Literature Review on Motivation

Human motivation is a complex and well studied field that has broad roots in a diverse collection of academic disciplines including psychology, sociology, education, political science, and economics. In simplified terms, motivation can be defined as, “what causes people to behave as they do” (Denhardt et al., 2008, p. 146). Unfortunately, this simple definition hides the dynamic intricacies of the motivation literature.

There tends to be a general consensus as to the definition of motivation which reflects that: (1) motivation is goal directed (Lawler, 1994), (2) motivation outlines the achievement and pursuit of goals (Denhardt et al., 2008) and (3) motivation is environmentally dependent (Pettinger, 1996). Campbell and Pritchard (1976) define motivation as being the set of psychological processes that cause the initiation, direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior.

Because motivation is so difficult to define, it may help in determining what motivation is not. Denhardt, Denhardt and Aristigueta (2008) outline four examples. Motivation is not: (1) directly observable, (2) the same as satisfaction, (3) always conscious, and (4) directly controllable.

Motivation is not directly observable. “Motivation is an internal state that causes people to behave in a particular way to accomplish particular goals and purposes. It is possible to observe the outward manifestations of motivation but not motivation itself” (Denhardt et al., 2008, p. 147). For instance, the acquisition of money may be an extrinsic motivator, but it is simply the manifestation of the internal drive to meet intrinsic needs like purchasing food, paying rent for shelter, or acquiring high social status.

Motivation is not the same as satisfaction. “Put simply, satisfaction is past oriented, whereas motivation is future oriented” (Denhardt et al., 2008, p. 147). While a worker may be very satisfied by the compensation of their job, there are countless instances where these workers are not entirely motivated to continue doing what they  (Igalens & Roussel, 1999).

Motivation is not always conscious. Unconscious motivation is quite central to Sigmund Freud’s theories of human behavior. Freud posits that most human behavior is the result of unconscious repressed memories, impulses, and desires that influence and drive many human behaviors (Freud, 1976). A manifestation of this idea is the “Freudian slip” where an accidental word slip actually betrays true internal feelings and intentions.

Motivation is not directly controllable. “Motivation is not something that people do to others. Motivation occurs within people’s minds and hearts. Managers can influence the motivational process, but they cannot control it” (Denhardt et al., 2008, p. 147).

The purpose of this paper is to give a detailed review of the literature of motivation in a thematic and quasi-chronological fashion. This will permit the reader to gain a thorough understanding of the many facets of motivation theories in modern literature. A cursory view of the literature will show that there are two central categories of motivation theories: content and process theories.

Content theories are centered around the assumption that individuals all share a similar set of human needs and that we are all motivated to satisfy those needs (e.g., Maslow, 1946; McGregor, 1957; Herzberg, 1968; Alderfer, 1969; McClelland, 1988).  Process theories are centered around the rational cognitive process and say that while most people may have similar needs, the importance and placement of those needs is different for everyone; that it is something highly subjective (e.g., Skinner, 1935; Festinger, 1957; Adams, 1963; Vroom, 1967; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Kahler, 1975; Locke et al., 1990).

The Birth of Modern Motivation Theories

Modern theories of motivation are considered to have grown out of the Elton Mayo-led study of worker output at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorn plant near Chicago. Famously referred to as the Hawthorn studies, Mayo and a previous team of researchers studied the productivity of workers under changing conditions in temperature, humidity, and illumination (Pennock, 1930). Conventional wisdom at the time was that external working conditions were directly responsible for worker productivity (Taylor, 2008). This principle, known as scientific management, was championed by Fredrick Taylor in 1911 and is still a powerful reference for modern managers.

Mayo’s team, consisting of Fritz Roethlisberger, George Homans, and T.N Whitehead, found that contrary to scientific management principles, “interactional variables make the difference in motivating people - things like attention paid to workers as individuals, workers’ control over their own work, differences between individuals’ needs, the willingness of managers to listen, group norms, and direct feedback” (Ott et al., 2007, pp. 132-133). The Mayo team’s findings directly challenged the principles of scientific management, suggesting that perhaps people could not be so easily fit to organizations (Roethlisberger, 1965). Rather, considering and understanding the personal and social needs of workers was just as influential, if not more so, than external working conditions. This opened the door to a flood of new ideas regarding motivation, organization theory, and human psychology.

