How can leaders motivate their followers to perform?
This is another addition in a series of articles derived from academic writing towards a Masters degree in Organizational Psychology. Enjoy!
Abstract
How can leaders motivate their followers to perform? While there is no all-encompassing theory to answer this question, there are at least four approaches with strong support: goal setting, improving self-efficacy, and increasing both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Goals which are specific, difficult, congruent, and focused on learning over performance seem to work best. Developing an individual’s self-efficacy by highlighting positive past experiences, modeling behavior, encouraging them, and helping them manage their physiological state can also be expected to deliver performance results. Leaders should support intrinsic motivation by providing opportunities for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. They should carefully use extrinsic motivators but try to do so in a way which is complementary to intrinsic motivation and doesn’t undermine it. Each, when properly leveraged, can be expected to improve performance. In this paper we will discuss each of these ideas in turn, highlight ways in which leaders can use these types of motivation in the workplace, and argue that transformational leadership adopts many of these motivational elements. We will introduce other important factors that leaders should consider when attempting to motivate their followers and areas for further discussion. By critically examining these topics we hope to help empower leaders and motivate them in a way that improves their own performance.
Introduction
At its core, leadership is about motivating followers to behave in a certain way and deliver results. Anyone who has been in a position of leadership can attest to how difficult and complex it can be to motivate people at times. So where to begin? Most theories of leadership don’t point directly to the mechanisms by which leaders can motivate their followers, but motivational and organizational psychologists have worked on this problem for decades and do have some leads. This paper aims to equip leaders with those tools that research has determined to be the most effective at motivating individuals, particularly in a workplace setting and towards higher performance. The four topics we will explore are goal setting, self-efficacy, extrinsic motivators, and intrinsic motivation.
Leaders play many roles in organizations, but arguably the most important role is to deliver results. Leadership effectiveness is defined as the study of leader behaviors which lead to an outcome valued by the organization (Conte, 2019). Many historical theories of leaderships focused on who leaders are as individuals. The great man theories looked at the life of a leader for clues of what experiences or traits made them great (Conte, 2019). Other theories looked at the various types of power leaders had and how they used them (French & Raven, 1959). Behaviorists in the 1950s looked at the mutual trust and respect leaders built with their followers, as well as how they organized and defined activities to achieve organizational goals (Fleishman & Harris, 1962). Contingency approach theories began to recognize the importance of situational context in leadership behavior (Fielder, 1967). The Vroom-Yetton model focused primarily on leadership decision making (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Even three of the four modern approaches to leadership identified by Conte and Landy (2019) don’t speak directly towards leadership and motivation. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory recognizes that leaders adopt different behaviors with different individuals depending on the quality of their relationship (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Authentic leadership is about the leaders’ self-concept and personal characteristics (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Charismatic leadership focuses on the emotional attachment between followers and their leader (House, 1977). Each dance around motivational tools and tactics. Only transformational leadership (Burns, 1978) begins to address the topic of motivation directly.
Transformational leadership is the, “interplay between leaders and followers in which each raises the other to higher levels of ethics, morality, and motivation” (Conte, 2019, p. 485). Bass and Avolio recognize four strategies of transformational leaders: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1997). We will refer back to these strategies as we investigate the motivational tactics which are shown to increase individual performance. Not surprisingly, meta-analyses show that transformational leadership is positively related to individual-level follower performance (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011).
Performance in an organization is a measure of member behavior which is relevant to the organization’s goals (Conte, 2019). Organizational and motivational psychologists have devoted a great deal of study into performance and how to understand and improve performance. Nearly all models of performance include an aspect of motivation. One of the most popular, Campbell’s model, proposes that performance is the product of declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and skills, and motivation (Campbell, 1990). Others found that performance depends on motivation, ability, training, coaching, and resources (Locke & Latham, 1984). Conte and Landy (2019) suggest a simplified model where performance is equal to the product of motivation and ability minus situational constraints. Although ability is a slightly better predictor of maximal performance, one meta-analysis found that motivation is a significantly better predictor of typical performance (Beus & Whitman, 2012). A more recent meta-analysis found that ability and motivation were similarly important to job performance (Van Iddekinge, Aguinis, Mackey, & DeOrtentiis, 2018). Regardless of the relative importance of ability and motivation, they are both important determinants of performance. The question for leaders then is how to raise the level of each in their organizations. This paper will focus on the motivation aspect and the motivational tools with the most evidence to support their effectiveness.
