An Overview of Motivation

Other classic models rooted in the principles of needs-satisfaction theory include Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory and Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. Motivation-Hygiene Theory outlines the distinction between the factors that prevent dissatisfaction at work (hygiene factors) and those that genuinely motivate employees (satisfiers). Hygiene factors include having a safe working environment and the necessary equipment and resources, while satisfiers include being given relevant and challenging work, having an appropriate level of responsibility and being recognized for your achievements.[2]

Theory X and Y, meanwhile, describe two styles of management that are guided by very different sets of assumptions about human needs and motivation. ‘Theory X’ managers assume that employees are inherently averse to work and must be directed, manipulated or threatened with punishment in order to perform. ‘Theory Y’ managers, on the other hand, believe that team members are capable of motivating and directing themselves, and that they seek out responsibility rather than avoid it. [3]

While a number of developments have been made in the field of motivation study since these classic models were first published, these theories remain popular and continue to provide valuable insights into how managers can motivate their teams. Maslow’s model, for example, suggests that to motivate employees, leaders and managers should ensure team members’ individual needs are met in the workplace. This might involve:

• promoting a culture of health and wellbeing within the team
• ensuring the working environment is comfortable and safe
• providing employees with as much information and reassurance as possible during times of uncertainty
• providing opportunities for employees to build effective relationships with one another
• providing team members with regular feedback
• recognizing team members’ efforts and achievements

Herzberg’s theory suggests that leaders should take steps to both prevent employee dissatisfaction (e.g. by ensuring the working environment is safe and providing employees with all the tools and resources they need) and meet team members’ high-level satisfier needs (e.g. by matching roles and responsibilities to employees’ skills and interests, giving individuals increased responsibility when appropriate and recognizing and rewarding their achievements).

Few managers today are likely to subscribe wholly to the rather extreme, traditional approach of McGregor’s Theory X. It could, therefore, be argued that McGregor’s Theory Y most closely resembles a 21st century leader’s view of what motivates employees. However, this ‘softer’ style of motivation isn’t always appropriate in every situation. In reality, leaders and managers need to strike an appropriate balance between the two approaches.

Other 20th Century Theories

In addition to Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor, a whole raft of psychologists and social scientists were at work throughout the 20th century developing their own theories of motivation. In the 1920s and 1930s, for example, Harvard professor George Elton Mayo conducted a series of experiments at the Hawthorne Western Electric Plant in Illinois. In doing so, Mayo uncovered a phenomenon – known as ‘The Hawthorne Effect’ – whereby productivity tends to increase when employees are supervised in a supportive manner and are encouraged to build positive working relationships with their managers and with one another. [4]

Equity Theory, meanwhile, is based on the principle that employees are motivated when they feel their ‘inputs’ at work are matched by the ‘outputs’ they receive or experience. According to John Stacey Adams, the psychologist who proposed the theory in 1963, inputs include skills and experience, effort and working hours, while outputs include financial rewards and benefits, praise and recognition. The theory states that if employees feel that their inputs outweigh their outputs they are likely to become disgruntled, unproductive and unmotivated. [5]

Developed by management expert Victor Vroom in 1964, Expectancy Theory seeks to explain why individuals are motivated to choose certain behaviors over others. Vroom proposes that there are three governing variables at work here:

• Expectancy – the extent to which a behavior or action is anticipated to help the individual achieve a certain performance outcome (i.e. will doing this help me achieve my goal?).
• Instrumentality – the anticipated reward (financial or otherwise) associated with the behavior or action (i.e. if I do this, how will I be rewarded?).
• Valence – the value of the anticipated reward to the individual.

According to Vroom, individuals unconsciously use these variables to identify the ‘motivational force’ (MF) of each potential behavior or action, and then select the option with the highest MF value. Like Adams’ Equity Theory, the guiding principle is that people are motivated by the prospect of a return on their efforts. [6]

In 1968, Porter and Lawler developed Vroom’s ideas further to create the Porter and Lawler Expectancy Model. Like Vroom’s theory, Porter and Lawler’s is a process model that seeks to explain behavior choice. While ‘motivational force’ (MF) lies at the heart of Porter and Lawler’s model, it includes a number of additional factors that Porter and Lawler argue can affect MF, including effort expended on the task and the personal abilities and traits of the individual. Unlike Vroom, Porter and Lawler treat value – similar to ‘valence’ in Vroom’s model – as being individual in nature: what matters most to one person may have little or no bearing on another. [7]

Also developed in 1968, psychologist Edwin Locke's Goal-Setting Theory is based on the concept that human behavior is driven by the desire to achieve goals. The theory states that workplace goals should be challenging – but achievable – and specific. According to Locke, employees are most likely to achieve goals they set themselves, rather than those that are set for them by their manager. Feedback is also central to Locke’s theory; individuals need to know how they have performed so they can set – and meet – their goals more effectively in the future. [8]

Finally, Clayton Alderfer’s ERG Theory (1972), a development of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs model, presents motivation through a series of hierarchical levels. Unlike Maslow’s model, however, Alderfer’s theory only has three levels: Existence (E), Relatedness (R) and Growth (G). Existence needs are those required for survival and tally roughly with the first two levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Relatedness needs are those connected with our need for interaction; they relate to the affiliation needs and some of the esteem needs in Maslow’s model. Growth needs, meanwhile, are at the highest level of the ERG hierarchy and include some of the esteem needs in Maslow’s model, as well as self-actualisation. While in Maslow’s theory, individuals remain at a particular level until their corresponding needs are satisfied, Alderfer argues that the frustration arising from the failure of satisfied needs can cause individuals to regress to a previous level. [9]