Types of Motivation: Intrinsic and Extrinsic

By looking deeper into the multiple theories of motivation, one will find that there are two basic types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are seen when there is no other apparent reward except the activity itself (Deci, 1975). Malone and Lepper (1987) have defined it as “what people will do without external inducement.” Examples of intrinsic motivation are hunger, a sense of duty, altruism, and a desire to feel appreciated. Extrinsically motivated behaviors are those where the controlling mechanism is easily seen (Deci, 1975). Examples of extrinsic motivation are money, rules and laws, and the physical environment.

Deci and Ryan (1985) state that intrinsically motivated behaviors are innate and can result in creativity, flexibility, and spontaneity while extrinsically motivated behaviors are generally done as a consequence of pressure and result in low self-esteem and anxiety. However, even the mere identification of intrinsic/extrinsic behaviors has been a topic of debate (Scott, 1975; Guzzo, 1979). Despite this, the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is an important one given their impact upon each other.

There has been much research into the effects that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation have upon each other, especially in the field of education. It has been found that many students do not find studying to be intrinsically rewarding (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984) and that extrinsic motivation has the exact opposite effect on student achievement than is desired (Lepper & Hodell, 1989). In fact, Cameron and Pierce (1994) have shown that when individuals are asked to complete a task, mere verbal praise after successfully completing the task increases intrinsic motivation. Contrary to popular belief, the use of expected extrinsic rewards for completing the task actually produces a negative motivational effect for future task completion once the reward is removed. However, Cameron and Pierce also found that reinforcement, unlike reward, does not harm intrinsic motivation (Cameron & Pierce, 1994).

Taking these findings into the realm of motivation in organizations, we must now be cognizant of the fact that by simply applying extrinsic motivation methods without also addressing intrinsic factors, managers could be doing more harm than good. Also, managers must understand that by simply rewarding workers through extrinsic means, they are actually perpetuating a destructive cycle of continual reward and decreased intrinsic motivation. It is important to keep this in mind as we cover the myriad of theories and needs outlined below.

Content Theories of Motivation

Shortly after Fritz Roethlisberger published his 1941 book Management and Morale, outlining in detail the Hawthorn studies, Abraham Maslow published “A Theory of Human Motivation” in 1943. Maslow is considered the father of needs based motivation theory and his theory is “one of the best-known and most widely cited works on motivation” (Denhardt et al., 2008, p. 148).

Maslow (Maslow, 1946) proposed a five level hierarchy of needs which he outlined as necessary for the achievement of a completely satisfied individual; or in his terms, a self-actualized being. Those needs are: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization.

Physiological needs can be described as the most basic of human needs; those needed for human survival. These include breathing, water, food, and shelter. Safety needs are those needs which create stability and predictability in our lives: personal and financial security, health and well-being, and employment and access to resources. Love/belonging needs are centered around social interactions and interpersonal relationships: friendship, family, and intimacy. Esteem needs reflect our desires for respect, self-esteem and the need to belong.

Finally, self-actualization is the state which the individual achieves when all other needs have been meet. Maslow identifies fifteen attributes that self-actualized individuals experience, and thus the exact definition of being “self-actualized” is difficult to summarize. Some of the characteristics include: the acceptance of self, others and nature; spontaneity; autonomy independent of culture and environment; and the mystic experience:

Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences.

Each need, or level, is fulfilled in sequence and serves as motivation until all the needs of the individual are meet in self-actualization. While Maslow emphasized that individuals will generally be motivated to seek each need in the order described, he also stated that the order of his hierarchy is “not nearly as rigid as we may have implied” (p. 386) and that in some individuals will seek needs in different order.

It is important to remember that Maslow himself realized that his hierarchy of needs was more theoretical than normative:
The present theory then must be considered to be a suggested program or framework for future research and must stand or fall, not so much on facts available or evidence presented, as upon researches yet to be done, researches suggested perhaps, by the questions raised in this paper (p. 371).  As such, a number of authors have expanded upon Maslow’s work.