How to motivate for performance
The psychological literature on motivation is rich and deep. Broadly speaking, the study of motivation examines the needs, cognitions, and emotions that give rise to behavior and its energy, direction, and persistence (Reeve, 2018). While there are many sources of motivation that result in behavior, our focus is specifically on sources of motivation which are related to performance. Performance yielding motivation tends to fall into the domain of needs and cognitions. The four areas of motivational research which this analysis has determined are most strongly associated with performance are: goals, self-efficacy, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation. We will examine each in detail to better understand how leaders can leverage these ideas to improve follower performance.
Using goals as a source of motivation for performance
While nearly every leader will be familiar with the concept of goals, many may not understand the motivational science behind goals. In fact, the precise way in which goals are implemented can have a meaningful impact on whether they produce the desired performance results or not. Goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002) was developed in the work context as a way of motivating employees and formulated based on nearly 40 years of empirical research. It explains why goals work and how they can be used most effectively. It is widely considered the most useful theory of work motivation (Locke & Latham, 2019), having led the way in industrial organizational psychology from the early 70s through the 1990s (Kanfer & Frese, Motivation Related to Work: A Century of Progress, 2017). A meta-analysis from 1987 found the effect size for goals on performance in a field setting to be a whopping d = 0.49 (Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987). It is no surprise, therefore, that we put it first on our list of approaches leaders should adopt to improve follower motivation and performance. The goals which are most effective at producing performance are specific, difficult, and congruent (Koestner, Lekes, Powers, & Chicoine, 2002). Leaders should consider a number of other factors when implementing goals including the usefulness of priming and feedback, and the difference between learning and performance goals. We will examine each in turn.
While it is easy for a leader to make up a goal or tell employees to simply “do their best,” crafting an effective goal takes time and effort. For the leader looking for performance, however, the return is worth the investment. The first importance nuance to goal setting is regarding goal specificity. Meta-analysis show that individuals who commit to specific (and difficult) task goals outperform those who only try to, “do their best,”?(Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987). Specific goals work because they draw attention to the precise behavior that is expected and keep people focused on the task at hand (Reeve, 2018). Leaders who want to set effective goals should take the time with their people to detail precisely what level of performance is expected and outline it in the goal(s). The S.M.A.R.T. goal framework (Doran, 1981) is a popular framework which encourages users to make goals specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time related. While specific goals affect variance in performance, they do not necessarily lead to high performance if the goal is easy to attain (Locke & Latham, 2019).
Since specificity alone doesn’t lead to performance, goals should also be difficult. There is a great deal of research which shows that as goal difficulty increases it energizes the performer and results in higher levels of performance. Difficult goals work because they keep people focused and continuing to exert effort until the goal is accomplished (Reeve, 2018). Leaders should exercise caution, however, that they don’t make goals too difficult. In laboratory settings impossible goals result in high performance because there is no penalty for failure. In the real world, however, impossible goals can demoralize workers and even result in punishment (Locke & Latham, 2019). Further research is needed to pinpoint what exactly the optimal level of difficulty is when trying to motivate for maximal performance.
Any leader who has struggled to get a follower to care about their goals already has an awareness of the third key nuance to goal setting—goal concordance. The idea of congruence between employee and organization date back to personality and organization theory (Argyris, 1973) which examined the interaction between the many dimensions of individuals and organizations. If goals are congruent that means they, “reflect the self’s interests, needs, values, and preferences—they are goals that feel authentic and in harmony with the self,” (Reeve, 2018). Self-concordant goals work because they allow people to tap into their inner resources to motivate themselves (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). We will examine how inner resources come into play when we discuss intrinsic motivation. For now, it is sufficient to recognize that goals must be highly relevant to the individual if they are to elicit strong performance. In other words, the reason why a person adopts a goal matters. It is easy for leaders to justify a goal by saying, “because I told you so.” It is more difficult but more effective to have goals which the individual pursues because they are interesting and important to them. Surprisingly, however, relatively simple interventions can change how employees view goals (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017). Leaders might increase goal concordance by understanding their employees on a deeply human level and by selling their goals in a way which resonates to the individual as opposed to simply telling them (Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). Goals might also be co-developed with the employee in a participative way that allows them to integrate their self into the framework of the goals. Leaders high in emotional intelligence may be more effective at this nuance of goal setting, although this point requires additional research to validate.