The Modern Perspective

In recent years a new wave of leading thinkers has emerged, advocating a range of alternative approaches to the needs-satisfaction view of motivation. These thinkers include commentator Dan Pink, who proposes the ‘Motivation 3.0’ model in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. At the heart of Pink’s model lie autonomy, mastery and purpose: to feel motivated, employees need to work autonomously, be given tasks that appeal to their strengths, and believe in the organization’s purpose. Pink also suggests that employees fall into one of two motivational categories: Type I and Type X. Type I employees value reward, but only as a secondary source of satisfaction to the work itself.Type X employees, on the other hand, are motivated by external factors and value reward above any feelings of satisfaction or fulfillment. [10]

Economist and Yale Professor Ian Ayres, meanwhile, advocates a ‘put your money where your mouth is’ approach to self-motivation in his book Carrots and Sticks. To remain motivated over a long period of time, Ayres suggests, people should set a small financial stake to forfeit if they fail to achieve their goal. Ayres is a big proponent of the motivational benefits of getting others involved when pursuing a goal. In Carrots and Sticks he encourages readers to let their friends and family know about their commitment contracts and to appoint a ‘referee’ who can help them stay on track. [11]

Behavioral economist Dan Ariely has also added to the modern debate on motivation, and has conducted a range of experiments to investigate the impact of reward, in particular. Ariely’s studies indicate that ‘extreme’ incentives (either positive or negative) can backfire, as the stress and anxiety they can cause can often lead people to underperform. The research also indicates that non-financial rewards have many of the same motivational properties as salary increases or bonuses, but tend not to cause the same stress or anxiety. [12]

While Pink, Ariely and Ayres all advocate slightly different approaches their theories examine the degree to which reward can influence human motivation. Their findings all indicate that simply offering a reward is unlikely to motivate every employee in every situation. Instead, leaders and managers must think carefully about the motivational drivers of their different team members, consider whether offering a reward is appropriate and, if so, decide what type of reward to offer.

Individual Drivers For Motivation

When it comes to motivating team members, it’s important to remember that different people have different drivers for motivation. Some are driven by the prospect of challenging work and the opportunity to develop their skills and expertise, while others relish the chance to take on additional responsibilities. Many employees simply need to feel appreciated in order to be motivated. In his 1961 book The Achieving Society, psychological theorist David McLelland proposed that there are three key needs that drive people’s motivation at work:

• the need for achievement
• the need for affiliation
• need for power

According to McLelland, most people are motivated by a combination of these needs, but usually one driver in particular is dominant. [13]

Achievement-orientated employees are driven by the prospect of performing well; they want to attain or surpass set standards, make a significant contribution to the organization’s aims and achieve their career goals. People who are affiliation-orientated need to develop and maintain good relationships with others at work in order to feel motivated. Affiliation-orientated employees want to feel like they belong in their team and organization, and that they are accepted by others. They perform well in working environments with minimal conflict.

Finally, employees who are power-orientated are driven by the need to impress others and exert influence over people and situations. They relish responsibility and like to be in control. These individuals like to be able to carve out a reputation for themselves and they place a great deal of value on their status and position in the organization.

As a manager, it is important to know what drives each of your team members, and to provide them with the support, guidance, information and opportunities they need to feel motivated, wherever possible.

As with other needs-based theories of motivation, McClelland’s theory has been criticized for its assumption that everyone has the same universal set of needs. In addition, Locke and Horne (1986) point out that McLelland’s model provides no indication as to how motivational needs can be translated into goals. [14] It has also been argued that McLelland’s theory has a cultural bias towards the US, where it was developed, and is less relevant in other cultures.

Employee Engagement

Having an engaged workforce (as well as a motivated one) has long been high on the agenda of leaders and managers. Although no single, agreed definition of employee engagement has yet been established, it can be thought of as ‘a positive attitude held by an employee towards their organization and its values.’ [15] There is a subtle difference between engagement and motivation (engagement is more closely aligned to the employee’s attitude towards the organization and its values) but the two often go hand in hand.

The Macleod Review - a report commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to examine employee engagement in the UK - identifies four broad drivers for employee engagement. These are:

• leadership (i.e. the clarity of the organization’s strategic direction)
• the presence of engaging managers (i.e. those who appreciate and respect their employees and are committed to developing them)
• voice (i.e. the extent to which the views of employees are sought and taken into account)
• integrity (i.e. the degree to which the vision and values of an organization are congruent with its conduct). [16]

In The Why of Work thought leader Dave Ulrich argues that the meaning employees derive from their work can have a significant impact on their motivation, engagement and general happiness. According to Ulrich, leaders should aim to create an organizational culture in which “individuals co-ordinate their aspirations and actions to create meaning for themselves, value for stakeholders, and hope for humanity at large”. [15]

The Psychological Contract

The psychological contract is a set of unspoken agreements or obligations between an employee and employer. If an employee feels that their manager or organization has reneged on this set of agreements in any way (i.e. broken the psychological contract) this can have an extremely negative impact on their levels of motivation and engagement. As a leader, it is important to establish a psychological contract with your team members by having a frank conversation about what they feel their obligations are to you and vice versa. Once a psychological contract has been established, it is vital to honor it and endeavor to keep any promises you make.

Summary

As a leader, you can have a significant impact on the motivation of those in your team or department, and beyond. A proactive approach to motivating others, coupled with an understanding of key motivation theories and concepts will stand you in excellent stead. Working towards achieving an engaged workforce and establishing a psychological contract between you and your employees will also serve you well. Together, these steps will help you to motivate employees to produce their best work and contribute effectively to the objectives of the team and wider organization.