What drives you to do your personal best? Even when pursuing their personal goals, different people retain and lose motivation for different reasons. Think of times you have pushed to be your best, whether at school, in sports, or in other activities. Is it easier for you to build enthusiasm for tasks you’re sure you can accomplish? Or do you set difficult goals and draw energy from the challenge of attaining them? Some people need immediate gratification to stay motivated. Others are able to postpone short-term success in pursuit of long-term gains. Which setting motivates you more?

Now think about how hard you work when you receive positive feedback—either financial or emotional. Are you driven more by the values of the place where you work, by your beliefs, or by the rewards from doing a job well? For some people, being part of the accomplishments of a team is what motivates them. Are you one of those people?

What does it feel like to be optimally motivated? Have you ever been working on a project in which you were so immersed in what you were doing that, when you looked at your watch, four hours had gone by? Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi refers to this state of rapt attention as flow.1 A flow state happens when you are completely involved and focused on what you are doing. Often, people produce their best work, make the best use of their skills, and feel the most pleasure when they are in flow. They feel a strong match between their own abilities and the challenge of a task: It is neither too difficult, which can lead to frustration, nor too simple, which can lead to boredom. They report a sense of control over what is happening and a feeling of effortlessness in their work. How do you create this sense of flow? This is the subject of organizational psychology—the study of how to create a workplace that fosters motivation and productivity among employees.

How motivated is the U.S. workforce? The Q12 is a 12-question survey of employee engagement administered by the Gallup Organization. Based on respondents’ answers to a series of questions, the survey classifies employees as “engaged,” “not engaged,” or “actively disengaged.” According to Q12 survey results, 68 percent of U.S. employees are not engaged or are actively disengaged in their work2 (see Table 8.1). Imagine a workplace in which three out of four employees are complaining or even disrupting other workers during the day. This statistic makes it clear that encouraging flow in the workplace is an important challenge.

Table 8.1

Motivation Levels of Employees

How does a work environment encourage “flow”? There is no fixed recipe, but there are companies that have succeeded in building motivated, engaged environments that support workers and support the creative experience of flow.

One such company is SAS, a business software firm in North Carolina. With an incredibly low employee turnover rate of just 2 to 5 percent,3 SAS has achieved 40 straight years of record revenues.4 The company has achieved this in large part as a result of the policies of its CEO, Jim Goodnight. Goodnight lists the following as ways in which SAS works to foster a creative environment:

• It keeps employees intellectually engaged.

• It removes distractions so employees can do their best work.

• It makes managers responsible for sparking creativity.

• It has managers eliminate the arbitrary distinctions between administrative “suits” and more abstract “creatives.”

• It engages customers to be creative partners.

In addition to fostering the professional lives of its employees, SAS supports their private lives as well. On the SAS campus, you’ll find medical facilities for employees and their families, a Montessori day care center, and a cafeteria where families can eat lunch together. “The corporate philosophy is, if your fifth grader is in his first school play, you should be there to see it,” says CEO Goodnight. Such a philosophy has led to SAS earning a top spot on Fortune magazine’s Best Companies to Work For list.5

What are the benefits of keeping employees motivated? Both employers and employees benefit from motivated workforces. Employers find that workers are more productive and creative when provided with a motivating environment and motivating tasks. Disengaged employees cost firms up to $300 billion a year in reduced productivity.6 What happens if you find the secret to motivated employees? Companies with high engagement levels have four-times-greater earnings growth rates compared to companies in the same industry struggling with disengaged workers.

The Atlanta-based chain Chick-fil-A is an example of a company that has benefited from strong employee motivation. The company fosters employee motivation with strong monetary rewards like scholarships and free cars to the operators of strong-performing stores. The chain has never allowed any store to be open on Sunday. Remaining closed on Sundays is both a practical and a spiritual decision, centered on the belief that employees should have an opportunity to rest and spend time with their families each week so they can return to work motivated on Monday mornings.7 Chick-fil-A employees respond with highly engaged behavior by going out of their way to refill customers’ drinks and watching to see if they need extra napkins delivered to their tables. The results are seen in the chain’s explosive growth, with total sales now almost $6 billion.8

What are the traditional theories describing what motivates people?Several theories have been proposed to explain how and why people are motivated:

• Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

• McClelland’s “three needs” theory

• Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory

What is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? One early researcher in the area of human motivation was Abraham Maslow (1908–1970), who published the book Motivation and Personality in 1954. In his theory of motivation, Maslow suggests that humans have a hierarchy of needs and that primary needs must be met first before higher-level needs can be addressed (see Figure 8.1).