There are a number of other elements for leaders to consider when developing and implementing goals. Goal setting will only improve performance if feedback is integrated in a way that allows individuals to monitor their progress towards the goal (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). The most effective feedback is accurate, timely, and constructive (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Goals can also lead to better performance if they are periodically primed (Latham & Piccolo, 2012). Leaders can prime goals by subtly raising someone’s unconscious awareness of a goal, for example by using certain words, symbols, or images to subconsciously remind someone of a goal. Leaders looking for specific methods to both integrate feedback and priming can turn their attention to Lean Management. Another similar system is the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) which operationalizes goal-setting, participation, feedback, and more to deliver large increases in productivity (Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados, & Guzman, 2008). Both emphasize the value of metrics and visual management which serve as ways to provide a continual stream of priming to remind people of their goals, as well as feedback on performance relative to goal.
Recent research found that primed goals only produce significant improvements in performance if the goal is a learning goal, as opposed to a performance goal (Chen & Latham, 2014). This raises another important distinction for leaders to consider when setting goals. In situations where individuals are assigned goals which exceed their knowledge or ability, it is better to set a goal which emphasizes learning as opposed to obtaining a specific level of performance, per se (Locke & Latham, 2019). Much has been written about the importance of organizational learning, e.g. (Senge, 2006), and it is a topic that leaders who are serious about improving organizational performance should explore. To close the discussion of goal setting and its impact on motivation and performance, let us return to the idea of transformational leadership. One of the strategies of transformational leaders is inspirational motivation which involves crafting and sharing a compelling vision, setting high standards, and articulating the meaning or purpose behind the work (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Bass has associated this strategy with charisma, which compels followers to identify with the leader and see themselves as being an important part of the leader’s success (Conte, 2019). From these descriptions we can see that transformational leaders naturally set difficult goals and behave in ways that change follower’s perceptions and build goal congruence.
Self-efficacy as a source of motivation for performance
After goal-setting, when it comes to predicting performance few motivational concepts are as well supported as self-efficacy (Bandura & Cervone, 1986). Conceived of by Canadian-American psychologist Albert Bandura in the 1970s, self-efficacy is a task-specific construct which represents an individual’s judgement of how well they will perform in a particular situation given their unique set of skills, experience, coping mechanisms, resources, etc. One’s level of self-efficacy is influenced by their personal history, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Once established, self-efficacy results in performance because people don’t shy away from challenges, they have persistent effort, are efficient in their decision making, and handle their emotions well (Reeve, 2018). By having an awareness of follower self-efficacy leaders can use it as a tool to motivate and allocate people in a way that delivers performance results for the organization. Once again, we will examine how the transformational leadership style might naturally improve the self-efficacy of followers.
Two meta-analyses from the 1990s showed that self-efficacy is significantly related to work performance. Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) found an average correlation between self-efficacy and work-related performance with r = 0.38. Sadri and Robertson (1993) found that self-efficacy is correlated to performance at r = 0.40. In industrial-organizational psychology, correlation values in the 0.40 range are considered substantial and worthy of attention (Conte, 2019). Even more important, perhaps, is that the linkage between self-efficacy and performance has been found to be causal (Bandura, 1978), meaning self-efficacy contributes directly to performance and is not just a coincidental relationship. Additionally, self-efficacy has been shown to be distinct from ability and to make a unique contribution to the prediction of performance (Collins, 1982). The key takeaway for leaders is the understanding that if their followers have high confidence regarding a certain task, regardless of their ability per se, they can have a reasonable expectation of success. If their followers are not confident, success is unlikely without further intervention.
As it relates to motivation, self-efficacy is useful because it can help us predict whether someone will engage in a certain behavior in the first place (Reeve, 2018). If someone believes in their ability to cope with a particular situation, they are more likely to engage in the behavior than if they doubt themselves. After all, most work is difficult and fraught with surprises, challenges, and setbacks which can create states of negative physiological arousal which disrupt performance (Reeve, 2018). Self-efficacy provides the resiliency needed to persist despite these elements. It is important to recognize that self-efficacy is a task-specific construct. For it to have predictive ability self-efficacy must be evaluated for the specific task in question. For example, someone’s level of self-efficacy related to driving a truck will be a good predictor of their performance driving a truck, but it will not necessarily be a good predictor of their performance solving a puzzle or responding to a customer complaint. Leaders must therefore assess, formally or informally, employee’s self-efficacy for any given assignment. In fact, it would be wise to assess self-efficacy as a means of determining worker assignments in the first place.
