jim.shamlin.com

3 - Motivation

Motivation is a matter of desire, which itself is a highly complex phenomenon. People know what they want, but don't know why they want it, and those who seek simple answers are often frustrated in the attempt into giving up, whether they walk away from the topic or take false confidence in their misunderstanding of it.

Those who seek to understand the motivations of others are even further removed from reality: they tend to oversimplify, assuming it's one simple thing that other people want. And yet, motivating others is necessary to gaining cooperation or assistance we need, and those who work in management must do this daily. Most do it very poorly, and with little formal understanding of human motivation.

Of particular importance: we must understand that motivation is not a character trait that a given person has or doesn't have - it is a transitory state that arises in a situation, and one which is highly cognitive. It arises when an opportunity is presented, and the subject evaluates the potential outcomes and assesses their value. Their decision to "want" or "not want" to avail themselves of an option depends heavily on this assessment.

Because motivation is central to life in any society, there has been a great deal of consideration and speculation throughout history. There are intrinsic theories that consider human desire and motivation as well as extrinsic ones that consider how people can be motivated. After millennia of study, there is still no one theory that is universal, though many theories have some value in specific instances, and understanding the topic, even partially, requires studying a broad range.

As motivating employees is central to the task of management, a manager would do well to develop an understanding human motivation in order to be more effective in his role - and he would also do well to understand a broad range of theories rather than subscribing to any single and simplified model, because motivation itself is neither uniform nor simple.

Motivation at Work

The traditional view of work is that people are motivated to do work in exchange for a paycheck. But we recognize that this is very seldom true: people must earn a living, but have many options to do so and are selective in choosing an occupation and an employer, and often put greater emphasis on non-monetary matters such as the opportunity to be socially connected or experience achievement. If these desires are not met, they can find another opportunity to make money.

The task of the manager is to ensure that employees behave in ways that serve the needs of the organization. His method for doing so is to ensure that the employees needs are being bet by the organization. In essence, he must be a negotiator and enforcer of the employment contract - but he must act on behalf of both parties, not merely the firm, in order to be successful.

While the needs and desires of the organization are often clear and document, those of the employees are unclear and undocumented - and even the employees themselves may not be fully cognizant of their own motivation.

Managers have attempted to influence employees by means of promises and threats - the promise of reward for obedience and the threat of punishment for disobedience. Threats have traditionally been favored because they are perceived to cost less than rewards, though the productivity loss that results when employees are demotivated and the cost of replacing employees are pointedly ignored. Rewards are more reliable, but are also poorly executed in that they are often vaguely promised and randomly given, breaking their link to desirable behaviors.

There's a brief diversion as the authors amuse themselves with a rhyme: that hob performance is a the result of "skill and will" - skill being the capability to do something and will being the motivation to actually do it. This is likely important to consider when performance is lacking, as addressing performance as a matter of will is useless if it is a deficit of skills, and vice versa - so the first question is whether training or motivation is necessary.

Consider that most rewards/punishments are monetary in nature, and that money is not the primary motivation to work - as such any system of reward and threat that is based solely on compensation fails to address the benefits that matter most, which vary greatly by the individual: the desire to feel a sense of achievement, the desire to feel connectedness with their coworkers, the desire to be recognized within the organization, and other desires are often listed as being more important to job satisfaction than monetary compensation, yet the motivational practices of most organizations entirely neglect these factors.

Ideally, you want employees to be motivate to do their present jobs well, but you must recognize that most people see their present job as an as-is state and desire something better, typically to advance to the next job in their course of career. If nothing else, they can likely identify a number of tings that would make their job better or more satisfying, and your ability to meet these demands can be more motivational than simple cash rewards. But a manager must work first to understand what motivates his people, then work on achieving it.

Theories of Motivation

There are various definitions of motivation, and the one that the authors most accept is that it involves "an individual's intensity, direction, and persistence of effort towards attaining a goal." (EN: This is not bad, but depends on the definition of "goal" - many people are motivated to preserve the status quo or recover from a setback. Subscribing to the notion of "ever upwards" leads many managers to failure and even counterproductive action.)