Figure 8.1

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The first needs that must be met are basic needs—termed physiological needs—such as the need for water, food, sleep, and reproduction. This means that before we as humans can think about anything else in our lives, we must ensure that these basic physiological needs are met.

Once our physiological needs have been met, Maslow’s theory holds that people strive to satisfy their safety needs. This includes establishing safe and stable places to live and work. Once these needs have been met, people try to meet their social or belonging needs. These include the need to belong to a group and feel accepted by others. The next level in Maslow’s hierarchy includes esteem needs. These are satisfied by the mastery of a skill and the attention and recognition of others. Finally, self-actualization needs are at the top of the hierarchy. These needs include the desire to maximize your own potential through education and self-fulfillment as well as experiences of beauty and spirituality. Self-actualization needs cannot be met unless and until all of a person’s lower-level needs have been met.

Maslow suggested that different people find themselves at different places in the hierarchy, and so their motivations may be different. An offer to work overtime for a higher hourly wage might motivate a person concerned with his or her safety needs but have the opposite effect on someone trying to fulfill his or her need for self-actualization.

What is McClelland’s “three needs” theory? Other researchers have proposed different models to map human needs to motivation. Psychologist David McClelland’s (1917–1998) three needs theory suggests there are three main motivators:

1. The need for achievement—to accomplish something difficult on your own

2. The need for affiliation—to form close personal relationships

3. The need for power—to be able to control the behavior of others

Although an individual may have multiple needs, McClelland suggests that one tends to be dominant over the others. Which need we try to satisfy depends on a variety of complex factors, including our cultural background. For example, in the workplace, a person whose main need is for affiliation may have little motivation to perform a solitary task, whereas a person with a high need for achievement may be highly motivated to perform a difficult task alone.

How does Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory explain motivation? In 1959, psychologist Frederick Herzberg (1923–2000) proposed a theory of job satisfaction called motivator-hygiene theory (or two-factor theory). According to this theory, two factors influence a person’s motivation.

Hygiene factors are factors such as a safe working environment, proper pay and benefits, and positive relationships with one’s coworkers. People rarely notice hygiene factors if they are present. However, if hygiene factors are absent or inadequate, people tend to be dissatisfied. If there suddenly is no heat in the place where you work or if your pay is cut, you may be motivated to find a way to meet these needs. But if these factors are already in place, they are taken for granted and may not serve to motivate you.

Motivator factors represent the second set of factors in Herzberg’s theory. These factors include a sense of responsibility, recognition, promotion, and job growth. If there is no path for growth in your job or little recognition of your achievements, you probably would not immediately quit, but their absence would create a set of conditions that would fail to motivate you.

Do managers actually use theories of motivation? Theories of motivation can be abstract. So, how can a team leader at a software development company take what researchers know about motivation and use it to increase the productivity and satisfaction of employees? The theories of human motivation you have just read about have given rise to several different approaches for organizing and motivating people in the workplace.

What can a manager do to enhance employee motivation? In the workplace, there are some external motivating factors managers can control. These motivators, called extrinsic motivators, include pay, promotion, and verbal praise.

Other factors, called intrinsic motivators, are beyond a manager’s control because they are internal to each individual employee. Intrinsic motivators are based on a person’s actual interest in his or her work and stem from the sense of purpose or value the person derives from the work being done. A manager will have difficulty motivating an intrinsically motivated employee to take on unsatisfying work by using offers of just bonuses or promotions.

