Theories of motivation

Motivation is the set of processes that account for an individual's intensity, direction and persistence of effort toward a goal. Intensity is how hard a person tries. Direction is where the effort goes, which matters because hard work aimed at the wrong goal is wasted. Persistence is how long the effort lasts in the face of obstacles. Motivation is not a fixed personality trait. The same person can be highly motivated in one job and unmotivated in another, which means managers have real influence over it.

This lesson surveys the major theories of motivation, from early needs theories that remain popular to contemporary theories with stronger evidence. Lesson 6 then applies them to job design, rewards, pay and recognition. As you read, notice that the theories are complementary more than competing: each highlights a different part of the motivational process.

Early needs theories

Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs proposes five levels: physiological, safety, social (belonging), esteem and self-actualization. Lower needs must be substantially satisfied before higher needs become motivating. The hierarchy is intuitive and widely taught, but research has found little support for its strict ordering. People pursue several needs at once, and the order varies by person and culture. Its lasting value is the reminder that people have a range of needs and that unmet basic needs, such as safety or a reliable income, will dominate attention.

Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory distinguishes hygiene factors from motivators. Hygiene factors, such as pay, company policies, supervision, working conditions and job security, cause dissatisfaction when inadequate, but improving them only removes dissatisfaction; it does not create motivation. Motivators, such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, the work itself and growth, are what create satisfaction and motivation. The theory has been criticized because it relied on people's stories about good and bad experiences, which may reflect self-serving bias (people credit themselves for good experiences and blame the environment for bad ones). Still, it influenced the movement toward job enrichment discussed in lesson 6.

David McClelland's theory of needs focuses on three learned needs. The need for achievement is the drive to excel and succeed against a standard; high achievers prefer moderately difficult tasks with personal responsibility and fast feedback. The need for power is the desire to influence and control others. The need for affiliation is the desire for friendly, close relationships. McClelland found that the best managers in large organizations tend to be high in the need for power, directed at the organization's goals rather than personal gain, and relatively low in the need for affiliation, because they must sometimes make unpopular decisions.

Self-determination theory

Self-determination theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, is one of the best-supported modern theories. It holds that people have three basic psychological needs: autonomy (a sense of choice and control over one's actions), competence (a sense of mastery and effectiveness) and relatedness (a sense of connection with others). When work satisfies these needs, people experience more autonomous forms of motivation: they act because the work is interesting (intrinsic motivation) or because they personally value its purpose (identified motivation). When work thwarts these needs, motivation becomes controlled, driven by pressure, guilt or rewards and punishments, and it tends to be less persistent and less creative.

A famous and debated implication is that extrinsic rewards can sometimes crowd out intrinsic motivation. Experiments have found that paying people for an activity they already enjoy can reduce their interest once the payment stops, especially when the reward feels controlling ("You will get this only if you do exactly what I say"). When rewards are informational, signaling competence and appreciation, they are much less likely to undermine motivation. The practical message is not to avoid rewards, but to design them so they feel like recognition rather than control, and to keep attention on the meaning of the work.

Goal-setting theory

Edwin Locke and Gary Latham's goal-setting theory is supported by hundreds of studies. Its central finding is that specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, vague goals or the instruction to "do your best". Specific goals direct attention, difficult goals increase effort and persistence, and both encourage people to find better strategies. Four conditions strengthen the effect: commitment to the goal, which participation, public commitment and confidence all support; feedback on progress; task complexity that is not so high that people must first learn the task; and adequate ability and resources.

Goals can also backfire. Very narrow goals can cause people to ignore important aspects of performance that are not measured, such as quality, safety or teamwork. Stretch goals with large rewards can encourage cheating and risk-taking: investigations into Wells Fargo's sales practices, revealed from 2016, found that aggressive cross-selling targets contributed to employees opening millions of accounts without customers' consent. For complex tasks that people are still learning, learning goals ("identify three new ways to reduce scrap") work better than performance goals ("cut scrap by 20 %"). The SMART acronym, specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound, is a useful checklist, though the evidence suggests goals should be challenging rather than merely achievable.

