# Leadership and Motivation

Business I · Business Administration · https://tryals.app/learn/business-i/leadership-and-motivation

## Moving People Without Pushing

**Leadership** is influence toward goals, distinct from management because managers hold authority while leaders hold followers. A century of research evolved through three lenses:

| Lens | Claim | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| **Traits** | Leaders are born | Weak correlations, no recipe |
| **Behavior** | Leaders are made | Useful map of task and people axes |
| **Contingency** | It depends | Match style to readiness |

Hersey-Blanchard's **situational leadership** matches style to follower readiness: **directing** the new, **coaching** learners, **supporting** the hesitant, and **delegating** to the proven.

**Motivation theories** split into **content** theories (what moves people, like Maslow and McClelland) and **process** theories (how moving works). Herzberg's **two factors** divides hygiene (pay, conditions) from **motivators** (achievement, recognition). Fixing hygiene stops the bleeding; only motivators make the engine run.

## Expectancy Theory: Motivation as a Product

Vroom's expectancy theory reduces the will to act to three beliefs multiplied together: $Motivation = E \times I \times V$.

| Factor | The belief | Killed by | Repaired by |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Expectancy** | Effort $\to$ performance | Impossible targets | Training, resources |
| **Instrumentality** | Performance $\to$ reward | Broken promises | Transparent rules |
| **Valence** | The reward matters | Generic rewards | Customizing rewards |

**The multiplication is the theory.** A sum would forgive a zero, but the product does not. If **expectancy**, **instrumentality**, or **valence** hits zero, total motivation drops to zero.

> **Pitfall:** Averaging the factors. A lavish bonus attached to an impossible target motivates no one.

## Practice questions

8 of this lesson's 13 practice questions, with answers. The full set is in the app.

### 1. In expectancy theory, motivation is additive: a strong score on any one of expectancy, instrumentality or valence can carry a weak score on another.

**Answer:** False

**Why:** False. The terms **multiply**, so a zero anywhere zeroes the whole. An employee certain they can do the task, and certain it earns the bonus, is still unmotivated if the bonus is worthless to them. That is the model's practical value: it tells you *which* of the three to fix.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/business-i/leadership-and-motivation/in-expectancy-theory-motivation-is-additive-a-strong-score-on-any

### 2. Order Maslow’s hierarchy from its base upward.

**Answer:**

1. Physiological: food, rest, a livable wage
2. Safety: stability, security, health
3. Social: belonging and connection
4. Esteem: recognition and respect
5. Self-actualization: becoming what one can be

**Why:** The famous pyramid, read managerially: offering esteem rewards to someone worried about rent misreads which floor they’re on.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/business-i/leadership-and-motivation/order-maslows-hierarchy-from-its-base-upward

### 3. Herzberg: hygiene factor or motivator? Sort each item.

**Answer:**

- Hygiene factor: Competitive salary, Safe, comfortable offices, Sensible company policies
- Motivator: Recognition for a project well done, Growth into bigger responsibilities, The work itself being meaningful

**Why:** Hygiene’s ceiling is "not dissatisfied": fix the pay and the office and you reach zero, not enthusiasm. Only achievement, recognition, growth, and the work itself push above zero.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/business-i/leadership-and-motivation/herzberg-hygiene-factor-or-motivator-sort-each-item

### 4. Match each theorist to their contribution.

**Answer:**

- Maslow → The needs hierarchy, physiological to self-actualization
- Herzberg → Hygiene factors versus motivators
- Vroom → Motivation as expectancy × instrumentality × valence
- Adams → Equity: comparing outcome/input ratios to referents

**Why:** Two content theories (what people need) and two process theories (how the needing turns into effort), the syllabus quartet.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/business-i/leadership-and-motivation/match-each-theorist-to-their-contribution

### 5. A firm doubles bonuses, yet motivation stays flat. Exit interviews reveal nobody believes the performance ratings that trigger the bonus are fair. In Vroom’s terms, the zero sits in…

A. Valence, nobody wants money
B. Expectancy, the work is impossible
C. None; the theory predicts doubling bonuses always works
D. Instrumentality is broken

**Answer:** D. Instrumentality is broken

**Why:** The money is desired (V high) and the work is doable (E fine), but if ratings feel rigged, performance doesn’t *cause* reward, and I ≈ 0 zeroes the product. Doubling a reward nobody expects to receive doubles nothing; fixing the rating system would.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/business-i/leadership-and-motivation/a-firm-doubles-bonuses-yet-motivation-stays-flat-exit-interviews

### 6. A firm doubles its bonuses and motivation does not move, because nobody believes the ratings are fair. Which motivation theory predicts exactly this?

A. Maslow's hierarchy, since higher needs are unmet regardless of pay
B. Herzberg's two-factor theory, since pay is a hygiene factor and cannot motivate
C. Equity theory, since employees compare their rewards with colleagues'
D. Expectancy theory, which multiplies its three terms

**Answer:** D. Expectancy theory, which multiplies its three terms

**Why:** Vroom's model multiplies rather than adds, so a near-zero instrumentality wipes out however large the reward is, doubling a bonus nobody expects to receive changes nothing. Herzberg is close but would predict pay never motivates, where the evidence here is that the linkage failed.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/business-i/leadership-and-motivation/a-firm-doubles-its-bonuses-and-motivation-does-not-move-because

### 7. Equity theory: which reactions does Adams predict from an employee who discovers a peer earns 30% more for identical work?

A. Mentally re-evaluating the peer’s inputs ("he does work longer hours")
B. Reducing effort to rebalance the outcome/input ratio
C. Indifference, comparisons don’t affect motivation
D. Negotiating for higher pay

**Answer:** A. Mentally re-evaluating the peer’s inputs ("he does work longer hours"); B. Reducing effort to rebalance the outcome/input ratio; D. Negotiating for higher pay

**Why:** Equity restoration runs through behavior (effort down, pay demands up), cognition (reframe the comparison), or exit. The one thing the theory rules out is indifference, fairness comparisons are the water motivation swims in.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/business-i/leadership-and-motivation/equity-theory-which-reactions-does-adams-predict-from-an-employee

### 8. Leadership theory moved from traits to behaviours to contingency. Why did each position give way to the next?

A. Contingency theory abandoned the idea that leadership matters at all
B. Each theory was refuted by better measurement of the same variables
C. Each failed to explain a variation the next one made a variable
D. The shifts reflect changing fashions rather than accumulating evidence

**Answer:** C. Each failed to explain a variation the next one made a variable

**Why:** Each step absorbed the anomaly that sank the last. Situational leadership goes further still, making the follower’s readiness the contingency that selects the style.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/business-i/leadership-and-motivation/leadership-theory-moved-from-traits-to-behaviours-to-contingency-why