There are four primary sources of self-efficacy which leaders can utilize and affect. The first and most influential is personal behavior history (Bandura, 1986), which says that individual’s self-efficacy is based on their interpretations of past experiences with the same behavior (Reeve, 2018). The more positively someone remembers their performance in a particular task or scenario the more confident they will be when they encounter it again in the future. An important distinction here is that it may not be past performance, per se, which influences self-efficacy, but rather an individual’s perception of it. Leaders can increase self-efficacy is by giving followers very clear and accurate descriptions of what is expected and provide sufficient and timely training and instruction to help individuals accurately assess the situation and properly regulate their effort (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Although further research is required, this paper hypothesizes that leaders may be able to increase self-efficacy by ensuring that work experiences are positive and confidence building and by facilitating a dialogue which reframes past failures and undoes the detrimental effect on self-efficacy.
The second source of self-efficacy is vicarious experience, or the act of watching someone else perform a task or behavior that the individual is about to encounter themselves (Reeve, 2018). Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) explains how this mechanism works. When we don’t have any objective measure to evaluate ourselves against, we tend to compare ourselves to other people. If we observe a competent individual we can relate and identify with, we tend to think more highly of our own abilities too. The effect is especially pronounced for novice observers (Shunk, 1989). Leaders should reflect on their own behavior and what it is modeling for others. Do they approach difficult situations with confidence and competence? Do they persist despite setbacks? How do they handle stress, anxiety, and new challenges they’ve never faced before? Whether they mean to or not, followers will look to their leaders to model the behavior they themselves are expected to produce. If leader behavior helps build follower self-efficacy it may increase motivation. If leaders are a poor example, however, they may inadvertently lower follower’s self-efficacy, de-motivate them, and contribute to worse performance results. Leaders should also consider how relatable they are to their employees. The more followers can identify with their leaders the stronger the vicarious experience effect on self-efficacy may be.
Verbal persuasion, or something akin to a pep talk or encouragement, is another means of temporarily increasing self-efficacy (Reeve, 2018). Reeve recognizes that these conversations work because they get people to focus their attention on their strengths instead of their weaknesses. While this may come naturally to some leaders, it may seem trite or ineffective to others. Although the evidence is relatively weak, there are studies which have shown that verbal persuasion can have an impact on self-efficacy in a teaching environment (Hagen, Gutkin, Wilson, & Oats, 1998) and in cold and pressure pain tolerance tests (Soderlund & Sterling, 2016). It is important for leaders to recognize that regardless of how they feel about it, and despite weaker evidence, their words of persuasion may make a difference in increasing motivation and ultimately performance. They certainly won’t hurt.
领英推荐
The last source of self-efficacy is a person’s physiological state (Reeve, 2018), which can be described as the physical sensations and signals which appear in consciousness and which affect an individual’s overall self-efficacy judgement. Abnormal states such as fatigue, pain, confusion, and anxiety might signal to the individual that they don’t have the resources to cope with a situation (Taylor, Bandura, Ewart, Miller, & DeBusk, 1985). The absence of such unsettling interoceptive signals might be interpreted as feedback that one can cope and succeed with the given task or situation (Bandura & Adams, 1977). While there is little a leader can do to change follower’s direct physical sensations, there is something they can do to help individuals interpret those sensations. Anxiety sensitivity and the belief that anxious feelings are harmful might drastically lower self-efficacy. Although it may be inappropriate or unprofessional for leaders to intervene directly, there are methods and training for reducing anxiety sensitivity which might have a positive effect on self-efficacy, for example Anxiety Sensitivity Amelioration Training (ASAT) (Schmidt, et al., 2007). In addition to providing access to relevant training, leaders should create a safe work environment free from distractions and unnecessary stressors (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). If nothing else, leaders should be sensitive to and aware of the physiological state of their followers and consider whether they are in a motivated (self-efficacious) state or not. If an individual is feeling great it might be a good time to take on a bigger-than-normal challenge. If they clearly stressed-out, however, it might be wise to lower or eliminate expectations altogether.