Objectives and key results (OKRs), popularized by Intel and later Google, are a goal-setting system that pairs an inspiring objective with three to five measurable key results, set quarterly and often shared openly. Many organizations use OKRs to align teams; their success depends on the same principles: specific, challenging goals, commitment, feedback and care not to tie them so tightly to pay that people set easy targets.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy, a concept developed by Albert Bandura, is a person's belief that they can successfully perform a specific task. It is task-specific: someone can have high self-efficacy for writing reports and low self-efficacy for public speaking. People with high self-efficacy set higher goals, try harder, persist longer and recover faster from setbacks. Bandura identified four sources of self-efficacy, in order of strength: enactive mastery (succeeding at the task oneself), vicarious modeling (seeing someone similar succeed), verbal persuasion (being told you can do it) and physiological and emotional states (interpreting arousal as energy rather than anxiety). Good training builds self-efficacy by breaking tasks into steps that allow early success.

Reinforcement theory

Reinforcement theory, rooted in B. F. Skinner's research on operant conditioning, focuses on the consequences of behavior rather than internal states. Behavior followed by positive consequences tends to be repeated; behavior followed by negative consequences or no consequences tends to fade. Positive reinforcement adds something desirable (praise, a bonus); negative reinforcement removes something undesirable (ending close supervision once quality improves); punishment adds an undesirable consequence or removes a desirable one; extinction removes the reinforcement that maintained a behavior.

The timing of reinforcement matters. Continuous reinforcement, rewarding every occurrence, produces fast learning but fast extinction when rewards stop. Intermittent schedules produce slower learning but more persistent behavior. Fixed-interval schedules, such as pay deposited every two weeks, produce steady but not exceptional effort; variable-ratio schedules, such as commissions on unpredictable sales or the payouts of a slot machine, produce high, persistent response rates. Reinforcement theory explains much workplace behavior, including why safety rules are ignored when shortcuts are rewarded with time savings and violations are rarely noticed.

Expectancy theory

Victor Vroom's expectancy theory explains motivation as a rational calculation. People are motivated to exert effort when they believe three things. Expectancy (E) is the belief that effort will lead to performance ("If I try hard, can I hit the target?"). Instrumentality (I) is the belief that performance will lead to outcomes ("If I hit the target, will I actually get the reward?"). Valence (V) is the value the person places on the outcomes ("Do I want the reward?"). Motivational force is the product of the three, so if any is zero, motivation is zero.

Expectancy theory gives managers a diagnostic checklist. If people believe the target is impossible, improve expectancy with training, resources or more realistic goals. If they doubt that performance will actually be rewarded, improve instrumentality by making rewards transparent and consistently applied. If they do not value the rewards on offer, improve valence by learning what people care about, which may be flexibility, development or recognition rather than money.

Equity theory and organizational justice

J. Stacy Adams's equity theory holds that people compare the ratio of their outcomes (pay, recognition, opportunities) to their inputs (effort, experience, education, skill) with the ratio of a referent other. When the ratios are equal, people perceive equity. When their own ratio is lower, they feel under-rewarded, which produces anger; when it is higher, they may feel over-rewarded, which produces guilt, though people are much more tolerant of over-reward than under-reward.

People respond to perceived inequity in six main ways: change their inputs, change their outcomes, distort perceptions of themselves, distort perceptions of others, choose a different referent, or leave the situation. Equity theory broadened into the study of organizational justice, which has three main forms. Distributive justice is the perceived fairness of outcomes. Procedural justice is the perceived fairness of the process used to determine outcomes, judged by consistency, lack of bias, accurate information, a chance to be heard and the ability to appeal. Interactional justice is the perceived quality of interpersonal treatment, including respect and honest explanations. Research shows that fair procedures and respectful treatment can make even disappointing outcomes acceptable, which is why how a decision is made and communicated matters as much as the decision itself.

Bringing the theories together

An integrated view combines the theories. Opportunity and ability enable performance. Goals direct effort, self-efficacy and expectancy determine whether effort seems worthwhile, rewards and their instrumentality and valence determine what effort earns, equity and justice determine whether rewards feel fair, and need satisfaction, especially autonomy, competence and relatedness, determines whether motivation is autonomous and lasting. When motivation problems appear, work through the chain to find the weakest link rather than reaching straight for a bonus scheme.