Workplace Motivation Theories and Practical Applications

What Is Motivation?

Motivation has traditionally been viewed as the "why" force that drives the behavior of organisms, individuals, and 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 depends on the interaction between conscious and unconscious processes in the mind of the individual. These factors include the intensity of the need or desire to reach a goal, the incentive value of the goal to the person, and the person's expectations regarding their ability to reach the goal (Ryan and Deci 2000; Weiner 2013).

Many different theories have been proposed to describe how people become motivated and what specific factors drive behavior, ranging from Sigmund Freud's time—when instinctual drives were considered primary motivators—to more modern theorists who divided motivators based on their tangibility, contrasting concrete rewards with internal cognitive and affective states (Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998). One distinction that repeatedly surfaces across theories of motivation is the notion that motivation consists of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Ryan and Deci 2000).

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation

The intrinsic factors of motivation relate to factors 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 (Ryan and Deci 2000). These factors vary in both intensity and importance from individual to individual and represent a challenge to leaders who must first identify which factors are important to the individuals they wish to motivate and then determine how to stimulate them. The potential of intrinsic factors to produce motivation is typically related to the individual's locus of control (Rotter 1966), the person's level of self-efficacy regarding their ability to perform a task, and their interest in the task (Lunenburg 2011).

Extrinsic factors are those external to the individual, such as salary, benefits, vacation time, and trophies. While external factors are undoubtedly influenced by internal motivators, they are more tangible and easier for a manager to manipulate in order to produce desired effects. However, the motivating power of extrinsic factors also varies from person to person and from situation to situation. Some research indicates that the overuse of extrinsic motivators may lead to an overjustification effect and a reduction in intrinsic motivation, while other research has found the opposite (Gneezy and Rustichini 2000; Kohn 1993).

Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors can be used by leaders to increase worker motivation; however, the effectiveness of either depends on the particular work environment, the situation, the needs of the employee, and other contextual factors (Ryan and Deci 2000). Researchers have attempted to identify how these factors motivate people to perform their jobs, increase job satisfaction, and generate higher output. Some theorists have developed their models based on empirical evidence, while others have taken a more philosophical approach. Several of the more classic theories are discussed below, and most can be viewed through the lens of the intrinsic versus extrinsic distinction.

Theories of Motivation

It would be impossible to describe all major theories of human motivation here; however, several key theorists offer concepts directly relevant to the workplace. The extrinsic/intrinsic distinction is often an integral—if sometimes implicit—part of these models. Perhaps the most foundational theory of human motivation applicable across different contexts, including the workplace, comes from psychologist Abraham Maslow.

Maslow (1943) originally described his hierarchy of needs as an alternative to the Freudian notions of motivation that dominated psychology at the time. Freudian thought conceptualized motivation in terms of physical drives, especially those related to procreation and, later, a drive to return to one's origins (eros and thanatos; Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998). Maslow disagreed with the classical Freudian notion that the major impetus of human behavior derived from sexual impulses or impulses to control anxiety, and believed that other factors motivated behavior. He developed his overall theory of needs by studying individuals he considered exemplary—such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Albert Einstein—as well as what he considered the healthiest proportion of college students he encountered (Maslow 1943).

Maslow's hierarchy of needs parallels many other theoretical conceptualizations in human development and developmental psychology of his era; however, his terminology and ideas endured and became the foundation for 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 and sociological research. The needs, from most basic to most advanced, are as follows (Maslow 1943; 1954; Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998):

1. Physiological needs. These needs represent the physical requirements for survival. If unmet, the person will fail and eventually die. Basic needs such as food, water, clothing, and shelter must be satisfied for the organism to survive. If they are not adequately met, the organism will not experience significant motivation to fulfill higher-level needs.

2. Safety needs. When physiological needs are adequately satisfied, safety needs tend to become the primary motivation for behavior. Personal safety, family safety, economic security, financial security, wellness, and relative good health fall under this category. In the absence of safety—such as financial or economic security—workers will be more motivated to seek job security, standardized minimum wages, and disability accommodations. This is the level at which pay raises and health benefits may have their peak motivating power; however, even when this need is relatively satisfied, workers can still be motivated by improvements in pay and benefits.

3. Belongingness needs. Once the above two primarily extrinsic needs are relatively fulfilled, interpersonal needs and feelings of belongingness become extremely motivating. In many cases this need can even override the need for safety, as witnessed in individuals who maintain abusive relationships. Motivating factors here include friendship, family, intimacy, and the feeling of being part of a group. 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 an inherent desire to feel respected or acknowledged, and this desire becomes the primary motivating factor once the above three needs are relatively satisfied. These needs give a person a sense of recognition and pride in their achievements and accomplishments; however, Maslow believed these needs would not be as strong in people who are starving, insecure, or lacking a sense of belongingness. There are two levels of esteem needs. Lower esteem needs are concerned with respect from others—status, recognition, prestige—whereas higher esteem needs concern the individual's need for self-respect.

