Challenge #7 - Integrating theories on motivation

OCM and human motivation theory

Motivation is the driver of human behaviour. And there is not change without behavioural change. Understanding what drives individuals or why they behave the way they do is the ‘holy grail’ of Organisational Change Management (OCM). But there is little if no mention of any of the theories of motivation (I have counted around 33 of them dating back to the 1920’s) in popular OCM methods such as ADKAR which vaguely mentions Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (Hiatt 2006 p.19), Judson references Maslow & McGregor, Kanter references McGregor and Kotter who doesn’t reference anyone! 

With hundreds of papers published over 40 years, two theories have grown to dominate current thought on human motivation but who are absent in popular OCM theory - Goal Setting Theory (GST) and Self Determination Theory SDT). SDT has been popularised in ‘Drive’ by Dan Pink and Susan Fowler’s ‘Why Motivating People Doesn’t Work’ whereas other ‘self-help’ styled books such as Caroline Miller’s book ‘Creating Your Best Life: The Ultimate Life List Guide’ (Miller & Frisch, 2011) relies on GST. Interestingly Pink & Fowler do not mention GST in their books and similarly Miller only mentions SDT in a short paragraph

Despite this popularisation, these more evidence-based theories of motivation have still not percolated into the world of OCM. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943) is still prevalent in management theory on leadership (see Manning & Kent, 2012 'The Art of Leadership) and organisational behaviour books (see Huczynski & Buchanan, 2014 'Organisational Behaviour') despite difficulties in its verification (Tay & Diener, 2011; Wahba & Bridwell, 1973) and that Maslow never created a pyramid to represent the hierarchy of needs. My own research shows 90% of change practitioners are familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs but only 45% are familiar with GST and only 17% with SDT. In fact the older the theory the more familiar practitioners are with it.

Surely 100 years of research on human motivation must have more to contribute to OCM than Maslow and McGregor? Lets investigate…

History of Motivation Theory

The history of motivational theory in the early part of the 20th Century can be broadly summarised as those who believed that human motivation was driven by human reactions to two different sets of stimuli: response to external objective physical outrospective stimuli (Functional & Behavioural psychology – James, Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson) and response to internal subjective psychological introspective stimuli (deriving from Psychoanalytic, Gestalt and Humanistic Psychology – Freud, Wertheimer, Rogers, Heider). 

The fundamental difference between the two paradigms is that the physiological paradigm (Dashiell, 1925a; Hull, Drive Reduction Theory, 1943) assumed a passive state with individuals being motivated by some contextual disequilibrium (e.g. thirst and need for water) whereas the psychological paradigm assumes that humans are motivated through an internal (intrinsic) need to grow and flourish (Barnard, 1938; Goldstein, 1934; Lewin, 1935; Murray, 1938). Originating from Thorndike’s work in the early 19th Century (he had already shown that reward worked better than punishments) which were later modified by Skinner in his theory of Operant Conditioning (we learn from our actions - positive outcomes are repeated and behaviours with negative outcomes are suppressed – very Bayesian Brain!) the physiological stimulus-response paradigm was dominant at the time. But as early as 1925 in experiments by Dashiell, it was found that rats would explore a maze with no apparent need for water or food. These finding were further supported (Harlow, Harlow, & Meyer, 1950; Mace, 1935) by experiments that found monkeys and humans did not need external incentives to problem solve. The inability of the physiological paradigm to explain these findings lead to the search of a new paradigm that integrated both the psychological and physiological paradigms. 

Integrating the physical and psychological

One of these paradigms can be traced back to 1918 with Woodworth’s (a contemporary of Thorndike & James) concept of ‘dynamic psychology’ was published. He recognised that people had different "aptitudes or 'gifts' for certain activities” mediate the effect of between a stimulus and response i.e. a conscious choice that determines how people respond to stimuli. Building on Woodworth’s work, Allport (1937) coined the phrase ‘functional autonomy’ to explain this conscious choice process and saw autonomy as a bridge between the physiological and psychological paradigms and a platform for understanding the uniqueness of individual personality – we all have different drives which make us unique.

But what became a more seminal piece of work, particularly in OCM & management theory, was Maslow’s ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’. Published in 1943 Maslow attempted to pull together the physiological (external reward & reinforcement) and psychological elements (desire to fulfil internal needs). He called his new theory a ‘general dynamic theory’. A practical application of Maslow’s general dynamic theory of motivation came from McGregor (Mcgregor, 1957) who proposed the X-Y Theory.