Douglas McGregor (1957) is perhaps the most well known scholar to evolve Maslow’s needs hierarchy into a “cogent articulation of the basic assumptions of the organizational behavior perspective” (Ott et al., 2007, p. 133). McGregor outlined two theories of how managers view and hence treat employees. Each theory is a managerial assumption regarding employees. McGregor main point seem to be that depending on the accepted assumption, those beliefs tend to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Theory X holds that workers are viewed as lazy, self-interested, gullible, and thus predicating the assumption that they need to be guided and controlled. Managers who have these assumptions believe that it is their job to structure their subordinates work. These assumptions can lead to mistrust and eventually cause diseconomies of scale. This theory is well aligned with the works of Taylor (1911) and Simon (1997) as they focus on organizations as purely rational systems (Scott & Davis, 2007).

Theory Y holds that employees are capable, self-controlled, and self-directed. They accept and desire responsibility and are receptive to change and organizational and self-improvement. Managers under the Theory Y assumption believe that good work itself is motivating. Managers are also more likely to develop positive interpersonal relationships with their workers (McGregor, 1957).

Hersberg (1968), influenced by both Maslow and McGregor, posited his own theory of motivation called the motivation-hygiene theory. In this, he describes two dimensions of conditions: motivators and hygiene factors. Motivators, akin to Maslow’s higher-level needs, are what lead to job satisfaction and are associated with the nature of the work itself: achievement, recognition, responsibility and growth. Motivators are intrinsic factors which lead to job satisfaction. On the other hand, hygiene factors, associated with Maslow’s lower-level needs, do not lead necessarily to motivation or satisfaction, but rather are extrinsic and simply reduce job dissatisfaction. Examples of hygiene factors include: company policy and administration, supervision, relationships with supervisors, and work conditions.

So for instance, a worker can have a high salary (extrinsic hygiene factor) and great work conditions, leaving her not dissatisfied. However, if her work is not rewarding and she does not feel challenged in the tasks she does, then she may not be very satisfied and thus not motivation in her work.

Clayton Alderfer (1972), influenced by Gordon Allport (1960, 1964) was an American psychologist who simplified Maslow’s hierarch of needs into three categories: existence, which included Maslow’s physiological and safety needs; relatedness, which included love and esteem; and growth, which included self-actualization. Abbreviated simply as ERG, Alderfer saw his three categories more as a continuum rather than a strict hierarchy (Alderfer, 1969). The ERG theory allows for different people to pursue their needs in a subjective order and possibly simultaneously.

Another important principle of Alderfer’s ERG theory is the notion that if a higher-level need goes unsatisfied, due to the difficulty in achieving it, then the individual may regress into a lower-level need that is easier to satisfy. This is known as the frustration-regression principle and can be seen in organizations where a worker meets frustration in growth opportunities, they may then regress towards meeting a lower level need like socialization with coworkers.

Contrary to theorists who believe that individuals have identical innate needs, David McClelland (1988) argues that certain needs differ from individual to individual and that they are often learned needs; with some people having higher levels of one need than others. McClelland proposes that individuals are motivated based on three needs: achievement (NAch), power (NPower), and affiliation (NAff). Each person has a certain level of each need and in combination they describe what types of motivation influences would suite them best.

A worker with high achievement needs seeks to excel in their work and appreciates recognition of their efforts. They tend to avoid situations where there is only a small gain while also avoiding high risk situations where failure is a possibility. High affiliation need workers are more concerned about social relationships. They would rather fit in than stand out. Finally, high power need individuals desire to control others for the achievement of goals. They are less concerned with recognition or approval from others.

Despite the great number of need based theories, the determination of exactly what constitutes a human need is far from settled. There have been a number of scholars that have tried to identify the many different types of human needs and while many theories share similar needs, there seem to be simply too many for absolute consensus. In addition to the needs (and associated theories) I have outlined above, there are many others.

Ryan and Deci (2000) outlined three : autonomy, competence and relatedness. Nohria, Lawrence, and Wilson (2002) have borrowed from sociobiological theory and outlined four basic needs: (1) acquire objects and experiences, (2) long-term bonding with others, (3) learning and understanding of the world, and (4) defense from harm. Psychologist Steven Reiss (2004) has even outlined a model of motivation that includes 16 motivating desires: power, independence, curiosity, acceptance, order, saving, honor, idealism, social contact, family, status, vengeance, romance, eating, physical exercise, and tranquility.

