![\"An](\"https:\/\/nova-live.imgix.net\/\/migration-AnOverviewofMotivationIMGB2.png?q=60&fm=webp&w=700&h=697\"\/)
To achieve self-actualisation, Maslow suggests we generally must first meet the needs at the bottom of the pyramid<\/strong> before meeting subsequent needs in order. In other words, physiological needs must be met before those of safety, belongingness and love, and esteem. The closer we come to satisfying one need, the more we want to satisfy the next need<\/strong> in the hierarchy. [1]<\/p> Other classic models rooted in the principles of needs-satisfaction theory include Frederick Herzberg\u2019s Motivation-Hygiene Theory<\/strong> and Douglas McGregor\u2019s Theory X and Theory Y<\/strong>. Motivation-Hygiene Theory outlines the distinction between the factors that prevent dissatisfaction at work<\/strong> (hygiene factors) and those that genuinely motivate employees<\/strong> (satisfiers). Hygiene factors include having a safe working environment<\/strong> and the necessary equipment and resources<\/strong>, while satisfiers include being given relevant and challenging work<\/strong>, having an appropriate level of responsibility<\/strong> and being recognized for your achievements<\/strong>.[2]<\/p> Theory X and Y, meanwhile, describe two styles of management that are guided by very different sets of assumptions<\/strong> about human needs and motivation. \u2018Theory X\u2019 managers assume that employees are inherently averse to work<\/strong> and must be directed, manipulated or threatened with punishment in order to perform. \u2018Theory Y\u2019 managers, on the other hand, believe that team members are capable of motivating and directing themselves,<\/strong> and that they seek out responsibility<\/strong> rather than avoid it. [3]<\/p> While a number of developments have been made in the field of motivation study since these classic models were first published, these theories remain popular and continue to provide valuable insights into how managers can motivate their teams. Maslow\u2019s model, for example, suggests that to motivate employees, leaders and managers should ensure team members\u2019 individual needs are met in the workplace. This might involve: <\/p> Herzberg\u2019s theory suggests that leaders should take steps to both prevent employee dissatisfaction (e.g. by ensuring the working environment is safe<\/strong> and providing employees with all the tools and resources<\/strong> they need) and meet team members\u2019 high-level satisfier needs (e.g. by matching roles and responsibilities to employees\u2019 skills and interests,<\/strong> giving individuals increased responsibility<\/strong> when appropriate and recognizing and rewarding<\/strong> their achievements).<\/p> Few managers today are likely to subscribe wholly to the rather extreme, traditional approach of McGregor\u2019s Theory X. It could, therefore, be argued that McGregor\u2019s Theory Y most closely resembles a 21st century leader\u2019s view of what motivates employees. However, this \u2018softer\u2019 style of motivation isn\u2019t always appropriate in every situation. In reality, leaders and managers need to strike an appropriate balance<\/strong> between the two approaches.<\/p> In addition to Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor, a whole raft of psychologists and social scientists were at work throughout the 20th century developing their own theories of motivation. In the 1920s and 1930s, for example, Harvard professor George Elton Mayo conducted a series of experiments at the Hawthorne Western Electric Plant in Illinois. In doing so, Mayo uncovered a phenomenon \u2013 known as \u2018The Hawthorne Effect\u2019<\/strong> \u2013 whereby productivity tends to increase when employees are supervised in a supportive manner<\/strong> and are encouraged to build positive working relationships<\/strong> with their managers and with one another. [4]<\/p> Equity Theory,<\/strong> meanwhile, is based on the principle that employees are motivated when they feel their \u2018inputs\u2019<\/strong> at work are matched by the \u2018outputs\u2019<\/strong> they receive or experience. According to John Stacey Adams, the psychologist who proposed the theory in 1963, inputs include skills and experience, effort and working hours, while outputs include financial rewards and benefits, praise and recognition. The theory states that if employees feel that their inputs outweigh<\/strong> their outputs they are likely to become disgruntled, unproductive and unmotivated. [5]<\/p> Developed by management expert Victor Vroom in 1964, Expectancy Theory<\/strong> seeks to explain why individuals are motivated to choose certain behaviors over others. Vroom proposes that there are three governing variables at work here:<\/p> According to Vroom, individuals unconsciously use these variables to identify the \u2018motivational force\u2019<\/strong> (MF) of each potential behavior or action, and then select the option with the highest MF value. Like Adams\u2019 Equity Theory, the guiding principle is that people are motivated by the prospect of a return on their efforts. [6]<\/p> In 1968, Porter and Lawler developed Vroom\u2019s ideas further to create the Porter and Lawler Expectancy Model<\/strong>. Like Vroom\u2019s theory, Porter and Lawler\u2019s is a process model<\/strong> that seeks to explain behavior choice. While \u2018motivational force\u2019 (MF) lies at the heart of Porter and Lawler\u2019s model, it includes a number of additional factors<\/strong> that Porter and Lawler argue can affect MF, including effort expended on the task<\/strong> and the personal abilities and traits of the individual<\/strong>. Unlike Vroom, Porter and Lawler treat value \u2013 similar to \u2018valence\u2019 in Vroom\u2019s model \u2013 as being individual<\/strong> in nature: what matters most to one person may have little or no bearing on another. [7]<\/p> Also developed in 1968, psychologist Edwin Locke’s Goal-Setting Theory<\/strong> is based on the concept that human behavior is driven by the desire to achieve goals.