3) Critically discuss how knowledge of process theories of motivation should influence managing the performance of diverse teams within global organisations.

Introduction
Employee performance has commonly been shown as the function of ability, motivation and situational circumstances, with this one equation it can now be seen that although having talent within an organisation is important, without motivation employee performance can never be optimised. Motivation is considered the be the driving force behind the behaviours we carry out to achieve a goal, finding and creating the right motivational triggers for an employee can prove troublesome, but it is of the upmost importance if a business wants to become successful (Burford et al 1995; Nhat et al 2013). Theories surrounding the mechanism as to how motivation is precipitated within an individual or group are known as process theories of motivation (Ashleigh and Mansi, 2012). Process theories have been largely influential for organisations who are considering how they can optimise motivation; however with the growth and development of multinational organisations can they still be effectively applied? Hofstede’s (1980) work surrounding the pertinence of American motivational theories in different cultural settings identified several key cultural dimensions which should be taken into account. Of this the Individualism Dimension (IDV) was highlighted as having a prominent effect on how motivational theories could be applied. IDV is characterised by the way in which someone perceives their social alignment, with individualism showing a focus on socially insulated views that rely and focus on autonomy. Converse to individualism is collectivism which is focused more in a “we” orientation, meaning thoughts and actions are largely govern by group view and with people being highly reliant on others within their social network (full IDV summary in appendix A). Thus this essay will focus on process theories of motivation, examining how they can be applied to cultural diverse organisational teams whilst also discussing the effect IDV will have on practically implementing them.
Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory stipulates that to create high levels of motivation the expected level of performance must be within the employees perceived capability (expectancy)and that if the performance is carried out they have a high chance of receiving the expected reward (instrumentality). Furthermore the possible reward must carry a high level of desirability to whoever is going to undertake a set task or goal (valence). Expectancy theory can be shown as (Locke, 1968):
Motivational Force = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence

Expectancy
To precipitate high expectancy within organisational teams, employees must believe that they have the required ability to complete a set goal (self-efficacy) but also that working in a team will not detract from the probability of overall individual success(control) (Scholl, 2002). A difference in the way success or failure is viewed in collectivist cultures in comparison to individualistic are markedly different. Collectivist cultures tend to attribute success to help received from others and individualist cultures considering their own ability to be the most important factor (Triandis and Galfand, 2012). When considering an approach a business can choose to increase perceived control and therefore expectancy, it has been shown that cultural orientation changes the way in which an employee believes they can influence an organisation. For example Asian teams of employees are more receptive to a holistic approach focusing on the importance of group cooperation whereas Western Individualist teams show an increase in expectancy when focusing on the importance of individual performance and success to attain the desired team goal (Spector et al 2004). This is because group cooperation resonates more within a collectivist culture, whereas Individualist cultures would be more convinced by the knowledge that their individual efforts will lead them and their team to success. This idea is backed up by studies showing that Individualists perform better working alone than in a group which is in complete contrast to Collective groups. This can further indicate that increasing expectancy for Individualistic cultures can be done by focusing on what is required out of each individual (Earley 1989). However the validity of Expectancy theory when applying it to collective cultures comes under question. Collectivist cultures show a higher level of pessimism towards their own predicted performance, this increased pessimism has been linked further to lower levels of self-efficacy which has been found in Chinese and Japanese individuals (Elliot and Dembo, 1997). However contrary to beliefs of expectancy, it was shown that despite a more negative attitude towards their predicted performance they showed a better performance than their Western peers. This occurrence was found by Susho et a (2005) who found low self-efficacy does not hold the same negative effects as found in Western counterparts. These findings are in clear contrast with the expectancy principle which has demonstrated high self-efficacy has a positive correlation to increased task performance. These findings would suggest that when a company is assessing and attempting to increase expectancy through increasing overall team self-efficacy, it may only prove to be effective for teams from an Individualistic cultural background.