At a simplified level the X theory is rooted in physiological paradigm which assumes that people are naturally passive and need ‘carrot and stick’ (stimulus response) incentives to motivate them (maybe akin to Carol Dweck ‘fixed’ mindset?) whereas the Y theory is aligned to the psychological paradigm (Dweck’s ‘growth’ mindset?). Hertzberg (Hertzburg, 1968) also built on Maslow’s new humanistic paradigm of motivation suggesting that if physiological needs (hygiene factors) were not fulfilled they would dissatisfy employees. However, to satisfy (motivate) employees their psychological needs would have to be met. However, Maslow’s theory was not the only theory of motivation being developed at the time that challenged the drive theory of motivation.

The origins of Self-Determination Theory & Goals Setting Theory

With only a brief mention of Maslow, White (White, 1959) assembles an exhaustive and compelling argument also challenging the physiological approach to motivation. He proposes that humans are driven by the need to ‘learn to interact effectively with his environment’ (White, 1959, p. 776). He chooses the words ‘competence’ and ‘efficacy’ to describe this behaviour.

In the 1930’s another paradigm started to emerge. Introspection (self-observation) was adapted and used for experimental psychology by Wundt in 1879. It was further developed at the Wurzburg School led by Kulpe whose laboratory was set up to report experiences during the completion of complex tasks. Kulpe’s experiments found that they could track the cognitive thought process through introspection but could not find how or why thoughts were directed towards certain goals (Boring, 1953, p. 174). It was one of his students (Watt) who realised that

‘ the goal directedness of thinking is predetermined by the task or instruction’ (Boring, 1953, p. 175).

This unconscious directing of the conscious thought process was called the ‘determining tendency’. This concept was further developed in the 1930’s by Hoppe and Frank (Frank, 1935; Hoppe, 1976) creating the concept of ‘levels of aspiration’ which suggested that the level of success in achieving a task will be at least partially be predicted by the determination to complete it. Kurt Lewin (Lewin, 1935), influenced by Max Wertheim and Gestalt Psychology developed this cognitive approach to human behaviour further. Lewin thought that tensions in thought between the individual’s current position and their goal was the key driver for human motivation. In this respect there is little difference between Lewinian and Hullian concepts of motivation (Graham & Weiner, 1996, p. 66) as both conceive motivation as disequilibrium that drives a desire to move from a current state to a future goal. Again, like Maslow’s ‘hierarchy’, management and OCM theory seems to have largely ignored Lewin’s work on Group Dynamics and Action Research and just became fixated on Unfreeze-Change-Freeze which seems contrary to Lewin’s body of work which Kotter expands to eight steps.

However, in the 1930’s Henry Murray challenged the introspective approach as he felt that determination factors were undetectable using their methods (Schultheiss & Brunstein, 2010). He developed the Thematic Apperception Test (ambiguous pictures that are believed to reveal a person’s subconscious motives) which was used by McClellan and Atkinson (McClelland, Clark, Roby, & Atkinson, 1949) to arouse different levels of achievements in the participants to prove that those with high achievement levels are more likely to succeed in the task. This work lead to McClelland popularising Murray’s (Murray, 1938) ‘need for achievement’ (N-Ach) concept in his book ‘The Achieving Society’ (McClelland, 1961) and Atkinson developing his expectancy value theory (Atkinson, 1964) and later Vroom’s expectancy theory. Like White, Vrooms theory uses the variables expectancy or efficacy to explain the link between effort and performance and also instrumentality (performance will lead to outcomes) and valence (whether the outcomes are important or valued) which is the model that ADKAR loosely refers to.

SDT & GST have more in common than we think

So human motivation theory has a history of generating integrated models such as Maslow’s general dynamic theory and creating similar themes such as motivation as a disequilibrium, need for achievement, efficacy, autonomy and competence which are interwoven through the Gestalt, Behavioural, Humanistic and Cognitive paradigms of psychological thought. Similarly, there are some interesting interplays between the ‘competing’ theories of GST and SDT. 

For instance Cecil Alec Mace, who founded GST, (Carsona, Carsona, & Headya, 1994) was also one of the first psychologists to question whether money is the primary incentive for worker motivation (Mace, 1935). This question of whether money acts as a motivator is what drove Deci’s (one of the founders of SDT) initial interest in motivation (Deci, 1971). Also Henry A Murray (Murray, 1938) is credited for developing the need for achievement theory of motivation on which the foundations of GST were built. But Murray is also referenced by Maslow (Maslow, 1943) and worked with Robert White (McCoubrey, 2001) at Harvard University who was the first to use self-efficacy in the context of motivation (White, 1959) which is one of the three key preconditions in SDT.

So maybe these 'competing' theories of motivation have more in common than we think? But before we start integrating lets dive deeper into SDT and GST.