<\/strong> The theory states that workplace goals should be challenging \u2013 but achievable \u2013 and specific.<\/strong> According to Locke, employees are most likely to achieve goals they set themselves,<\/strong> rather than those that are set for them by their manager. Feedback<\/strong> is also central to Locke\u2019s theory; individuals need to know how they have performed so they can set \u2013 and meet \u2013 their goals more effectively in the future. [8]<\/p> Finally, Clayton Alderfer\u2019s ERG Theory<\/strong> (1972), a development of Maslow\u2019s Hierarchy of Human Needs model, presents motivation through a series of hierarchical levels. Unlike Maslow\u2019s model, however, Alderfer\u2019s theory only has three levels: Existence (E)<\/strong>, Relatedness (R)<\/strong> and Growth (G)<\/strong>. Existence needs are those required for survival and tally roughly with the first two levels of Maslow\u2019s hierarchy. Relatedness needs are those connected with our need for interaction; they relate to the affiliation needs and some of the esteem needs in Maslow\u2019s model. Growth needs, meanwhile, are at the highest level of the ERG hierarchy and include some of the esteem needs in Maslow\u2019s model, as well as self-actualisation. While in Maslow\u2019s theory, individuals remain at a particular level until their corresponding needs are satisfied, Alderfer argues that the frustration arising from the failure of satisfied needs can cause individuals to regress to a previous level<\/strong>. [9] <\/p>\n\n In recent years a new wave of leading thinkers has emerged, advocating a range of alternative approaches to the needs-satisfaction view of motivation. These thinkers include commentator Dan Pink, who proposes the \u2018Motivation 3.0\u2019<\/strong> model in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us<\/em>. At the heart of Pink\u2019s model lie autonomy, mastery and purpose:<\/strong> to feel motivated, employees need to work autonomously, be given tasks that appeal to their strengths, and believe in the organization\u2019s purpose. Pink also suggests that employees fall into one of two motivational categories: Type I and Type X. Type I employees value reward,<\/strong> but only as a secondary source of satisfaction to the work itself.Type X<\/strong> employees, on the other hand, are motivated by external factors<\/strong> and value reward above any feelings of satisfaction<\/strong> or fulfillment. [10]<\/p> Economist and Yale Professor Ian Ayres, meanwhile, advocates a \u2018put your money where your mouth is\u2019 approach to self-motivation<\/strong> in his book Carrots and Sticks<\/em>. To remain motivated over a long period of time, Ayres suggests, people should set a small financial stake<\/strong> to forfeit if they fail to achieve their goal. Ayres is a big proponent of the motivational benefits of getting others involved<\/strong> when pursuing a goal. In Carrots and Sticks<\/em> he encourages readers to let their friends and family know about their commitment contracts and to appoint a \u2018referee\u2019<\/strong> who can help them stay on track. [11]<\/p> Behavioral economist Dan Ariely has also added to the modern debate on motivation, and has conducted a range of experiments to investigate the impact of reward, in particular. Ariely\u2019s studies indicate that \u2018extreme\u2019 incentives (either positive or negative) can backfire, as the stress and anxiety they can cause can often lead people to underperform.<\/strong> The research also indicates that non-financial rewards<\/strong> have many of the same motivational properties as salary increases or bonuses, but tend not to cause the same stress or anxiety.<\/strong> [12]<\/p> While Pink, Ariely and Ayres all advocate slightly different approaches their theories examine the degree to which reward <\/strong>can influence human motivation. Their findings all indicate that simply offering a reward is unlikely to motivate every employee in every situation. Instead, leaders and managers must think carefully about the motivational drivers of their different team members, consider whether offering a reward is appropriate and, if so, decide what type of reward to offer. <\/p>\n\n When it comes to motivating team members, it\u2019s important to remember that different people have different drivers for motivation<\/strong>. Some are driven by the prospect of challenging work and the opportunity to develop their skills and expertise<\/strong>, while others relish the chance to take on additional responsibilities. Many employees simply need to feel appreciated<\/strong> in order to be motivated. In his 1961 book The Achieving Society<\/em>, psychological theorist David McLelland proposed that there are three key needs<\/strong> that drive people\u2019s motivation at work: <\/p> According to McLelland, most people are motivated by a combination of these needs, but usually one driver in particular is dominant.