An all-encompassing method that leaders might adopt to improve individual’s self-efficacy is a Mastery Modeling Program. In a Mastery Modeling Program an expert takes people through a seven-step process which hits on all the points of self-efficacy to transform them from an easily overwhelmed novice to a highly skilled coper (Reeve, 2018). In addition to knowing how to increase the self-efficacy and therefore motivation and performance of followers, it might be useful for leaders to know how to recognize self-efficacy when they see it. When an individual is operating from a place of high self-efficacy they seek out activities and situations with excitement, put forth persistent effort even in the face of failure, are efficient at analyzing and solving problems and making decisions, and are able to keep anxiety at bay even when things go awry (Reeve, 2018). Together, these things might be called competent functioning or personal engagement (Reeve, 2018). That said, more research is needed in understanding the precise relationship between self-efficacy and engagement. It seems reasonable, however, to say that if leaders identify an individual displaying these behaviors it means they are likely highly motivated and performing at a high level. This might be a good time to provide them with an even greater challenge!
To close the discussion on self-efficacy we will return to the idea of transformational leadership and look at how the two relate. Consistent with our theme, research has shown that transformational leadership does correlate to follower self-efficacy (β = .21, p < .01) (Walumba, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008). Idealized influence is one of the main strategies that transformational leaders adopt (Bass & Avolio, 1997). When enacting this strategy leaders serve as a role model and, “display conviction, emphasize trust, take stands on difficult issues, emphasize the importance of commitment and purpose, and are aware of the ethical consequences of their decisions,” (Conte, 2019, p. 486). This approach fits perfectly as a way of modeling behavior and delivering vicarious experience to followers to increase their self-efficacy. It is no surprise then that transformational leadership is positively related to performance at the individual, team, and organizational levels (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011).
Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as sources of motivation for performance
We will address two final sources of workplace motivation together and discuss how leaders can use them to their advantage. Extrinsic motivation is made up of environmental, or external, factors such as incentives and consequences (Reeve, 2018). Intrinsic motivation stems from self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and is the, “inherent desire to seek out novelty and challenge, to explore and investigate, and to stretch and extend one’s capacities,” (Reeve, 2018, p. 107). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation exist on a continuum and have a complex relationship with motivation and performance. It is critical that leaders understand how and when to use each to properly motivate performance.
There are multiple types of extrinsic motivators outlined in Reeve (2018). Incentives come before behavior and signal whether a positive or negative consequence is in store. Consequences come after behavior and are divided into three types: positive reinforcers, negative reinforcers, and punishments. Positive reinforcers, like a paycheck, increase future desired behavior. Negative reinforcers like whining or nagging stop when the undesired behavior stops and the desired behavior starts. Punishments occur after an undesirable behavior and are intended to prevent it from happening again. Which of these should leaders use if their objective is to motivate performance?
We will start by looking at negative reinforcers and punishments. While similar, negative reinforcers are unpleasant stimuli which stop when the desired behavior starts, for example a whining baby, or boss. Punishments are applied after one conducts an undesired behavior in an attempt to decrease the future probability of that behavior (Reeve, 2018). Examples of such extrinsic motivators in the workplace might include complaints, reprimands, paycuts, and even job termination. While this research turned up very little in the way of psychological research to support the effectiveness of negative reinforcers and punishments on performance, it does seem possible that they can serve as a motivating force. Negative reinforcers are a product of operant conditioning would appear to have some efficacy. Anyone who has a boss that gets frustrated with them when things don’t go as planned knows how motivating it can be. Punishments, according to Reeve (2018), do not work and have negative consequences for well-being. The author of this paper recalls hearing that punishments are the most powerful motivator, but that they only work once. For the purposes of this discussion we will recognize the potential usefulness of these tools for leaders but encourage them to use other, more positive, means of motivation.
Next, due to some inconsistency in how these terms are used in the literature, we will consider positive incentives and positive reinforcers together. In the work context, incentives are, “plans that have predetermined criteria and standards, as well as understood policies for determining and allocating rewards,” (Greene, 2011, p. 219). Rewards are often considered to be a positive reinforcer, but it is important to recognize that not all rewards work as intended to increase behavior (Reeve, 2018).
