Cognitive Process Theories of Motivation Few of us would deny that our conscious thoughts play a role in how we behave. A second group of motivation theories, called cognitive process theories, recognizes this and argues that motivation is based on a person’s thoughts and beliefs (or cognitions). These theories are sometimes referred to as process theo- ries because they attempt to explain the sequence of thoughts and decisions that energize, direct, and control behavior. Cognitive motivation theories have direct relevance to HRD. Most HRD programs include attempts to change employee behavior by influencing their thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes. Learning, which lies at the heart of HRD, is often seen as a cognitive process (learning is discussed in Chapter 3). We can do a better job of designing and implementing HRD programs if we understand how employees’ thoughts and beliefs affect their behavior. In the following sec- tion, we briefly review four cognitive theories of motivation: expectancy theory, goal-setting theory, social learning theory, and equity theory. Each theory has relevance for the practice of HRD. Expectancy Theory. Expectancy theory, first proposed by Victor Vroom, assumes that motivation is a conscious choice process.57 According to this theory, people choose to put their effort into activities they believe they can perform that will produce desired outcomes. Expectancy theory argues that decisions about which activities to engage in are based on the combination of three sets of beliefs: expec- tancy, instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy beliefs reflect an individual’s judgment of whether applying (or increasing) effort to a task will result in its successful accomplishment. Stated another way, people with high expectancy believe that increased effort will lead to better performance, but people with low expectancy do not believe that their efforts, no matter how great, will affect their performance. All things being equal, people should engage in tasks for which they have high expectancy beliefs. The second belief, instrumentality, is a judgment about the connection the individual perceives (if any) between task performance and possible outcomes. Making an instrumentality judgment entails asking the question, “If I perform this task successfully, is it likely to get me something I want (or something I don’t want)?” Instrumentality ranges from strongly positive (the individual is cer- tain that performing a task will lead to a particular outcome), through zero (the individual is certain there is no relationship between performing the task and the occurrence of a particular outcome), to strongly negative (the individual is cer- tain that performing a certain task will prevent a particular outcome from occurring). The third belief important to expectancy theory is valence. Valence refers to the value the person places on a particular outcome. Valence judgments range from strongl.

1. Cognitive Process Theories of Motivation
Few of us would deny that our conscious thoughts play a role in
how we
behave. A second group of motivation theories, called cognitive
process theories,
recognizes this and argues that motivation is based on a
person’s thoughts and
beliefs (or cognitions). These theories are sometimes referred to
as process theo-
ries because they attempt to explain the sequence of thoughts
and decisions that
energize, direct, and control behavior.
Cognitive motivation theories have direct relevance to HRD.
Most HRD
programs include attempts to change employee behavior by
influencing their
thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes. Learning, which lies at the heart
of HRD, is
often seen as a cognitive process (learning is discussed in
Chapter 3). We can
do a better job of designing and implementing HRD programs if
we understand

2. how employees’ thoughts and beliefs affect their behavior. In
the following sec-
tion, we briefly review four cognitive theories of motivation:
expectancy theory,
goal-setting theory, social learning theory, and equity theory.
Each theory has
relevance for the practice of HRD.
Expectancy Theory. Expectancy theory, first proposed by
Victor Vroom, assumes
that motivation is a conscious choice process.57 According to
this theory, people
choose to put their effort into activities they believe they can
perform that will
produce desired outcomes. Expectancy theory argues that
decisions about which
activities to engage in are based on the combination of three
sets of beliefs: expec-
tancy, instrumentality, and valence.
Expectancy beliefs reflect an individual’s judgment of whether
applying (or
increasing) effort to a task will result in its successful
accomplishment. Stated
another way, people with high expectancy believe that increased
effort will lead

3. to better performance, but people with low expectancy do not
believe that their
efforts, no matter how great, will affect their performance. All
things being equal,
people should engage in tasks for which they have high
expectancy beliefs.
The second belief, instrumentality, is a judgment about the
connection the
individual perceives (if any) between task performance and
possible outcomes.
Making an instrumentality judgment entails asking the question,
“If I perform
this task successfully, is it likely to get me something I want (or
something I
don’t want)?” Instrumentality ranges from strongly positive (the
individual is cer-
tain that performing a task will lead to a particular outcome),
through zero (the
individual is certain there is no relationship between performing
the task and the
occurrence of a particular outcome), to strongly negative (the
individual is cer-
tain that performing a certain task will prevent a particular
outcome from

4. occurring).
The third belief important to expectancy theory is valence.
Valence refers to the
value the person places on a particular outcome. Valence
judgments range from
strongly positive (for highly valued outcomes), through zero
(for outcomes the per-
son doesn’t care about), to strongly negative (for outcomes the
person finds aversive).
Expectancy theory posits that employees will make these three
sets of judg-
ments when deciding which behaviors and tasks to engage in.
Specifically, the
theory predicts that employees will choose to put effort into
behaviors they
• believe they can perform successfully (high expectancy) and :
• believe are connected (high instrumentality) to outcomes they
desire (high
valence) or
• believe will prevent (negative instrumentality) outcomes they
want to avoid
(negative valence).