Process Theories of Motivation

While content theories focused on the needs that all individuals share, process theories focus on the cognitive differences between individuals.

While not exactly a direct motivation theory in the contexts of work or organizations, Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance says that a person feels discomfort holding two contradictory ideas, beliefs, or feelings simultaneously. This motivates the individual to, “try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance” while also trying to, “actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance” (Festinger, 1957, p. 3).

The theory of cognitive dissonance can be used as a powerful motivating force and has frequently been used in politics and public opinion (Whittaker, 1964; Regan & Kilduff, 1988) and has been likened to other human need states (Festinger, 1964).

Shortly after Festinger, Victor Vroom (1964) wrote about what has become known as expectancy theory. According to Vroom, individuals are constantly trying predict the future. We create probable futures for ourselves about events and strive to meet them. Yet before acting, we internally calculate the value of the reward and the probability of achieving it.
Vroom’s theory of cognitive decision making and behavior outlines three attributes of motivation: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. Valence is simply the strength of desire for the perceived outcome; the want of the reward, if you will. Instrumentality is the belief that by completing certain steps, the desired outcome will be achieved. Expectancy is the belief that you can actually achieve the desired outcomes. Taking all three measures into account leads to the level of motivation a person may experience.

To put it more simply:

…expectancy theory claims that people are motivated by calculating how much they want something, how much of it then think they will get, how likely it is that their actions will cause them to get it, and how much others in similar circumstances have received (Ott et al., 2007, p. 135).

Social equity theory was introduced by John S. Adams (1963) and is an extension of Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory and also appears to rely on the concept of the looking-glass self (Cooley, 1983). Equity theory is based on the notion that people are most satisfied in relationships, both personal and professional (Mowday, 1991), when the “give and take” are equal. In terms of work, this can mean that a person judges equity by measuring their input to outcome ratio against that of other workers. Adams suggested that we gain our sense of equity through the process of socialization.

Thus under equity theory, perceived inequity creates tension which is proportionate to the inequity, and this tension is what serves to motivate individuals to change.
Adams outlines six methods to reduce the tension of inequity: (1) altering effort, (2) altering outcomes, (3) changing how people think about effort or outcomes, (4) “leave the field” (p. 428), (5) try to change the outcomes for others,  and (6) change the comparison standards. However, Adams cautions that, “Not all means of reducing inequity that have been listed will be equally satisfactory, and the adoption of some may result in very unsteady states” (p. 429).

In 1968, Edwin Lock proposed that the mere setting of goals can serve as a form of motivation (Wofford et al., 1992) and tested Atkinson’s (1958) notion that performance and task difficulty were related in a curvilinear, inverse function (Locke & Latham, 2002). Lock’s idea, a seemingly natural outgrowth of Aristotle’s telos (Barker, 1958), have been supported in a number of studies (Latham & Baldes, 1975; Rothkopf & Billington, 1979; Locke et al., 1990).

Lock’s core principle in his goal-setting theory states that by setting moderately difficult, self-assigned, and specific goals, individuals are challenged to increase performance towards those goals. Setting goals also allows workers to judge their own performance against that needed to reach the goal. Goal setting is also an important attribute for teams. Specific and measurable performance goals in teams can solidify cohesion, increase performance, and reaffirm purpose (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003).

In 1975, Taibi Kahler identified five common motivational drivers which have the potential to cause dysfunctional behaviors. These “transactional drivers” are the need to: (1) be perfect, (2) be strong, (3) hurry up, (4) please others, and (5) try hard. Kahler suggest that we are all guided to be socially functional adults through these drivers. However, when individuals focus too much on any or all of these drivers, dysfunction can set in, causing stress (Kahler, 1975).

Kahler’s drivers, in the context of work, seem to be situationally dependent. Managers may be able to capitalize on the intrinsic drivers of their workers to suite the organizations needs but they could also be used in assisting stressed workers identify the sources of their stress.