<\/strong> [13]<\/p> Achievement-orientated employees<\/strong> are driven by the prospect of performing well; they want to attain or surpass set standards, make a significant contribution to the organization\u2019s aims and achieve their career goals. People who are affiliation-orientated<\/strong> need to develop and maintain good relationships with others at work in order to feel motivated. Affiliation-orientated employees want to feel like they belong in their team and organization, and that they are accepted by others. They perform well in working environments with minimal conflict.<\/p> Finally, employees who are power-orientated<\/strong> are driven by the need to impress others and exert influence over people and situations. They relish responsibility and like to be in control. These individuals like to be able to carve out a reputation for themselves and they place a great deal of value on their status and position in the organization. <\/p> As a manager, it is important to know what drives each of your team members<\/strong>, and to provide them with the support, guidance, information and opportunities they need to feel motivated, wherever possible. <\/p> As with other needs-based theories of motivation, McClelland\u2019s theory has been criticized for its assumption that everyone has the same universal set of needs<\/strong>. In addition, Locke and Horne (1986) point out that McLelland\u2019s model provides no indication as to how motivational needs can be translated into goals. [14] It has also been argued that McLelland\u2019s theory has a cultural bias towards the US<\/strong>, where it was developed, and is less relevant in other cultures<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n Having an engaged workforce (as well as a motivated one) has long been high on the agenda of leaders and managers. Although no single, agreed definition of employee engagement has yet been established, it can be thought of as \u2018a positive attitude held by an employee towards their organization and its values.\u2019 [15] There is a subtle difference between engagement and motivation (engagement is more closely aligned to the employee\u2019s attitude towards the organization and its values) but the two often go hand in hand. <\/p> The Macleod Review – a report commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to examine employee engagement in the UK – identifies four broad drivers for employee engagement.<\/strong> These are: <\/p> In The Why of Work<\/em> thought leader Dave Ulrich argues that the meaning<\/strong> employees derive from their work can have a significant impact on their motivation, engagement and general happiness. According to Ulrich, leaders should aim to create an organizational culture in which \u201cindividuals co-ordinate their aspirations and actions to create meaning for themselves, value for stakeholders, and hope for humanity at large\u201d. [15]<\/p>\n\n The psychological contract is a set of unspoken agreements or obligations<\/strong> between an employee and employer. If an employee feels that their manager or organization has reneged on this set of agreements in any way (i.e. broken the psychological contract) this can have an extremely negative impact on their levels of motivation and engagement. As a leader, it is important to establish a psychological contract with your team members by having a frank conversation about what they feel their obligations are to you and vice versa. Once a psychological contract has been established, it is vital to honor it and endeavor to keep any promises you make. <\/p>\n\n As a leader, you can have a significant impact on the motivation of those in your team or department, and beyond. A proactive approach to motivating others, coupled with an understanding of key motivation theories and concepts will stand you in excellent stead. Working towards achieving an engaged workforce and establishing a psychological contract between you and your employees will also serve you well. Together, these steps will help you to motivate employees to produce their best work and contribute effectively to the objectives of the team and wider organization. <\/p> <\/p> <\/p>![\"Tightrope](\"https:\/\/nova-live.imgix.net\/\/migration-AnOverviewofMotivationIMGB3.jpg?q=60&fm=webp&w=700&h=330\"\/)
Other 20th Century Theories<\/h3>\n\n
![\"Soccer](\"https:\/\/nova-live.imgix.net\/\/migration-AnOverviewofMotivationIMGB4.jpg?q=60&fm=webp&w=700&h=283\"\/)
The Modern Perspective<\/h3>\n\n
![\"Jelly](\"https:\/\/nova-live.imgix.net\/\/migration-AnOverviewofMotivationIMGB5.jpg?q=60&fm=webp&w=700&h=355\"\/)
Individual Drivers For Motivation<\/h2>\n\n
![\"Spider](\"https:\/\/nova-live.imgix.net\/\/migration-AnOverviewofMotivationIMGB6.jpg?q=60&fm=webp&w=700&h=527\"\/)
Employee Engagement<\/h2>\n\n
The Psychological Contract<\/h2>\n\n
Summary<\/h2>\n\n