Motivation in the Workplace

Workplace Motivation

This paper investigates the issue of motivation as it applies to an organizational setting.

The research regarding motivation in the workplace has been a major area of investigation that is of interest to corporate leaders, managers, organizational psychologists, and educators. The issue that this paper will discuss has to do with the particular factors that managers and leaders can address to increase the motivation of their workers to perform as well as to increase the job satisfaction levels of their employees. However, motivation is only one issue regarding increased productivity or increased job satisfaction; we would certainly think that at a basic level an employee would need a certain level of motivation to perform as well as the ability to actually do the job (as it turns out the research is consistent with this type of common-sense thinking). However, the actual types of interventions/activities that can be used to motivate employees have been subject to debate and the empirical research indicates that there are certain approaches that are more effective in motivating employees than others. It is this classical research on motivation that this paper will review; however, before discussing the classic theories of employee motivation is important to understand exactly what the term motivation implies and to identify two important designations regarding motivation.

What is Motivation?

Motivation has traditionally been viewed as the "why" force that drives the behavior of organisms/individuals/groups (Weiner 2013). Fundamentally, motivation is an internal construct or state of mind resulting from internal and external factors that influence a person to achieve some goal (Weiner 2013). As an internal factor that moves behavior, motivation is a concept that is dependent on the interaction between conscious and unconscious processes in the mind of the individual. These factors include the intensity of the need or desire for the person to reach a goal, the value or incentive value of the goal to the person, and the expectations that the person has regarding their ability to reach the goal (Richard and Deci 2000; Weiner 2013). There have been many different theories proposed to describe how people become motivated or what the specific motivating factors that drive people's behaviors are beginning before Sigmund Freud's time (who proposed that instinctual drives were motivating) to more modern theorists who divided up motivators based on their tangibility (concrete rewards vs. internal cognitive/affective states; Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell, 1998) One distinction that repeatedly surfaces in theories regarding motivation is the notion that motivation consists of intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Richard and Deci 2000).

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation

The intrinsic factors of motivation are related to factors that are internal to the person, such as a fear of failure, a need to excel, or a strong desire to be acknowledged for one's accomplishments (Richard and Deci 2000). These factors will vary in both intensity and importance from individual to individual and represent a challenge to leaders who need to identify which factors are important in the individuals that wish to motivate and then how to stimulate them. Typically the potential of intrinsic factors to produce motivation is related to the individual's locus of control (especially for a person with a higher internal locus of control regarding the situation; Rotter 1966), the person's levels of self-efficacy regarding their ability to perform a task, and their interest in the task (Lunenburg 2013).

Extrinsic factors are those that are external or outside of the individual such as salary, benefits, vacation time, trophies, and so forth. While external factors are undoubtedly influenced by the internal factors of motivation these factors are much more tangible and easier for a manager to influence in order to attempt to produce the desired effect; however, the motivating power of external factors also will vary from person to person and from situation to situation. There has been some research to indicate that the overuse of extrinsic motivators might lead to an overjustification affect and a reduction in intrinsic motivation, whereas other research has found the opposite effect (see Gneezy and Rustichini 2000; Kohn 1993).

Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors can be used by leaders to increase the motivation and workers; however, the effectiveness of either factor regarding its ability to increase motivation depends on the particular work environment, situation, needs of the employee, and other factors that need to be considered (Richard and Deci 2000). Researchers have attempted to identify how these factors motivate people to perform a job, increase job satisfaction, resulted in higher output by workers, etc. Some of the theorists have developed their models based on empirical evidence, whereas others have used a more philosophical approach. Several of the more "classic" theories will be discussed in the following section. Most of the following theories of motivation can be viewed in the light of the notion of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

Theories of Motivation

It certainly would be impossible to describe all the major theories of human motivation here; however, there are several major theorists who describe concepts that are relevant for this paper. The extrinsic/intrinsic motivation distinction is often an integral part of these models that may or may not be specified. Perhaps the seminal theory of human motivation that can be applied across different contexts including the workplace comes from psychologist Abraham Maslow.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow (1943) originally described his hierarchy of needs theory as a sort of alternative view to the Freudian notions of motivation that dominated psychology at that time. Freudian thought conceptualized motivation in the form of physical drives, especially drives regarding procreation and later a drive to return to one's origins (eros and thanos; Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998). Maslow disagreed with the classical Freudian notion that the major impetus of human behavior had to do with sexual impulses or impulses to control anxiety and believed that other factors motivated behavior. He developed his overall theory of needs by studying people whom he believed to be exemplary such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Albert Einstein as well as what he considered the healthiest proportion of college students he was exposed to (Maslow 1943).

Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory parallels many of the other theoretical conceptualizations regarding human development and developmental psychology of his time; however, his terminology and ideas have endured and were the foundation for the formulation of the "third force" or humanistic paradigm in psychology (Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998). His hierarchy of needs remains a very popular topic in management training and psychological/sociological research. The needs from most basic to more advanced are as follows (Maslow 1943; 1954; Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998):

1. The physiological needs. These needs represent physical requirements for survival. If these needs are not met the person will fail and of course eventually die. So basic needs like food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. must be met in order for the organism to survive. If these are not adequately satisfied the organism will not experience significant motivation to fulfill other needs.

2. Safety needs. When physical needs are adequately satisfied safety needs will tend to be the primary motivation and behavior. Such things as personal safety, family safety, economic safety, financial security, wellness and relative good health, etc. would fall under this category. In the absence of safety needs such as financial or economic safety workers will be more motivated to seek job security, standardized minimal wages, disability accommodations and so forth. Thus it is that this level where pay raises, health benefits, etc. may have their peak motivating power; however, even if this need is relatively satisfied workers could be motivated by better pay and benefits.

3. Belongingness needs. After the above two needs, which are primarily extrinsic, are relatively fulfill interpersonal needs and feelings of belongingness become extremely motivating, although in many cases this need can override the need for safety as witnessed to individuals who continue to maintain abusive relationships. Here such motivating factors as friendship, family, intimacy (love), feeling as if one is part of a group, etc. are primary motivating factors. However it is important to understand that the need for belongingness can be very powerful and can dominate physiological and security needs depending on the situation.

4. Esteem needs. People have been inherent desire to feel respected or acknowledged and this desire becomes the primary motivating factor once the above three factors are relatively satisfied. These needs give the person a sense of recognition and pride in their achievements and accomplishments; however, Maslow believed that these needs will not be as strong in people that are starving, insecure, or have no sense of belongingness. There are two levels of esteem needs. Lower esteem needs are concerned with respect from others in need for status, recognition, prestige, etc., whereas higher esteem needs are concerned with the need for self -- respect.

5. Self-actualization. At this level in person desires to become everything that they can become, to fulfill their potential. This became the highest level of needs and Maslow's hierarchy and he felt that very few people reach this point. At these needs the person strives to master themselves or some particular discipline such as art or athletics.

Of course Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory is not without criticism. For example, Maslow originally believed that the hierarchy is filed in a specific order as a kind of stage model where in order to move on to the next level one must fully satisfy the one below it; however, empirical observations of individuals has suggested that this is not true and Maslow himself understood this later on. Maslow's methodology is purely observational and limited to people he felt were self-actualized, which of course is rather subjective; however, there is research that has suggested that his overall theory does have relevance regarding human motivation and can serve as a basis for understanding motivation in the workplace (Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998). For instance, if workers do not believe that they are being paid fairly order not have adequate benefits offering them higher status (esteem) or better communication with managers (belongingness needs) will probably be viewed by the workers as an attempt by leadership to bribe them or ignored their essential requirements. One of the interesting thing about Maslow's hierarchy of needs is that the theory incorporates the notions of many theorists such as Marx (economic and physical needs), Freud (physical and love), Adler (need for esteem), and Goldstein (self-actualization) and relates them in a workable sequence (Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998).

Herzberg's Dual-Factor (Motivation -- Hygiene) Theory

Frederick Herzberg was an American clinical psychologist who became interested in motivation in the workplace. His ideas are directly related to Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory. Herzberg developed his theory after interviewing over 200 engineers and accountants. Based on his research Hertzberg became convinced that there were factors occurring in the workplace that caused an increase in job satisfaction and in motivation and that there were separate factors that caused decreases in job satisfaction and motivation. Herzberg hypothesized that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction actually were factors that operated independently (Herzberg, Snyderman, and Mausner 1966).

First, Herzberg believed that people are not fully satisfied with having their lower -- order needs fulfilled through work. For instance, minimum wages or safe working conditions are not motivators but considered to be requirements by workers -- minimal requirements at that -- of the working environment. Workers, once these basic factors are reasonably addressed, will eventually look for gratification of their higher-level needs such as recognition, advancement, achievement, responsibility etc. (one can view the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic needs here). Herzberg's theory attempted to place Maslow's hierarchy of needs in an organizational/work framework, but in a more streamlined fashion. Herzberg's two -- factor notion consisted of (Herzberg 1964; 1966):

1. Hygiene factors. These factors include such things as salary, work conditions, job security, benefits, etc. The presence of these factors alone do not result in job satisfaction, hence these factors are not particularly motivating. These are extrinsic to the job and are associated with company policies etc. While these factors do not result in job satisfaction or are not particularly motivating for workers, if they are not present to a certain degree workers will become dissatisfied and unmotivated.