A person may be motivated by many goals and prioritizes them, but only some of those goals are related to the workplace, and generally not the most important ones. If their goal is to learn painting, to travel overseas, or to climb a mountain the organization has little interest and can be of little assistance.

That aside, people also have goals that an organization can serve - and in order to influence employees' behavior a manager must understand their goals and motivations.

The Value of Motivation

Where employees are properly trained and motivated, there is no need for a manager to be "constantly looking over their shoulders" to ensure that they do what is needed. That is to say that the time and effort invested in training and motivation pays for itself by saving the time and effort of supervision.

Ideally, employees can become entirely self-sustaining - such that in the modern organization, the goal of managers is essentially to make supervision unnecessary and develop a workforce of self-managing employees. This enables managers to focus more on leadership (to shape the future) and less on supervision (to monitor the present).

The authors promise to investigate these topics further in later chapters.

Integrating Motivation Theories for Application in the Real World

The consequences of taking an action are the core of motivation: if the consequences are desirable, an individual will motivated. People are trained to this in western culture - the reward of diligent study is a good grade at the end of the term, and the reward of hard work is a good paycheck at the end of the week. All theories of motivation agree on this.

Where theories of motivation disagree is in what cause people to be motivated: which goals motivate a person, and how someone else can influence them by meddling with the natural consequences of an action by either adjusting the outcome or the means by which it is achieved.

The authors compare intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, but in a rather vague and insufficient way, so to paraphrase and augment:

The vast majority of rewards that a manager is capable of offering are extrinsic: they can offer a pay increase, bonus, commission, fringe benefit, recognition, etc.

(EN: Aside of paraphrasing those descriptions, its also worth mentioning that there are intrinsic, functional, and extrinsic punishments as well. In general, the authors prefer to avoid the notion of punishment, but ignoring it seems negligent because it can be used property or misused carelessly and to avoid considering it makes the latter more likely.)

However, this is often overemphasized, largely due to the narcissism of management who would regard workers as "unthinking creatures whose behavior needed to be controlled with reward and punishment." Historically, the "upper" classes of men became manager and the workers were all peasants, regarded disdainfully as social inferiors - but in today's egalitarian society that perspective has changed. Unfortunately, the theory of management remains stuck in the past.

The authors advocate for the self-managing employee in the present day, who maintains their own motivation to perform at high levels, and suggest four "building blocks" to achieve and maintain that state:

  1. Competence - Employees know how to do the job, though management must often train them to get to a sufficient level of competence.
  2. Empowerment - Employees feel that they have control and autonomy and do not need to rely on managers to authorize decisions. (EN: more importantly, they feel their decisions will not be overridden or undermined by others)
  3. Relevance - Employees understand how the tasks they perform are part of the operations of the organization at large and help to achieve its goals.
  4. Feedback - Employees have a reliable and objective means of monitoring their own progress and performance by means of receiving feedback.

A manager must be attentive to these four factors - whether the employee is sufficiently supported in each category - as well as being realistic about his own ability to positively influence them.

Why Are There So Many Different Theories of Motivation?

There are numerous theories of human motivation, and it's not a matter of deciding which is right or synthesizing them into a single universal system, but considering them as perspectives, each of which is applicable to some degree given the person and situation in question, and each of which is entirely wrong for other people and situations. In essence, they are different tools for different tasks, and just as a handyman has multiple tools in his belt so that he might select the right one for any given task, so should an individual who seeks to understand and practice motivation have these multiple theories and methodologies at his disposal.

Generally, theories of motivation fall into two bases. First, there are needs-based theories that consider the internal desires of a person (whether based on personality or values) that motivate them to take action. Second, there are process-based theories that consider how motivation arises in a given situation, taking into account cognitive factors. The two complement one another and can be used in conjunction to understand motivation more fully.

