Content and Process Theories of Motivation

Concepts Definition             The agreeable and action theories of action accommodate animal ability managers with the basal compassionate of claimed needs deficiencies, and how these needs can be adapted into motivated behavior. Agreeable theories of action (also referred to as needs theories) focus on the needs that actuate behavior. The agreeable access focuses on the acceptance that individuals are motivated by the admiration to amuse their close needs. Needs reflect either physiological or cerebral deficiencies. They attack to explain those specific issues, which absolutely actuate the alone at work. These affective issues are anxious with anecdotic people’s needs and their about strengths, and the goals they accompany in adjustment to amuse these needs. Process theories of action (also referred to as cerebral theories) focus on how behavior change occurs, or how a actuality comes to act in a altered way. The theories centermost its absorption on the cerebral processes basal an individual’s akin of motivation. There is beneath accent on the specific factors (or content) that causes behavior. In sum, agreeable theories attack to actuate the specific needs that actuate individuals, while the action theories seek to analyze, how alone behavior is initiated, abiding and halted. Strength of Agreeable Theories             Aswathappa (2005) claims that agreeable theories are actual advantageous if an alignment wants to accept what individuals’ accurate needs are, and appropriately accommodate opportunities (rewards) to amuse those needs so that individuals are motivated to join, appointment adamantine for, and abide with the organization. Agreeable theories are added advantageous to actualize a abundant account of appointment action because they attention action in added accepted terms. Additional acumen into factors that access employees' job achievement is additionally provided by the agreeable theories of motivation. Weaknesses of Agreeable Theories A above weakness in agreeable theories of action is their ability bias. It can be argued that Maslow's approach is Western-oriented, as self-actualization is an individualized, Western concept, not necessarily accustomed in alternative cultures. While the agreeable theories are anxious with the factors that actuate the artisan (i.e., claimed factors, such as alone needs, or authoritative factors, such as the appointment assignment and rewards), they do not explain how individuals accept one behavior from the several accessible to them. Also apprehend about "Contemporary approach of management" Strength of Action Theories             Compared to alternative theories of motivation, the primary advantage of action theories is that they accommodate a added abundant appearance of the mechanisms basal motivation. To use an analogy, Jex (2002) declared that action theories accept accustomed animal ability managers to put appointment action beneath a microscope. Rather than artlessly alive that an agent will appointment adamantine to accomplish admire need, action theories advice managers to accept the choices and decisions that advisers accomplish during this process. Thus, action theories accept best absolutely added managers’ compassionate of appointment motivation. Action theories are additionally added acutely accordant with the appearance that bodies can choose, and act appropriately (Maclagan, 1998). Additionally read Motivational Access to Appointment Design Weaknesses of Action Theories             Despite the amount of compassionate the processes basal appointment motivation, one ability ask whether some cerebral action theories accept bargain action to such micro akin that it is counterproductive. Such aerial analyses accept the feel of actuality scientifically accurate and objective, but it may be unrealistic to anticipate that managers can accept article as circuitous as animal action in detail. This additionally increases the crisis that such theories will be perceived as aloof to animal assets managers in organizations. WORK CITED Aswathappa, K. (2005). Animal Ability and Personnel Management. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Limited. Jex, S. (2002). Authoritative Psychology. New York: Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc. Maclagan, P. (1998). Management and Morality. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.

Order a unique copy of this paper

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
Top Academic Writers Ready to Help
with Your Research Proposal
Order now and a get a 25% discount with the discount code: COURSEGUYOrder Now!
+ +