Researchers are investigating if there are some intrinsic motivators common to all of us. At Cornell University, Evan Polman and Kyle Emich studied a large number of undergraduates to see if the motivation and the quality of their work would change depending on whom the work benefited.9 Two separate groups of students were given puzzles and creative projects. One group was told that they were solving the puzzle to save themselves and that they were illustrating a story they would later publish themselves. The second group was told that they were doing the work to benefit someone else—solving the puzzle would save the life of another person who was imprisoned—and that they were illustrating a story someone else would publish. In each case, the group working for someone else produced better results—66 percent of the altruistic group solved the puzzle versus less than 50 percent of the self-focused group, and the creative level of the work for an unknown author was of much higher quality. If work done for others is more effective and creative than work we do solely for ourselves, how can managers structure their organizations in ways that promote that?

What other motivational models exist? In addition to the theories proposed by Maslow, McClelland, and Herzberg, several models have been developed that provide theoretical explanations of what motivates employees specifically in a business or workplace context:

• Theories X, Y, and Z

• The Vroom model

• Strength-based management

What are the Theory X and Theory Y models? In 1960, social psychologist Douglas McGregor proposed the Theory X and Theory Y models of behavior (see Figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2

Comparison of Theory X and Theory Y

The Theory X model suggests that people inherently dislike work and want to avoid it. Managers who subscribe to this model believe employees must be coerced and controlled to be productive and therefore use an authoritarian, hard-line style of management. In contrast, the Theory Y model suggests that people view work as being as natural as playing and resting. According to Theory Y, people are naturally motivated and will work to further the goals of an organization if they are satisfied with their jobs. Theory Y managers believe that, on average, people will accept and seek out responsibility and therefore have a softer, more collaborative style of management.

Clearly, Theories X and Y would not work equally well in all situations. Theory X style management—which is authoritarian and hard line—is often seen in large-scale operations such as mass manufacturing. In the knowledge industry, in which a mix of professionals work together to solve complex problems, Theory Y style management is more likely to be used.

How is the Theory Z model different? In 1981, William Ouchi, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, put forward a Theory Z model based on a Japanese management style that relied heavily on collaborative decision making. In many corporations in Japan in the 1980s, one person might be responsible for many different aspects of a single project. Employees tended to become generalists rather than specialists who were trained to do narrow sets of tasks. Theory Z style management offers long-term employment with an emphasis on individual responsibility. Workers tend to show a desire to cooperate and be loyal to an organization. As a result, companies that apply Theory Z management often reap the benefits of low turnover, high productivity, and strong morale among the workforce. Morale, a sense of purpose, and enthusiasm toward one’s work is an important factor in an employee’s level of motivation.

Do any motivational models describe an individual person’s motivation? Although Maslow’s hierarchy and other theories describe human motivation, they do so in terms of an overall model for all employees. In 1964, Victor Vroom proposed a theory named expectancy theory, which has since been developed by other researchers. Expectancy theory suggests an individual’s motivation can be described by the relationship between three psychological forces. He put forward the following formula to describe the motivation a person feels in any given situation based on these three forces:

Expectancy is the idea that a person’s effort has an appreciable effect on a situation’s result—whether it is a success or failure. Does working harder lead to a more positive outcome for an employee or a company? Or does it not make a difference? Instrumentality refers to the idea that the outcome of a situation results in either reward or punishment. For those who are extrinsically motivated, instrumentality answers the question “What are the chances I’m going to be rewarded if I do a good job?” For those who are intrinsically motivated, instrumentality answers the question “How good will I feel if I can accomplish this task?”

Valence is the importance that the individual places on the expected outcome of a situation. It answers questions such as “How great a reward will there be if my performance is exemplary?” and “How serious a punishment do I expect if I underperform?”

