Why do people do things? At all? Or why do they do them in the way they do them? Why not another way?

Well, there’s not a simple answer, and as a result this topic has exercised some of the great minds for hundreds of years.

For a long time the only people who looked into these questions were philosophers, and they looked at the question from a point of view of how one should act, how to live a ‘good’ life.

In the modern era we have management thinkers, people concerned with human motivation as a means to an end: be that making people happy or getting them to be more productive.

Whether you’re a philosopher or a management guru, the fundamental idea is that you cannot change the nature of human beings and so if you can understand this nature better then you can design an organisation where people work harder, are happier, whatever your purpose is...

There are many theories and models of human motivation, this article aims to give an overview of the theories, how they relate to one another and how they essentially provide different imperfect views of the same phenomena...

Summary of theories:

Needs based theories, that people are motivated to do things in order to rectify something missing, fulfil a need.

• Maslow: ‘Pyramid or hierarchy of needs’: People have multiple needs, loosely classifiable as physiological, psychological, growth and transcendent needs. As one need is satisfied, then another (higher) need becomes apparent. full article
• Issues: concerns have been raised with the small sample size used in the original study, and other academics have argued that his result cannot be replicated. Also, this model doesn’t allow for feeling two different needs simultaneously (e.g. needing shelter *and* food), nor for individual differences in prioritisation of needs.
• In a sentance: There are different types of needs

• Herzberg: ‘Two Factor theory’: Some needs are not motivators, but only de-motivate if not fulfilled (hygiene factors) – e.g. Pay, working conditions, relationship with boss. Other needs can motivate (motivating factors) – e.g. intrinsic motivation of doing a good job, reward recognition and growth. full article
• Issues: Whilst this theory has been corroborated, many believe that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are on the same scale, not two as Herzberg proposes. Again, Herzberg does not make allowance for individual differences, whilst we can plainly see that different people are motivated differently.
• In a sentance: Some need fulfilment does not motivate

• McClelland: ‘Theory of needs’: Everyone has a different balance of three fundamental needs: power, achievement and affiliation. People with different needs have different strategies for success in organisations, and thus it is useful to know what type of person you are working with if you seek to motivate them (as one size will not fit all). full article
• Issues: McClelland used a well-validated scoring system to test his subjects and his results have been corroborated by other researchers. Crucially he also allows for individual difference to a much larger degree than Maslow or Herzberg.
• In a sentance: Different people have different needs

• Vroom: ‘expectancy theory’: Motivation for a given act depends on the desirability of the expected outcome of a situation, whether you believe you can affect the success of the situation and whether you believe the success of the situation is linked to the desired outcome. full article
• In a sentance: People only do things when they believe that their action will lead to need fulfilment

• Theory X / Theory Y: Theory Y suggests that people are fundamentally born good (conversely in theory X: evil) and are thus naturally motivated (conversely: lazy) and thus my role in an organisation is to nurture and support them (conversely: cajole and punish them). Theory Y and Theory X
• In a sentance:Different philosophies exist when trying to motivate others

The interesting thing that strikes me is that none of these appear to contradict each other. I would imagine that each concept is a good lens for viewing a particular aspect of motivation. Thus I have attempted to make a further abstraction from the list above:

1. Individual needs depend on the prior experience of the individual
2. Only the most fundamental needs are common to all people and cultures
3. All actions are in an attempt to fulfil needs (selfishly or unselfishly) rather than motivated by some intrinsic property of humans.

This leads me to a seemingly strongly individualistic stance on motivation. However, although not stated explicitly it should be remembered that any of these statements could be made about the need to give charitably, share with one's community, achieve nirvana, etc and so can and should be considered in a multi-cultural context as well as a purely western individualistic way.

Performance-related Pay (PRP) Performance related pay assumes that people will be more motivated if they are paid more for success or desired behaviours. Although this is instinctively intuitive for most people, the actuality is that PRP doesn’t work and that paying people for their performance can actually de-motivate people: Why performance related pay doesn't work

An aside for those reading to understand how to motivate people at work:

Many people come to motivation in an organisational context from the perspective of 'the staff are not motivated enough'. However in looking for tools to apply to others they show their fundamental belief that other people are defective in some way and need to be changed, i.e. the people are evil philosophy.

Although I don't believe that people are intrinsically motivated either way (i.e. good or evil theories), within the typical organisational context it is safe to assume that people are motivated to do a job to a required standard and get resources and recognition in exchange. The role of the person questioning why their staff are not motivated should be to ask what aberration of the system of work is making people act in this unnatural (i.e. de-motivated) way, and not to ask what is wrong with the people whilst assuming that their systems are perfect.

Fundamentally, you can't change other people, and so you have to change yourself and organisations instead. Giving up trying to change others is the most powerful leadership move anyone can make.

Designing a job for motivation: Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model





Got a suggestion?, email Dave

Can't find what you want? - use the search!

WWW www.arrod.co.uk