Self Determination Theory (SDT)

So SDT was born out of an interest to explain this intrinsic motivation (Marylène Gagné & Deci, 2014). SDT is defined as a theory of optimising well-being through the pursuit of goals (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Using different strains of psychological thought SDT has integrated and developed three conditions under which individuals flourish and achieve their goals. These conditions are called the basic psychological needs which are:

• Competence or self-efficacy – as mentioned above the origins of this element of SDT are from Robert White (White, 1959) but Maslow also mentions (Maslow, 1943, p. 381) ‘The esteem needs’. Others, such as Barnard, also mention purpose, competence and relatedness as early as 1938 (Barnard, 1938). 
• Autonomy – This was first developed by de Charms (de Charms, 1968) through his concept of locus of causality and later by Deci (Deci, 1971). 
• Relatedness – Probably first conceived by Harlow (Harlow et al., 1950) and built on by Ainsworth (Ainsworth, 1979) and Deci and Ryan (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). The concept proposes that individuals are willing to endorse the norms of others and give up self to benefit the whole.

SDT is supported by a huge body of research dating back 40 years which has been recently summarized in The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory (Marylene Gagné, 2014) consisting of 50 contributors from around the world. However, this book has only one reference GST.

SDT has been challenged with research showing that intrinsic motivation can work against companies if it is not aligned to business objectives and can lead to unethical behaviour (Adam M. Grant & Shin, 2012, p. 19)

Goal Setting Theory (GST)

GST also has its roots in the rejection of drive reduction theory but instead relied on the introspectionist (but is is outrospective) approach to demonstrate the human motivation was a function of a conscious thought process rather than innate drive to satisfy psychological needs. This ‘cognitive revolution in psychology’ (E. A. Locke, Latham, & Edwin, 2002, p. 705), was led by Kurt Lewin’s work on levels of aspiration (Lewin, 1935) and McClelland’s (McClelland, 1961) work on need for achievement. But it was Mace’s work (Mace, 1935) on goal setting and Ryan and Smith’s (T. A. Ryan & Smith, 1954) work to show that conscious goals can be a powerful performance driver that solidified the foundations of GST.

These different psychological constructs were summarised and integrated into a single Goal Setting Theory by Locke in 1968 (E. a. Locke, 1968). Studies on GST proliferated and were summarized in papers by Locke and Latham in 1980 (E. A. Locke, Saari, Shaw, & Latham, 1981) which summarized around 150 studies and again in 2002 (E. A. Locke et al., 2002) summarising a further 130 studies. In their seminal book a theory of goal setting and task performance (Locke, Edwin A.; Latham, 1990) they describe 5 characteristics to motivate individuals through goal setting: Clarity, Challenge, Commitment, Feedback and task complexity. The last 20 years of research on GST is summarised in ‘New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance’ (E. A. Locke & Latham, 2013) which has contributions from over 70 authors around the world.

However, GST has been challenged (Ordó?ez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009) by those who argue that if goals are too specific, too challenging or are within an individual’s ‘zone of indifference’ (Barnard, 1938) they can lead to selective attention, unethical behaviour, risky behaviour and the erosion of intrinsic motivation. These claims have since been refuted (E. A. Locke & Latham, 2009) but may remain a core challenge to the GST paradigm until it can offer more on the milieu in which goals are set. 

Integrating SDT and GST

So now we know the background of SDT and GST and dived a little deeper into the theory lets start integrating...

When you boil down the 33 motivation theories mentioned earlier you end up with about 5-8 main theories of human motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Adam M. Grant & Shin, 2012) but SDT and GST seem to have the strongest evidence base and seem to be ripe for integration because:

• The research is extensive, robust and diverse for both theories allowing it to be synthesised.
• The research is accessible – all the research relating to SDT is available on their website (Deci & Ryan, 2016) and GST articles are well referenced and summarised by Locke and Latham (E. A. Locke & Latham, 2006, 2013)
• There has been little cross referencing between the two theories. The referencing I found highlights more differences than similarities (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Anthony M Grant, 2012). Therefore, there is room to find common themes and areas of potential integration.
• Few models have been found that integrate both GST and SDT. One model that has been found (F. K. Lee, Sheldon, & Turban, 2003) was published 17 years ago and only has one reference to GST (Latham & Locke, 1991) which was from an article written 25 years ago.
• As discussed above they have an interwoven history using a mixture of psychological paradigms (Gestalt, behavioural, cognitive and humanistic)

Although Lock and Latham seem to be open to scientific disputes where there are opposing theories (Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988) there appears to be very few studies that attempt to build on commonalities rather than differences between GST and SDT. As Maslow states

‘It is far easier to perceive and to criticize the aspects in motivation theory than to remedy them’(Maslow, 1943, p. 371)

So, would it be possible to integrate them? In our next challenge I will start this process by looking at their commonalities and proposing an integrated approach to human motivation hence a framework that can underpin OCM.