5. Self-actualization. At this level, a person desires to become everything they are capable of becoming—to fulfill their full potential. This represents the highest level in Maslow's hierarchy, and he felt that very few people reach it. At this stage, the person strives to master themselves or a particular discipline such as art or athletics.

Maslow's theory is not without criticism. For example, he originally believed the hierarchy was fulfilled in a strict stage-like order, where one must fully satisfy a lower-level need before advancing to the next; however, empirical observations of individuals suggest this is not always true, and Maslow himself acknowledged this later in his career. His methodology was purely observational and limited to people he subjectively deemed self-actualized. Nevertheless, research has suggested that his overall theory does have relevance for understanding human motivation and can serve as a useful basis for understanding motivation in the workplace (Hall, Lindzey, and Campbell 1998). For instance, if workers do not believe they are being paid fairly or do not have adequate benefits, offering them higher status (esteem) or better communication with managers (belongingness) will likely be perceived by workers as an attempt to bribe them or to ignore their essential requirements. One of the interesting aspects of Maslow's hierarchy is that it incorporates the insights of many theorists—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).

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, he became convinced that certain factors occurring in the workplace caused an increase in job satisfaction and motivation, while separate factors caused decreases in job satisfaction and motivation. Herzberg hypothesized that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were actually independent of each other (Herzberg, Snyderman, and Mausner 1966).

Herzberg believed that people are not fully satisfied by having their lower-order needs fulfilled through work. For instance, minimum wages or safe working conditions are not motivators; they are considered minimal requirements by workers. Once these basic factors are reasonably addressed, workers will eventually seek gratification of higher-level needs such as recognition, advancement, achievement, and responsibility—illustrating again the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic needs. Herzberg's theory attempted to place Maslow's hierarchy of needs within an organizational and work framework in a more streamlined way. His two-factor model consisted of (Herzberg 1964; 1966):

1. Hygiene factors. These include salary, work conditions, job security, benefits, and similar elements. The presence of these factors alone does not result in job satisfaction and therefore they are not particularly motivating. They are extrinsic to the job and are associated with company policies. While these factors do not produce job satisfaction, if they are absent to a certain degree, workers will become dissatisfied and unmotivated.

2. Motivating factors. These include recognition, greater responsibility, more autonomy, and challenging work. These relate to the higher-level factors in Maslow's hierarchy—such as achievement and self-actualization—and are more likely to result in increased job satisfaction and greater motivation in workers.

Herzberg viewed job satisfaction and dissatisfaction as independent of each other, such that a decrease in dissatisfaction does not necessarily produce an increase in satisfaction (Herzberg 1964; 1966). In order to improve motivation, leadership must address both sets of factors and not assume that increasing one automatically affects the other (Herzberg 1964; 1966). This is a common mistake made by organizations that believe increasing wages or offering more benefits will lead to greater job satisfaction and higher worker motivation. According to Herzberg, hygiene factors need to be fulfilled to a satisfactory level in order to prevent workers from becoming dissatisfied or unmotivated; however, if leadership wishes to motivate workers to improve their performance or increase production, 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 its main assumptions. First, the notion that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are independent is most likely an artifact of how Herzberg measured the constructs (Chien 2013). In reality, being motivated or satisfied with one's job is closely related to being unmotivated or dissatisfied—they represent different poles of the same construct (Chien 2013). The second major criticism is that Herzberg failed to account for individual differences in motivation and satisfaction and assumed these could be uniformly manipulated. Some people may want recognition, while others strive for more autonomy. Thus, while Herzberg's theory is still well-regarded and offers considerable insight into how to effectively motivate workers, it is understood that leaders must learn and attempt to understand the specific internal factors that motivate each individual under their charge (Chien 2013).

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

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 assumptions managers and leaders hold 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 most effective motivating factors are extrinsic, such as money and threat of punishment.

McGregor believed these traditional beliefs were wildly inaccurate. Building on Maslow's work, he proposed that Theory Y factors—such as praise and recognition (intrinsic factors)—are more motivating to workers and lead to increases in worker output, quality, and working conditions, whereas leadership styles focused on Theory X factors such as money and benefits do not produce significant motivation (McGregor 1964).

Although theorists like Maslow, Herzberg, and McGregor strongly advocated the view that traditional management approaches (Theory X-type views) were not effective at motivating workers, these views remained widely practiced. It is therefore highly probable that many workers were managed in ways that ignored the factors that would genuinely motivate them. Argyris (1993) compared traditional assumptions regarding worker motivation with the theoretical alternatives (e.g., Theory Y). He found that Theory X values are more effective at achieving short-term corporate goals when they are logically and clearly communicated and when workplace relationships are defined by authority and control; however, such approaches lead to very shallow relations between workers and management and are not motivating for workers over time. On the other hand, he found that Theory Y ideas—such as combining organizational goals with maintaining a positive internal environment, having joint control over workplace decisions shared by management and workers, and concentrating on intrinsic forms of motivation and communication—led to higher levels of satisfaction and motivation in workers (Argyris 1993).