The authors will discuss needs theories (McClelland and Herzberg) and Process theories (Expectancy Approach and Social Cognitive) in this chapter, but acknowledge that there are a number of models from which to borrow, adapt, and synthesize.

Needs Theories

Needs theories are based on the premise that a person's needs (wants and desires) are the primary factor that motivates them to undertake action - but in a general sense rather than a specific situation. Their needs lead them to desire some things, not to desire other things, and to prioritize their multiple goals according to their needs.

The author lists four assumptions of the needs-based model:

  1. People are motivated to address their needs to reduce a deficiency in their present state or achieve a desired state.
  2. Different people have different needs. Even in instances where people have the same need, they prioritize them differently
  3. There is more than one possible course of action that can be undertaken to fulfill a need, and people choose differently
  4. People react differently in situations where their needs are not met - different to one another, and different from one moment to the next

(EN: This seems oversimplified and insufficient, but likely because the authors are looking at things on which all needs-based theories agree.)

McClelland's Need Theory

The authors describe McClelland's (1985) theory of needs, which is highly popular and often used in organizational management courses.

(EN: I have some issues with McClelland, primarily that it is oversimplified, fails to consider the whole of human needs, and is often skewed to make the theory easier to apply rather than more accurate - but will proceed with the authors' description of the theory without further comment.)

This model reduces human needs to three basic elements, suggesting that people tend to prioritize them differently, but have all three needs:

  1. Affiliation. People are gratified when they are liked or accepted by others whom they frequently encounter in their lives, and the business environment provides many such routine encounters. The need for affiliation causes people to value these connections over the practical and functional reasons fro interactions. Those with this need prefer jobs with lots of face-time and communication and avoid conflict.
  2. Achievement. People are gratified at exercising their abilities and seeing the results of their personal actions. They wish to do things well by their own standards, whether the outcomes are substantial or trivial, and are not concerned about what others think. The need for achievement causes people to seek evidence of their personal impact. Those with this need prefer jobs that are more solitary, complex, and measurable.
  3. Power. People are gratified when they recognize that they have exerted influence on other people (personal power over others) or institutions (personal power over groups), often regardless of any outcome that is achieved. They wish to see changes in the behavior of others that can be correlated to their own actions. The need for power causes people to seek jobs where they have formal authority or the control to grant or withhold privileges and benefits to others.

The major implication of this theory is that managers should match employees to job tasks: a person with a high need for affiliation would be a poor fit for a job that requires them to work in solitude, and a person with a high need for achievement would be a poor fit to a job that requires them to negotiate and work with others.

(EN: I also recall McClelland state this with some reservations. Just because a person needs are wants something doesn't mean he is particularly good at it. Someone with a need for affiliation might be rather obnoxious and offensive to others; one with a need for achievement might be hapless; one with a need for power might be abusive of any power he is granted. So following this theory might cause some to be happy, but others to be miserable, and the goals of the organization may be undermined instead of accomplished.

Herzberg's Two-Factor Model

Another model that is popular in the business world was developed by Frederic Herzberg (1987) to divide motivation into two categories: hygiene and motivation.

The "hygiene" category includes needs that must be fulfilled as a matter of course, so that people will stay in their present jobs. These include things such as wages and working conditions. Failure to fulfill these needs or a change that threatens them causes dissatisfaction, such that people may be motivated to maintain their needs.

The "motivation" category includes needs that people are motivated to fulfill to gain a sense of accomplishment, and are not part of the ordinary routine of work. This would include bonuses, recognition, or other significant milestones that cause them to recognize their accomplishments. These needs may be unfulfilled on a daily basis, but can be used to motivate them to do things that are not a part of their typical day.

In terms of salary and benefits, many firms have used them as methods to motivate people, but Herzberg argues that they are merely hygiene. While a worker is happy get a significant raise, it some becomes his standard income and loses its motivational value. An employee whose salary provides him with adequate funds to support his lifestyle isn't particularly interested in getting more, as he has no practical need for it.