In common terms, Vroom’s formulas for high and low motivations read as follows:

$\begin{array}{l}\text{High}\text{motivation}=(\text{My}\text{work}\text{actually}\text{affects}\text{the}\text{outcome}.)\times \text{(Ther}{\text{e}}^{\prime }\text{s}\text{a}\text{good}\\ \text{chance\hspace{0.17em}}{\text{I}}^{\prime }\text{ll}\text{get a reward if this works out}.)\times (\text{It}{\text{I}}^{\prime }\text{l}\text{be a really big reward}!)\\ \text{Low motivation}=(\text{Nothing I do is going to impact this situation}.)\times (\text{Even if it}\\ \text{does go well, I probably wo}{\text{n}}^{\prime }\text{t}\text{see any benefit}.)\times (\text{The only reward from this}\\ \text{will be incredibly small}.)\end{array}$

The Vroom formula can be used to analyze factors such as how satisfied employees are with their jobs, how likely it is they will remain in their jobs, and how hard they will work in them. Unlike Maslow’s and McClelland’s models, which address the typical needs of groups of people, Vroom’s model, with its three independent variables, can generate a much more specialized result, attuned to the mental state of a specific individual.

Closely related to expectancy is equity theory—the idea that people expect to be rewarded on par with other people they feel their performance equals or else their motivation will suffer. People in an organization want to feel their contribution is recognized in a manner that fits with how they see the other coworkers being rewarded.

What is unique in strength-based management? Strength-based manage­ment is a system based on the belief that, rather than improve employees’ weak skills, the best way to help them is to determine their strengths and build on them. This system is supported by research that shows that people can learn the most about areas in which they already have a strong foundation. Strength-based programs identify employees’ current talents and skills and then provide additional training and support to develop them into areas of excellence. By designing a match between an employee’s strengths and his or her daily activities and working around his or her weaknesses, the employee becomes more motivated and engaged.

How have motivational theories changed? During the industrial age, large corporations were created, and researchers like Frederick Taylor (1856–1950) began to study ways to make workers more efficient and cost effective. In 1911, Taylor published his findings in The Principles of Scientific Management. He encouraged managers to scientifically study their employees to determine the best way for them to complete tasks and then train their employees to use these methods. Many of his ideas were implemented in factories. By the 1920s and 1930s, a field of academic study called industrial psychology was created to further address these issues. Other researchers, such as Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, used photography to study employees’ work patterns. For example, they used time-motion studies to analyze factory jobs. These involved recording the actual movements and positions of workers, along with the timings, as they performed common tasks. Then workers could be trained in the precise sequence of steps that would make them most productive.

Elton Mayo, a professor at Harvard University, conducted another famous study of the period at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Illinois. The study ran from 1927 to 1932 and examined physical influences on the workplace (such as lighting and humidity) as well as psychological aspects (such as group pressure and working hours). Mayo’s major finding, known as the Hawthorne effect, was that regardless of the experimental changes made, the production of the workers improved. Researchers concluded that the increase in productivity was based on the attention the workers were receiving. Because they knew they were being studied, the employees felt special and produced more, regardless of the conditions Hawthorne studied. The Hawthorne effect is used now as a term to describe the increase in productivity caused by workers being given special attention. After World War II, the direction of research in management theory shifted from the management of individual workers toward the management of entire organizations, their structures, and policies.

What motivational theories fit the modern workplace? Research continues to be conducted in the field of organizational psychology, and new theories about motivation and management continue to emerge. A recent motivational theory has been developed as a result of examining the open-source movement—software projects that are developed, tested, and maintained for free by a worldwide network of volunteers. Wikipedia and the Linux operating system are examples of these projects. Both have been hugely successful and were created by professional people working many hours for free—outside of their regular jobs.

What is causing people to behave this way? Four academic economists tried to find out by running an experiment where people were recruited to perform a range of tasks that required motor skills, creativity, or concentration. Monetary rewards were promised to people doing the tasks, depending on how well they performed on them. Top performers were promised the equivalent of five months’ pay if they did well on the creative tasks or the ones that required concentration. Surprisingly, the higher the incentives were, the worse people performed. Similar results were seen when the London School of Economics reviewed corporate pay-for-performance plans.10 The researchers concluded that using economic rewards to motivate employees can actually lead to poorer performance when the work being done is creative or requires concentration. At least one additional study has shown that today’s knowledge workers value three things much more highly than money:11

• Autonomy. Having some control over the key decision in their work lives

• Mastery. Feeling skilled and having time to develop and improve their skills

• Purpose. Wanting their lives and work to have a higher meaning

Companies that use knowledge workers and are able to provide them with incentives such as these will see great benefits.