First–level and second-level outcome are measured on a range between +1.0 and – 1.0. For example, it is believed that good worker performance (a first level outcome) always result in a pay increase (a second level need).
Instrumentality will be distant at +1.0.
When the individual feel a pay increase is certain to be obtained without good performance, or impossible even with it, instrumentality will be -1.0