2. Motivating factors. These factors include such things as recognition, more responsibility, greater autonomy, work that is challenging, etc. These relate to the higher-level factors in Maslow's hierarchy such as achievement or self-actualization and these factors are the ones that are more likely to result in increased job satisfaction and are more likely to be motivating to workers.

Herzberg viewed job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (or motivation and a lack of motivation) as independent of each other such that if dissatisfaction (lack of motivation) decreases this does not necessarily mean that satisfaction (motivation) will increase (Herzberg 1964; 1966). In order to improve motivation, leadership must address both factors and not assume that increasing one level of factors automatically affects the other (Herzberg 1964; 1966). This is a common mistake made by many organizations who believe that increasing wages, offering more benefits, etc. will lead to greater levels of job satisfaction and higher motivation and workers. Thus, Herzberg's theory has important implications for how leaders should approach interventions designed to increase motivation and the workers. According to Herzberg hygiene factors need to be fulfilled to a satisfactory level in order to decrease workers from being dissatisfied with their jobs or unmotivated regarding their jobs, whereas if leadership wishes to motivate workers to improve their performance, improve production, etc. The focus should be on motivating factors which tend to be more intrinsic in nature (Herzberg 1966).

Herzberg's theory has been criticized on two of his main assumptions. First, the notion that satisfaction and dissatisfaction (or being motivated and not being motivated) are independent is most likely a result of the way that Herzberg measured the constructs (Chien 2013). As it turns out being motivated or satisfied with one's job is certainly related to how unmotivated are dissatisfied with this (they are actually different polls of the same construct; Chien 2013). The second major criticism of Herzberg's theory is that in his research he failed to account for individual differences in motivation and satisfaction and assumed that these could be uniformly manipulated. Some people may want recognition, whereas others may strive for more autonomy. Thus, while Herzberg's theory is still well-regarded in most circles and offers quite a bit of insight as to how affectively motivate workers, it is understood that in order for leadership to be effective in increasing motivation in workers, leaders must actually learn and attempt to understand the specific internal factors that motivate each individual under their charge (Chien 2013).

Nonetheless, the intrinsic/extrinsic notion regarding what things motivate workers remains fairly consistent in Herzberg's theory. The notion that fulfilling intrinsic needs is generally more motivating to workers than just concentrating on extrinsic factors appears in several other influential theories of motivation.

Theory X and Theory Y

McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y was a further attempt to build on Maslow's hierarchy of needs (McGregor 1964). McGregor described Theory X as the traditional notions that managers and leadership have regarding motivating their workers. This theory assumes that workers are generally unmotivated, attempt to avoid work, and must be either rewarded or coerced into completing their tasks. According to Theory X the best motivating factors are extrinsic factors such as money, threat of punishment, etc.

McGregor believed that these traditional beliefs were wildly inaccurate. Building on the work of Maslow McGregor proposed that Theory Y factors such as praise and recognition (intrinsic factors) were more motivating to workers and lead to increases in worker output, quality, and work conditions while leadership styles that focus on Theory X factors such as money and benefits do not produce significant motivation in their workers (McGregor 1964).

Chris Argyris and Action Science

Although theorists like Maslow, Heizberg, and McGregor strongly publicized the notion that the traditional views of management (Theory X type views) were not effective at motivating workers, these views were still widely practiced. Thus, it is highly probable that quite a few workers were treated rather immaturely regarding factors that should motivate them in the workplace. Argyris (1993) compared traditional assumptions regarding worker motivation with the theoretical assumptions (e.g., Theory Y). He found that the Theory X values are more effective at achieving corporate goals when they are logically and clearly communicated and that relationships in the workplace when defined by authority and control (management using rewards and punishments), but lead to very shallow relations between workers and management and are not motivating for workers. On the other hand he found that Theory Y ideas like combining organizational goals with maintaining a positive environment internally, having joint control (both management and workers) over workplace decisions, and concentrating on intrinsic forms of motivation/communication led to higher levels of satisfaction and motivation in workers (Argyris 1993).

Other Important Ideas

As more and more refinements were made theorists began to identify more specific factors that lead to increases in motivation. For instance Likern (1967) described four leadership styles: (1) exploitative-authoritative, low concern for people, the use of threats and punishments, psychologically distant from the workers; (2) benevolent-authoritative, concern for people, the use of rewards for motivation, however no participation with workers in decision-making; (3) consultative, concerned for people, will hear workers' opinions, but still makes important decisions despite workers' input; and (4) participative, concern for people, allows workers to participate in decisions, focuses on intrinsic motivators. Likern found that the participative system was most effective in motivating workers as it satisfied every level of the needs of workers and management.

Luthans (see Luthans and Stewart 1978) endorsed a contingency approach to leadership and motivation such that certain types of practices work better for some people than do others and work better in some work environments/job types than others. Vroom (see Van Eerde and Thierry 1996) expanded on this idea with his expectancy theory. Vroom believed that motivation is the expectation of a particular desired outcome that has three concepts: valence (the attractiveness of potential outcomes, incentives, or rewards to the person), expectancy (a person's sense of self-efficacy regarding whether they can reach certain outcome/goals), and force or the person's motivation to reach a goal. Leadership styles to foster motivation should be tailored to the particular situation and the individuals involved.

McClellan (1978) popularized one particular type of individual need, the need for achievement, and how rewards, leadership, supervision, etc. foster this in people with high and low needs for achievement. As might be suspected the theories of Luthans, Vroom, and McClelland were heavily influenced by Maslow and Herzberg.

These notions that motivation was not a one-size-fits-all concept led to important theoretical conceptualizations of how particular jobs/workplaces need to be tailored to fit the individual needs of the types of people that are employed in. For example the Job Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldham (1980) attempted to rate jobs on five characteristics: skill variety (how many different skills and aptitudes a particular task requires); task identity (how will the job relates to a larger goal/project); task significance (how much the job has an impact on other people); autonomy (how much independence the worker has regarding carrying out the work); and task feedback (the degree to which the worker is given specific feedback regarding what is expected, what the goals are, and their performance). Hackerman and Oldham (1980) were able to develop scales that linked specific types of workers, psychological states, etc. To specific types of jobs that fit their needs.

Thus, theories of how leadership can motivate employees started very broad in terms of their concepts and predictions and as the theories developed and were updated became more specific and individualized regarding their goals and recommendations. The basic tenet that workers are motivated by intrinsic factors but expect certain extrinsic properties to be fulfilled remains constant across theories of leadership motivation.

Practical Applications Based on the Writer's Experience

Starwood International Security Corporation is a large corporation that provides security services to a number of clients including five star hotels, large complex -- resort facilities, golf courses, and spot centers for tourists. As the Director of Security for Starwood International it is this writer's job to oversee the security operations for all of these clients and make sure that the security officers qualified and well-trained and that the proper procedures are followed. The focus of the Director of Security often clashes with the goals of upper corporate management who are more interested in satisfying stockholders than the security officers they employ, thus this writer has been involved in a number of situations where upper level corporate management has not made very good decisions regarding motivating employees and maintaining job satisfaction.

One of the important aspects of any security organization is that in order to thwart potential threats security officers and security measures should be highly visible. Often this visibility can be enhanced by the presence of a specific uniform worn by security officers that results in the security officers of a particular facility being easily identified. Having a large professional looking security presence alone will often hinder many potential security issues and reduce potential breaches of security in these facilities.

Starwood International Corporation had a serious issue with absenteeism and turnover in their security personnel and due to the attempts by upper management to keep costs down the security officers were outfitted with rather poor quality and unattractive security uniforms. This was believed by upper level corporate management to be an important factor in the turnover rate. Upper level management "logically" concluded that the poor looking uniforms led to job dissatisfaction among the security officers and this led to high rates of absenteeism and a high turnover rate in their security officers. An additional factor regarding uniforms was that when security officers were working by the sea during the winter months, these particular uniforms provided very little in the way of protection from the elements and warmth to the officers wearing them. The situation persisted for some time.

As it turns out it was an accurate assumption that the badly looking uniforms as well as their inability to keep the offices warm in the colder months led to quite a bit of job dissatisfaction and poor worker motivation among the security officers. Complaints regarding the uniforms became so prevalent that after months of this writer discussing this issue with the upper management there was a decision to invest some money to provide the security officers with uniforms that looked much more professional (much more like the uniforms that police officers wear) and also to provide very professional looking jackets, gloves, hats, etc. For security officers who worked during the winter months.

Upper management assumed that this change in uniform design would be sufficient to increase job satisfaction and to significantly reduce the high turnover rates that we were experiencing, especially during the winter months. However, providing the security officers with professional looking uniforms that are warm is not necessarily an act that will increase job satisfaction as much as it will reduce the certain amount of dissatisfaction among the officers (Hertzberg 1964). Thus, in effect what the change in uniforms did was to decrease the complaints regarding being cold and looking unprofessional; however, it resulted in very little change in the overall turnover and absenteeism rates among the officers. It was clear that addressing this particular "hygiene factor" (Hertzberg, 1964, 1965) was an important issue that would decrease the dissatisfaction of the officers regarding their appearance and comfort, but it was not necessarily a change that would motivate them to be more punctual in their attendance or to perform their job duties more efficiently as would be predicted by the aforementioned theories of motivation discussed in this paper. If upper management wanted their security officers to become more motivated and satisfied with their work, they would need to address other issues in the company. Being provided with professional looking uniforms and clothing that protected the officers from the cold was considered by the officers to be a minimal standard of employment for the company and not a "perk" or inspiration to motivate them. Thus, upper management made a solid decision in changing the uniforms for the security officers; however, their expectations regarding the motivating effects of this change were quite unrealistic and demonstrated a total lack of understanding what motivates workers and how leadership and management can fulfill workers needs (Herzberg, 1964, 1965; Maslow 1943; McGregor 1964).

Implementing a Series of Sweeping Changes. In the above example, the corporate upper management took the position that "well we gave them what they want, so they should be happy" quite consistent with McGregor's theory X notions (Argyris 1993; McGregor, 1964). It took this writer quite a while to convince upper level corporate management that giving providing workers with equipment that satisfies conditions that are minimal to the job description is not a motivating factor, but it is an expectation that workers have for the company the work for. Consistent with Argyris (1993) many of those in upper-level corporate management seem to think that security officers should just be to have a paying job and do not concern themselves with other factors. By taking the attitude that "well we give you what you need, so you should be happy" the company was actually creating tension between the security officers and management by not listening to the workers and by using what would normally be considered minimal job requirements (hygiene factors, Herzberg 1964) as rewards. It took quite a while to convince upper management of this, but when the upper management was confronted with the actual figures regarding very little change in the turnover rate and absenteeism rates of their security officers following this change in equipment it was obvious that management needed better communications with their security officers. However, upper management was not yet ready to form a bond with the security officers that would allow a more advantageous participative type of relationship between management and the officers (e.g., Likern 1967), despite the lessons learned from the uniform incident.

Part of the issue here was that security officers are actually provided as outside contractors to a particular facility and the management organization of the facility where they physically work, the company benefits of the workers in the facility, and the working conditions of workers who are employed by the facility are not applicable to the security officers. The security officers are actually workers for an outside contractor where the upper level management is removed from them and their only contact with management is with their direct superiors and the Director of Security Operations. The director of Security Operations stays in contact with the lower-level managers, but typically has little contact with the security officers themselves. This type of situation leads to a major rift in communication between the security officers, their actual employer, and their director. Security officers can complain all they want with hotel staff and hotel managers; however, this has no effect on their working conditions. It tends to set up a more hostile attitude aimed at their employer.

It also important to remember that security officers often work in teams of two or more individuals and the teams have solid communication within them, know the expectations of the team members, and routinely praise each other for their work. But, the security teams have no power regarding any communications with upper-level management, upper level management decisions, and so forth. This creates a further division of "us" and "them." The Director of Security Operations' job is to make sure that everything goes well in the field (satisfying the expectations of upper management for the Corporation), to make sure that the security officers' needs and desires are met and that they are motivated to fulfill their expectations and to perform their duties in a professional manner that is consistent with company policy. Thus, there is only one person that essentially ties together communication from the security officers (who are the major earners for upper management and stockholders) and corporate management who answer to the stockholders of the corporation. Thus, by its very structure a large security Corporation like Starwood International has a major communication problem between workers and corporate managers.

This writer decided that it is extremely important for the security officers to be able to communicate their needs to upper management and the security officers needed to receive recognition and get direct feedback for their job performance. This is consistent with the notions of worker motivational according to a participant managerial style (Likern 1967), McClellan's theory and the need for achievement (1967), Hackman and Oldham's job characteristic model (1980), and Vroom's contingency model (Van Erde and Thierry 1986). It is also consistent with the theories of Hertzberg and Maslow regarding motivation as it assumes that if extrinsic factors of motivation are adequately met, management may find it more motivating potential in appealing to the subjective important intrinsic factors of its workers (Deci and Richard 2000).