Reward Valence
Valence of a reward which has occurred as a result of high performance is one of the most definitive factors that can affect motivation levels among employees. The reason for its importance is because if employees of an organisation do not value the rewards associated with goal success or high performance there will be diminished job satisfaction and no desire to increase effort. When considering rewards, extrinsic reward such as increased pay, commission or career promotions can hold just as much value as other less tangible rewards such as recognition, enhanced respect and relations with employees (Thomas, 2009). Therefore when increasing Valence within teams all areas of rewards should be taken into account to make sure employees hold high value to any reward it is possible to obtain. Cultural variance between the valence of different types of rewards is high, and for employers to fully optimise performance and motivation then these variances must be taken into account. One key studied variance in reward valence between cultures is that extrinsic rewards in general hold higher value in culturally individualistic teams. It has also been shown by Pearson and Hui (2001) that Malaysian employees from a more collectivist culture held a higher reward valence towards jobs which allowed for increased group recognition and relations. These results harmonise with the typical orientation of individualistic and collective cultures; however it was still shown that salary had the highest valence across both cultures. When considering the managerial consequences of cultural diversity on reward valence offering a range of extrinsic rewards which are accessible will motivate teams with an individualistic orientation. However for collectivist employees applying a typically Western set of rewards will not precipitate the same level of motivational augmentation. Instead studies would suggest that optimising reward valence and therefore motivation must be done by focusing not only on extrinsic rewards but also facilitating more group focused benefits such as recognition within a team for good work and increasing interpersonal relationships. High reward valence however has been shown, in some cases to have a negative effect on motivation, which brings the concept that increasing the value of a desired reward increases motivation into question. It has been previously demonstrated that when an American company increased its wages for its workers in Mexico there was a drop in desire to work for longer hours as they could now make the same amount of money in less time (Adler, 1997). This demonstrated that although money had high valence for the workers increasing salary further did not in enhance motivation as there was a larger desire to spend more time out of work with the same income.

Instrumentality
Preventing organisational demotivation due to low instrumentality is an area that must be addressed. When employees perceive there is a low likelihood of a performance resulting in a reward then there will be a low motivation to perform well. However instilling high instrumentality can be difficult due to varying levels of organisational trust throughout teams as if a team does not trust in what an employer has promised a reward system becomes null (Scholl, 2002). It could be assumed from Hofstede’s (1980) work that teams from collectivist countries would have higher organisational trust , however the converse has been demonstrated in several different cases (Yamagishi et al 1998; Costiigan et al 2006). Nevertheless it has been shown that collective cultures are encouraged to place more trust in an in-group, whereas individualist cultures are not as affected by the consideration of whether someone is a part of the in-group or out-group (Huff and Kelley, 2003). Therefore it is important that management is considered to be within their subordinates in-group throughout a collectivist organisation, the implications for not being could lead to management being ostracised and therefore reduce motivational instrumentality due to distrust. Within an individualistically orientated team however, because there is less of a focus on the in-group vs out-group dynamic, trust will be more varied from employee to employee meaning instrumentality may have to be managed on a more case by case basis. Despite employees from a collectivist culture showing lower levels of trust propensity it has been shown that they express discontent at third of the level in comparison to their individualist equivalent (Starnes et al 2010). This shows that although there may be higher organisational distrust within a collectivist teams there would be less likely to display it, making a measurable augmentation of trust and therefore instrumentality problematic.

Goal-Setting Theory (GST)
With several areas of expectancy theory becoming difficult to successfully translate into both individualistic and collectivist teams other theories such as GST may offer extra motivational guidance. GST focuses on the necessity for a team to have a clear goal to become motivated. This theory proposes that setting a clearly defined goal for a team helps them focus and remain concentrated on getting the job done. This focus reduces the time spent on distractions which improves motivation towards one specific goal, however for the goals to be motivational for an employee they must have five key characteristics (Locke, 1968): * They must be well clarified and specific in nature. * They must be considered challenging for the person they are set for. * They must be committed to so full effort is made. * Task complexity must be taken into account with larger and seemingly harder goals being broken down into small tasks to reduce perceived difficulty. * They must supply employees with regular feedback.

