Measuring Employee Motivation: Methods, Strengths & Weaknesses
This paper examines two approaches to measuring employee motivation in the workplace, using the contrasting cases of Amalgamated Biscuit (AB) and Federated Biscuit (FB) as its organizational context. The first method assesses motivation through observable performance indicators such as accuracy, output volume, and persistence on goal-related tasks. The second method measures motivation through employees' evaluation, devaluation, and perception of goal-relevant objects. Drawing on research by Bandura and Schunk, Bargh et al., Ferguson and Bargh, and Touré-Tillery and Fishbach, the paper evaluates the practical strengths and weaknesses of each approach, noting the inherent difficulty of quantifying an inherently qualitative construct.
- Introduction: Contrasting motivation levels at AB and FB
- Measuring Motivation through Performance Levels: Using output, accuracy, and persistence as indicators
- Measuring Motivation through Evaluation, Devaluation, and Perception: Goal-relevant evaluations as implicit motivation signals
- Strengths and Weaknesses of Both Approaches: Practical limits and advantages of each method
- Conclusion: Summary of findings and method recommendations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper anchors its analysis in a concrete organizational scenario (AB vs. FB), giving abstract measurement concepts immediate practical relevance.
- Each method is supported by specific empirical studies (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Bargh et al., 2001; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004), demonstrating academic grounding rather than unsupported assertion.
- The balanced treatment of strengths and weaknesses for each approach shows critical thinking rather than advocacy for a single method.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies the compare-and-contrast analytical structure: two distinct measurement frameworks are introduced, explained with evidence, and then evaluated on equal terms. This technique helps readers understand not just what each method does, but when and why it may succeed or fail — a hallmark of applied organizational psychology writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief organizational scenario to motivate the research question. It then dedicates one section each to the two measurement methods, integrating empirical citations as illustrative evidence. A combined strengths-and-weaknesses section follows, directly comparing the practical utility and limitations of each approach. The short reference list in APA format closes the paper. This four-part structure (context → method 1 → method 2 → critique) is clean and easy to follow at the undergraduate level.
Introduction
Work life at Amalgamated Biscuit (AB) appears to be quite positive. The labor force at the corporation seems to be generally happy, motivated, and productive. By contrast, the opposite appears to be true at Federated Biscuit (FB), where the workforce seems not only discouraged but also demotivated. The chief executive officers at both corporations are keenly interested in quantifying the comparative level of motivation in their respective workplaces. The main objective of this paper is to present two different methods that can be used to ascertain motivation and morale in workplaces like AB and FB, and to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each selected method.
Measuring Motivation through Performance Levels
The first approach to measuring motivation is through work performance. Motivation can be measured in terms of performance levels on a given goal-related task, particularly when performance is variable and central to the goal. Under this approach, performance measures comprise accuracy or precision, the total amount of work accomplished, and the highest level of achievement reached.
Several research studies have taken this approach into consideration. For instance, Bargh et al. (2001) sought to examine the impact of priming on motivation by measuring participants' performance on search puzzles requiring them to find five different words. The outcomes demonstrated that participants primed with accomplishment and achievement were able to find more words than control participants, suggesting they were more motivated to achieve. Similarly, Bandura and Schunk (1981) sought to demonstrate that proximal goals are more motivating than distal goals by measuring children's mathematical achievement motivation through their performance on a set of subtraction problems. The results showed that children encouraged to establish proximal goals during a prior preparation period solved a greater number of problems correctly than those who set distal goals.
According to Touré-Tillery and Fishbach (2014), an additional element of performance is persistence — the degree to which a person continues steadfastly in pursuit of a goal despite intrinsic challenges. For example, a highly motivated employee may spend hours examining a task despite fatigue or the temptation of more immediately rewarding activities. Persistence can be expressed in terms of the amount of time a person spends on goal-related tasks, the number of such tasks completed, or the degree to which a person continues to engage with an objective despite difficulty (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2014).
In the case of AB and FB, one practical way to measure motivation would be to assess employees' willingness to attain a reward by investigating whether they abandoned or continued to engage in a given task. Research establishes that more motivated employees are less likely to abandon a task as they approach its completion. Similarly, motivated employees tend to persist on challenging or apparently unsolvable tasks, maintaining the belief that a solution is attainable (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2014).
Measuring Motivation through Evaluation, Devaluation, and Perception
The motivational state of a workforce influences how employees evaluate goal-associated objects, and these evaluative processes subsequently promote effective goal pursuit — both consciously and unconsciously. In particular, the assessment of goal-relevant objects is more positive for active goals than for inactive ones. As a result, motivation can be measured by the degree to which a goal-relevant object is evaluated positively, using either explicit or implicit measures.
A study by Ferguson and Bargh (2004) demonstrated that participants with an unfulfilled achievement goal were faster at identifying positive adjectives — compared to negative ones — following achievement-related words. By contrast, participants who had just attained a goal, or who had no active goal, did not respond significantly faster to positive adjectives than to negative ones. This finding illustrates how active motivational states shape basic perceptual and evaluative processes.
This approach also encompasses the measurement of motivation through the devaluation of conflicting constructs — specifically, objects that compete with or impede the active goal. For instance, employees with an active task goal demonstrated lower evaluations of tasks that served unrelated goals, compared to employees without an active task goal (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2014). In the AB and FB context, employee motivation could be measured by how quickly individuals act to move positive and negative stimuli toward or away from themselves, thereby revealing their basic motivation to approach desirable outcomes and avoid negative ones. Because goal-relevant objects carry clear valence, individuals have instinctive tendencies to approach goal-congruent objects — which they evaluate positively — and to avoid objects that might interfere with effective goal pursuit, which they evaluate negatively.
Conclusion
Both the performance-based approach and the evaluation-and-perception approach offer meaningful, if imperfect, tools for measuring workplace motivation. The comparative cases of AB and FB illustrate that no single method is sufficient on its own. A comprehensive assessment of employee motivation ideally draws on multiple measurement strategies, combining observable performance indicators with evaluative and perceptual data to arrive at a more complete and accurate understanding of motivational states across an organization.
References
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598.
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trotschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014–1027.
Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). Liking is for doing: The effects of goal pursuit on automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 557–572.
Green, J. (2018). How to measure the motivation of your employee. Chron. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/measure-motivation-employee-31647.html
Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2014). How to measure motivation: A guide for the experimental social psychologist. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 328–341.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.