Conclusion

Despite the copious amount of literature and research into the most effective methods of motivating people, true human motivation will always be a subjective matter. So long as there is freewill, it is highly unlikely that any theory of motivation will work for all people. The sheer number of theories, needs, and methods of motivation are a testament to this fact. However, the vast body of literature, only partially touched upon in the preceding text, makes tremendous efforts to define and propose the means by which managers, leaders, and authority figures can attempt to shape human behavior.

If organizations, and more specifically, managers, are seeking to motivate their workers without adhering to the positivist and dehumanizing management theories of old, then it would seem that the best approach is to use all of the theories within the contexts they seem best suited for. There is no grand motivation theory that can be applied to every person or situation and as such, the only way to truly motivate someone is to simply treat them individuals.

References

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational behavior and human performance, 4, 142-175.
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existance, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Settings. New York: Free Press.
Allport, G. W. (1960). Personality and social encounter: Selected essays. Beacon Press.
Allport, G. W. (1964). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Atkinson, J. W. (1958). Towards experimental analysis of human motivation in terms of motives, expectancies, and incentives. Motives in fantasy.
Barker, E. (1958). The Politics of Aristotle. Oxford Univ. Press, 1958.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational research, 64(3), 363-423.
Campbell, J.P., & Pritchard, R.D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cooley, C. H. (1983). Human Nature and the Social Order (Social Science Classics Series). Transaction Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenage years. Basic Books.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior (Perspectives in Social Psychology). Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. Plenum Press.
Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Aristigueta, M. P. (2008). Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Sage Publications, Inc.
Festinger, L. (1964). The motivating effects of cognitive dissonance. The cognitive processes: Readings.
Festinger, L. (1957). Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Freud, S. (1976). The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud: (The Standard Edition) (1-24) (Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud). W.W. Norton & Co.
Guzzo, R. A. (1979). Types of rewards, cognitions, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate people? Harvard Business Review.
Igalens, J., & Roussel, P. (1999). A study of the relationships between compensation package, work motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1003-1025.
Kahler, T. (1975). Drivers: the key to the process of scripts. Transactional Analysis Journal, 5(3).
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (Collins Business Essentials). Collins Business.
Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975). The practical significance of Locke’s theory of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Lawler, E. E. (1994). Motivation in Work Organizations (Jossey Bass Business and Management Series). Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
Lepper, M. R., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. Research on motivation in education.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. The American Psychologist.
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Smith, K. J. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude.
Maslow, A. (1946). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
McClelland, D. C. (1988). Human Motivation. Cambridge University Press.
McGregor, D. (1957). The human side of enterprise. Management Review, 22-28,88-92.
Mowday, R. T. (1991). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In R. Steers, & L. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nohria, N., Lawrence, P., & Wilson, E. (2002). Driven: How human nature shapes our choices. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
Ott, J. S., Parkes, S. J., & Simpson, R. B. (2007). Classic Readings in Organizational Behavior. Wadsworth Publishing.
Pennock, G. A. (1930). Industrial research at Hawthorne. Personnel Journal, 8, 296.
Pettinger, R. (1996). An Introduction to Organizational Behaviour (Macmillan business). Palgrave Macmillan.
Porter, L., & Lawler, E. (1968). Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Richard D. Irwin Inc.
Regan, D. T., & Kilduff, M. (1988). Optimism about Elections: Dissonance Reduction at the Ballot Box. Political Psychology, 9(1), 101-107.
Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology, 8, 179-193.
RoethlisbergerFJ. (1965). Management and Morale. HARVARD UNIV PRESS.
Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1979). Goal-Guided Learning from Text: Inferring a Descriptive Processing Model from Inspection Times and. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-79.
Scott, W. E. (1975). The effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives</h3>.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Behavior, 4th Edition. Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1935). Two types of conditioned reflex and a pseudo type. Journal of General Psychology.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Norton.
Whittaker, J. O. (1964). Cognitive Dissonance and the Effectiveness of Persuasive Communications. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 28(4), 547-555.
Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Premack, S. (1992). Meta-analysis of the antecedents of personal goal level and of the antecedents and consequences of. Journal of Management.

Tags: human needs, intrinsic extrinsic motivation, literature review, motivation, theory