Furthermore an external source such as a manager setting difficult goals will precipitate higher performance than in comparison to self-set goals. So therefore a difficult goal which meets the above 5 criteria and set by an external source should provide the highest level of motivation and therefore performance (Locke and Latham, 2002).
Implementing goal setting theory across IDV diverse teams has shown two areas which vary between collective and individualist cultures one is the way in which a goal is set and the other is associates with providing employee feedback. Organisations must apply goals which cause acceptance and high commitment is from employees, however a focus on whom the goal is set for will provide a more effective motivational tool depending on cultural orientation (Latham and Locke, 1979). Individualistic cultures have been shown to perform better under personalised goals which require high levels independent regulation and result in individual reward upon goal realisation (Erez and Kanfer, 1983). It should be noted however that although goals can be personalised to individual employees, these goals can still be tied in with a higher team or organisational target providing a level of collective power but also providing a feeling of self-dependence simultaneously. Setting goals for each employee within a collective team however may prove largely ineffective and possibly counterproductive to overall motivation and performance. This is due to collectivist teams showing a larger focus on overall team targets, also it is common practice for weaker team members to rely on stronger members to help them with workload without causing any resentment (Hofstead, 1980). Therefore when considering goal setting in a collectivist team, it would be more effective to set an overall team goal when trying to increase motivation as there would a stronger commitment and affiliation to hitting the goal as a team. However Clarke and Baker (2011) found that without separate individual targets there is an opportunity for individuals in a team to socially loaf and rely on others, and within collective cultures this is more prevalent and widely accepted. Therefore monitoring individual performance in a less direct way would still be beneficial if only group goals are set within a collectivist team as it would help identify and manage social loafers. Another key aspect to goal setting is feedback, the way in which it can be given and therefore received can be adjusted to optimise its effectiveness within differing cultures. It has been shown that within individualist culture performance appraisals has been a successful tool to help augment performance and motivation, these are usually given in a direct way from a manager to an employee (Suciu et al 2013). Contrary to an individualistic culture, when providing feedback towards an employee from a collectivist background direct feedback can cause problems whether it is criticism or praise. This is because criticism could cause an employee to become humiliated and possibly perceive a loss of respect from their colleagues leading to decreased organisational allegiance, similarly individual praise can lead to envy from other employees and create antipathy between workers (Aycan, 2005). Therefore providing feedback in a less direct way such as directed at a team as a whole not an individual could avoid there aforementioned problems a collectivist feedback can cause. However providing feedback in this manner is that individual problems which affect overall team performance might not be dealt with, therefore when dealing with a collectivist team finding the right balance of targeted feedback should be carefully considered.

Conclusion
Although process theories offer a good explanation towards the mechanism by which motivation occurs, it is clear no one theory could be solely applied to fully optimise employee performance. Furthermore cultural considerations need to be made when attempting to apply process theories as the differences between what motivates and demotivates teams can be vastly different depending on their cultural orientation. When applying both Expectancy and Goal-Setting Theory to teams from a collectivist culture it has been shown that a focus should shift away from individuals and onto a the team as a whole with objectives and expectations being set in a more collective way. GST shows a distinct difference towards the way it should be implemented with group goals being set for collective teams and separate goals for each employee for individualist cultures. Yet there are some areas in which western formulated process theories do not translate to a collectivist teams such as them showing typically lowered expectancy but this not affecting motivation and performance in the same manor in comparison to their individualist counterparts. Therefore although cultural differences can be successfully taken into account when attempting to implement a motivation strategy using process theories, trying to apply all aspects of a theory may not prove useful and could even prove counterproductive. Therefore assessments of a team’s cultural orientations should be made before considering which motivational strategy to take and how it could be successfully implemented. These findings would indicate it could be time for a more integrated process theory which takes into account cultural dimensions and provides not one path of motivation but many depending on a team’s cultural orientation.
References
Adler, N. J. (1997) International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour. 3rd Edition. Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western College.
Ashleigh, M. and Mansi, A. (2012) The Psychology of People in Organisations. Harlow, Pearson Education Ltd
Aycan, Z. (2005) The interplay between cultural and institutional/structural contingencies in human resource management practices, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (7), 1083-1119.
Buford J. A, Beckian A. G & Lindner J. R. (1995) Management in eExtension. 3rd ed, Columbus Ohio, Ohio State University Extension.
Costigan, R. D., Insinga, R. C., Berman, J. J., Ilter. S.S., Kranas, G., Kureshow, V. A. (2006) The effect of employee trust of the supervisor on enterprising behaviour: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21 (2), 273-291.
Clarke, J. & Baker, T. (2011) “It’s Not Fair!” Cultural Attitudes to Social Loafing in Ethnically Diverse Groups. Intercultural Communication Studies. 20 (1), 124-140.
Erez, M. and Kanfre, F. H. (1983) The Roal of Goal Acceptance in Goal-Setting and Task performance. Academy of management Journal, 8 (3), 454-563.
Earley, C. P. (1989) Social Loafing and Collectivism: A comparison of the united States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly. 34 (4), 565-581.
Elliot, M., and Dembo, M. (1997) Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (3), 433-440.
Hofsted, G. (1980) Motivation, Leadership and Organizations: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? IN: Pugh, S. P. (eds) Organization Theory Selected Classic Readings.5th Ed, London: Penguin Books, 42-63.
Huff, L. and Kelley, L. (2003) Levels of Organisational trust in Individualist versus Collectivist Societies: A seven-Nation Study. Organisation Science. 14 (1). 81-90.
Latham G.P, Locke E. A and Fassina N.E (2002), the High Performance Cycle: Standing the Test of Time IN: Sonnentagg, S. (eds) Psychological Management of Individual Performance. Chichester. John Wiley & Sons, LTD. 202-223.
Locke E. A. (1968) Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 2(3), 157-89.
Latham, G. P. and Locke, E. A. (1979) Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works, Organisational Dynamics, 8 (2), 68-80.
Nhat, N. C. Dung, N. V. Tinh, H. H. (2013) Effects of Motivation of Employees’ Performance at Petrovietnam Nghe An Construction Joinst Stock Corporation, American Journal of Business and Management, 2 (2), 160-164.
Pearson, C. A. L. and Hui, L. T. Y. (2001) A Cross-Cultural Test of Vrooms Expectancy Motivation Framework: An Australian and a Malaysian Company in the Beauty Industry. International Journal of Organisational Theory & Behaviour. 4 (3&4), 307-327.

Thomas, K. (2009) Ivery Business Jourrnal: The four intrinsic rewards that drive employee engagement. http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-workplace/the-four-intrinsic-rewards-that-drive-employee-engagement#.Unp5GvmpUgU. [Accessed: 06/11/2013]

Trandis, H. C. and Galfand, M. J. (eds). (2012) A Theory of Individualism and Collectivism. London. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Scholl, R.W (2002) The University of Rhode Island – Motivation: Expectancy Theory. http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/webnotes/Motivation_Expectancy.htm. [Accessed: 06/09/2013].
Spector, P. E., Sanchez, J. I., Sui, O. L., Salgado, J. and Ma, J. (2004) Eastern versus Western Control Beliefs at Work: An Investigation of Secondary Control. Socioinstrumental Control, and Work Locus of Control in China and the US. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53 (1), 38-60.
Starnes, B. J., Truhon, S. A. and McCarthy, V. (2010) Organisational Trust: Employee-Employer Relationships, Milwaukee: American Society for Quality. Available from: http://rube.asq.org/hdl/2010/06/a-primer-on-organizational-trust.pdf [Accessed : 13/11/2013]
Suciu, L. E., Mortan, M. and Lazar, L. (2013) Vrooms Expectancy Theory. An Empirical Study: Civil Servants’ Performance Appraisal Influencing Expectancy. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Science, 39, 180-200.
Yamagishi, T. Jinm N. and Miller A. S. (1998) In Group Bias and Culture of Collectivism, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1 (3), 315-328.
Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. and Cortina K. S. (2005) Motives, goals, and adaptive patterns of performance in Asian American and Anglo American students. Learning and Individual Differences, 15 (2), 141-158

Appendix Appendix A: The above table, extracted from Hofstede, (1980), highlights some further differences between Individualist and collectivist cultures.