In Herzberg's time, this was a particular problem because many firms used punitive methods of motivation (denying or threatening the basic needs of employees) and few seemed to grasp the value of motivation.

(EN: My sense is the two examples the authors provide are the most business-oriented, but not the most comprehensive. One likely needs to begin with a general theory such as Maslow, then take the situational needs-based theories in context of the whole.)

Process Theories

Process theories are concerned with the behaviors that are consciously or unconsciously related to the achievement of goals. The underlying assumption is that people form patterns of behavior based on their past successes, and tend to implicitly believe that behaving in the same manner will produce the same outcome, even in situations in which this is not so.

Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory assumes that an individual has certain expectations in regards to taking an action - the chance it will have a positive outcome is compared to the effort required to achieve that outcome. This is considered much in the same way as return on effort to determine whether the return is worth the investment - such that the better the return, the greater the motivation to invest.

The authors suggest a three-question series:

  1. What are the execrated outcomes? Importantly, there is no certainty what the outcome will be, so probability is assessed.
  2. What are the alternatives? The choice to do something always entails the alternative of not doing it, as well as other actions on which his time and resources can be spent.
  3. What shall I do? Comparing the probable outcome of action, the probable consequences of inaction, and the probable outcome of other actions, a decision is made to pursue the best course.

(EN: This seems a bit mechanical and facile, but I expect it is essentially true. For most decisions people consider this superficially and perhaps neglect anything but the first step, but in more serious matters they employ a meticulous and deliberate process of evaluation.)

The authors touch upon the evaluation of outcomes, and consider that they are seldom binary. That is, it is not merely a matter of achieving an outcome, but whether the outcome is regarded as desirable to a person. To have a 100% chance of achieving something that is not desirable (or even undesirable) is not motivational.

As a manager, you can help employees overcome some of the flaws in their evaluation: help them recognize the value or probability of an outcome, help them consider outcomes they did not recognize, help them identify the cost of inaction, help them identify alternatives for their time and resources, etc.

(EN: A problem in this is orienting oneself to the perspective of the employee. Many managers, and salesmen for that matter, are most interested in the outcomes that are good for themselves rather than the individual they are attempting to influence.)

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory focuses on the notion of self-efficacy - the believe that a person can do something. In many instances what demotivates individuals is the belief that they cannot actually do it, or lack the power or influence to make a positive difference. Overcoming self-doubt is allegedly (per Bandura 2001) one of the most significant factors in improving employee motivation and performance.

SCT is at the basis of aphorisms about willpower - if a person can believe in themselves, they can accomplish anything. This is not strictly true, as sometimes their doubts are well founded, but people are capable of doing a great many things that are entirely possible, but they will not be motivated to apply themselves to the effort.

(EN: A problem here is assuming that they see the connection of effort to action - so a necessary first step returns to efficacy theory, and particularly a process of brainstorming - to derive possible solutions before assessing feasibility.)

The "cognitive" part of this theory considers the conflict between emotion and reason - particularly in the instances where an individual can rationally assess their abilities, but have conflicting emotions that cause them to reject a logical analysis. It is therefore necessary for a manager to account not only for reason, but for the emotional patterns of subordinates in attempting to motivate them.

Management Implications

Traditional management uses rewards and punishments to compel employees to do things against their will. Not only is this highly ineffective, but it is based on a false premise (that employees do not find value in their work). Instead, managers must first attempt to determine what employees value, and leverage their needs and desires in giving them motivation to take actions that are mutually beneficial.

Matching employees to the kind of work most capable of fulfilling their needs is the first step, and often a much easier and shorter one to keeping employees motivated to continue to providing service. In this sense it is necessary to deliver on the promises established in the first step - or more often to enable employees to have a sense of ongoing satisfaction and progress toward higher-level goals.

A few random tips are provided in this regard:

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT