The instinct theory of Charles Darwin

Instinct Theory (charles Darwin)

The Second Grand Theory of motivation that proposed instinct as the key element that triggers behavior and, thus, impacts motivational concepts, was proposed by Darwin's evolutionary theories and by his elimination of any dualism between animal and a human being. In his "Instinct Theory: The 2nd Grand Theory," Darwin follows a logical sequence of thoughts that proposes instinct as the primary element of behavior, and genetics as the key determinant of instinctual behavior.

One of the situations in which this theory could be applied is the need to perform well in the office and in the activities that the individual is assigned. Instinctively, the individual understands that improving his work and his activity in the workplace is likely to at least maintain his current status in the organization and, potentially, create the premises for his advancement at a later time. At the same time, he feels instinctively that he will lose his job and the money and condition that come with that if he does not apply himself entirely to the job he was given.

One of the situations where the theory most likely cannot be applied is related to the need of individual recognition and advancement in the company. Certainly, this is something that can be argued. From a sophist perspective, one could argue that instinct is, in fact, the underlying cause of any human action. However, the need to advance in the company, as I have faced it in my personal experience, is triggered not necessarily by instinct (an instinct that would create the need for social recognition in an individual), but by the rational process and mechanism that puts together elements and drives the individual towards that respective solution.

The need to advance in a company is a cause determined by a number of consequences that come with this result. The fact that the individual advances in the company means not only that his value as an individual is recognized by the other members of the organization he is part of (although, if this alone had been the result, the instinct theory could have potentially properly functioned), but also by the fact that advancing in a company brings several advantages for the individual.

For example, moving up on the organization ladder may mean a higher income, the possibility of obtaining other perks and an increased chance to move, later on, to a different position in another company, maybe bring about further advancement. At the same time, advancing in the organization is sometimes brought about by the individual's rational need for new challenges. With a move up in the organization usually comes a greater responsibility and the capacity to use the individual skills in new, different directions than in the past.

The instruments and entire instrumental framework that is necessary for such an advancement in the company is also something that is determined by rational behavior rather than just instinctual determinism. Indeed, there are two sides to this aspect, both situations which I have encountered in my personal experience. The first one is that you need to ensure that the right decision makers notice your qualities and understand why those qualities are best for the respective position rather than the one you are functioning in now.

At one point, I worked as an application tester at an organization that had created an it product it used in its consultancy business. I was working well as an application tester, but my wish was to be advanced and work as a business analyst. As such, some of my activity was dedicated to proving to my boss that I would be performing better and more efficiently as a business analyst rather than as a software tester. This did not mean that I would be able to perform less well on my current job, but rather that I had to be involved in activities that supported my claim for the new job as well. Eventually, such an approach provided the correct premises for me to assume the new position.

At the same time, besides showing your own qualities, one also needs to show why those qualities are better than those of other colleagues. The show of qualities always needs to be presented relative to the others rather than just in an absolute manner. I tried to compare myself to the other colleagues and show my boss not only why I would be more efficient in that position, but also why I would be more efficient than my colleagues in that position.

The reason all these arguments have been made is to show that advancing in a company or organization cannot be considered as being triggered by instinct, because both the causality and the causal relationship between the premise and the consequence and the instruments with which the advancement is followed have an underlying rational basis. The individual associates facts, rationally explains why he should perform one action over another in the process of personal achievement and does all this in a complex organizational society, that of a company. While the need itself for achievement could be argued as instinctual, the entire complex process through which the individual arrives at this conclusion, along with the instruments involved, are rational.

This obviously could lead to the conclusion that personal satisfaction and productivity are not necessarily related to instinctual behavior, but are rather a consequence of the rational process in which the individual is involved and by which he plots his way in life. This can certainly have a strong impact on motivational theories in the workplace today, partially pointed out in Maslow's pyramid of needs.