5. Figure 2-3 graphically depicts this process. For example,
suppose the man-
ager of a bus company tries to motivate drivers to drive more
safely by offering
safe drivers additional vacation days. Whether this will
motivate a driver to drive
more safely depends on whether
1. the driver thinks he or she can improve his or her safety
record to the level
desired by the manager (expectancy),
2. the driver believes the manager will give more vacation days
if his or her
safety record is improved to the desired level (instrumentality),
and
3. the driver values having more vacation days (valence).
Do people behave in the way expectancy theory predicts?
Empirical studies
testing the theory have supported its predictions.58 However,
methodological
problems in some of these studies may have led to
underestimates of the theory’s
predictive ability.59 Expectancy theory may seem complex, and
more research is

6. needed to understand whether the theory accurately represents
the behavioral
choices we make.60 Expectancy theory is, however, clearly
relevant to HRD. It
offers a way to diagnose performance problems and then
suggests how these pro-
blems can be overcome. In addition, expectancy theory has
implications for the
design and effectiveness of HRD programs. For example,
according to expec-
tancy theory, employees will not be motivated to attend HRD
programs and
try to learn from them unless they believe :
1. their efforts will result in learning the new skills or
information presented in
the program,
2. attending the program and learning new skills will increase
their job perfor-
mance, and
3. doing so will help them obtain desired outcomes or prevent
unwanted
outcomes.
Viewing employee behavior from an expectancy theory

7. perspective, super-
visors and HRD professionals can design and market programs
in ways to ensure
that employees make the appropriate judgments and, as a result,
will be motivated
to attend, learn, and apply what they have learned back on the
job. Some ways
to do this include offering incentives such as holding HRD
programs in attrac-
tive locations, offering paid time off from work to attend,
designing a program
that is interesting and enjoyable, providing proof that the
program is effective,
and making success in the program a prerequisite for promotion
and other
desirable outcomes.
Summary of Motivation
As we have seen, there are many approaches to explaining and
understanding
motivation.87 Each theory we have discussed enhances our
understanding of
employee behavior and has at least some research support (with

8. the strongest
support going to goal setting, reinforcement theory, social
learning theory, and
expectancy theory). In addition, each approach offers valuable
insight into the
design and implementation of HRD programs.
This brief discussion of different approaches to understanding
work motiva-
tion is not exhaustive and does not explain the complexity of
and interrelation-
ships among theories. Some theories, such as expectancy
theory and
reinforcement theory, make many similar predictions.88 In
addition, researchers
have attempted to integrate several theories into a larger, more
inclusive model
(for example, the Porter-Lawler model, which combines
expectancy and equity
theories). One attempt to synthesize multiple motivational
models was proposed
by John Wagner and John Hollenbeck.89 Their model can be
seen in Figure 2-6.
In this model, four employee work outcomes are of particular
interest (these are

9. the rectangles in the center of the model): employee desire to
perform, the effort
employees put forth, employee performance, and employee
satisfaction.
Expectancy theory is used as an overarching framework to
depict influences on employee moti-
vation and performance. However, the other theories described
earlier are also used
to increase our understanding of how this process unfolds.
For example, we previously described valence, instrumentality,
and expec-
tancy during our discussion of expectancy theory. However, the
various need the-
ories can assist us in understanding valences, that is, what it is
that people value or
want. Similarly, both reinforcement theory and social learning
theory can provide
guidance in understanding what employees believe will lead to
the attainment of
what they want, that is, their instrumentality beliefs. The
various forms of reinforce-
ment, as well as the vicarious learning via modeling (suggested
by social learning

10. theory), lead to such instrumentality beliefs. These combine to
produce a given
desire to perform on the part of employees. As suggested by
expectancy theory,
this then interacts with expectancy (the judgment that one’s
efforts will lead to a
successful outcome) to produce a high level of effort. Effort, in
turn, must be
accompanied by a sufficient level of ability (described later), as
well as accurate
role perceptions. Goal-setting theory is useful here in providing
guidance to
employees concerning what needs to be done, at what
performance level, and
who has responsibility for doing it. When effort, ability, and
accurate role percep-
tions are all present, then high levels of individual performance
are predicted to
occur. The final variable in this model, satisfaction, is predicted
to follow from
performance, as well as from a perception that rewards have
been given out fairly.
Equity theory provides a helpful framework for understanding
employees’ percep-

11. tions of the equity of rewards. Finally, the model portrays
return arrows back to
valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. This is meant to
portray the dynamic
nature of employee motivation and performance, that is, that
motivation and per-
formance can change over time. A highly motivated person can
lose motivation
when valence, instrumentality, or expectancy decline. On the
other hand, when
one of the aspects of this model improves or increases, then
higher levels of moti-
vation, performance, and satisfaction are predicted to occur. We
view this model
as a useful diagnostic tool to understand employee motivation,
since it effectively
synthesizes and summarizes our discussion of the various
motivational theories.