Meta-analyses show that financial incentives are associated with performance (Condly, Clark, & Stolovitch, 2003; Jenkins et al, 1998). A 2003 meta-analysis looked at the impact of incentives across several dimensions (Condly, Clark, & Stolovitch, 2003) and found that the most effective incentives are implemented after a task has already started, are financial-based, targeted towards longer term timelines, team based, and directed towards manual work. A separate meta-analysis found that tasks which are straightforward, repetitive, and less inherently enjoyable should be linked to extrinsic incentives and that tasks which require a great deal of absorption, personal investment, complexity, and quality should be more closely linked to intrinsic motivation (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014).
Intrinsic motivation is derived from fundamental psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Autonomy is the degree to which a behavior is freely chosen vs. externally controlled. Competence is the need to master challenging tasks. While often used interchangeably with self-efficacy, competence is a distinct construct which is more of a psychological need and motivating force as opposed to a self-perception (Rodgers, Markland, Selzler, Murray, & Wilson, 2014). Relatedness is a feeling of emotional closeness which is a fundamental human need. If an activity fulfills an individual’s needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness it will be intrinsically motivating and satisfying. Leaders have multiple approaches they can take to nurture intrinsic motivation.
A 2021 meta-analysis found that leaders can use job design and autonomy support from colleagues or supervisors (Van den Broeck, Howard, Van Vaerenberg, Leroy, & Gagne, 2021) to nurture intrinsic motivation. Job design can be used to make work more meaningful and give workers more autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, Work redesign, 1980). Autonomy support training can help employees nurture each other’s need satisfaction and autonomous motivation (Jungert, Van den Broeck, Schreurs, & Osterman, 2018). The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) finds evidence for the correlation between internal motivation and: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. There are undoubtedly other ways to increase intrinsic motivation, but carefully crafting jobs to be intrinsically motivating and fostering a supportive work environment are a good starting point.
While intrinsic motivation is the most important motivating factor for overall workplace well-being, it is slightly less powerful at predicting workplace performance than identified regulation (Van den Broeck, Howard, Van Vaerenberg, Leroy, & Gagne, 2021). This introduces the self-determination continuum between amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017) which is illustrated in Figure 2. Deci and Ryan identified four types of extrinsic motivation which varied in their level of autonomy and internalization. On one end of the spectrum is external regulation which represents behaviors which are performed, “purely to obtain a reward, avoid a punishment, or satisfy some external demand,” (Reeve, 2018, p. 117). On the other end of the spectrum is integrated regulation which results when individuals have taken externally motivated behaviors and internalized them to the extent that they become personally important values and part of an individual’s identity. Important to note, in a meta-analysis on self-determination theory researches found that integrated regulation could not be distinguished from identified regulation and intrinsic regulation when evaluating performance outcomes, so it is not always treated as distinct in the literature (Van den Broeck, Howard, Van Vaerenberg, Leroy, & Gagne, 2021). While little research appears to exist on the topic directly, it could be theorized that through a process of socialization leaders might help individual’s adopt goals and organizational strategies in a way that helps them to integrate the values and increase their overall motivation.
Figure 2: Self-Determination Continuum (Reeve, 2018)
Now that we have introduced the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, we can discuss the undermining effect that incentives can have on the more powerful intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivators like incentives and rewards may reduce intrinsic motivation for otherwise enjoyable tasks because they put an external control in place which reduces the level of autonomy and thus intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1972). The corrosive effect ultimately depends on how the incentive is interpreted and whether it allows the individual to operate in a mode of external regulation, integrated regulation, or somewhere in between (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). Cerasoli et al (2014) found that the detrimental effect of extrinsic rewards depends on whether the objective is qualitative or quantitative, and whether the reward is contingent or non-contingent. They also note that “incentives and intrinsic motivation are not necessarily antagonistic and are best considered simultaneously,”?(Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014, p. 980). In their discussion of implications for practice, Ceralosi et al suggest that it isn’t a question of whether incentives should be used, but which behaviors should be incentivized and how. Ultimately their suggestion is that for narrowly focused and simple tasks with high stakes, a directly salient incentive (e.g. performance bonus) may provide the most motivation for performance even though it degrades intrinsic motivation. For more complex and engaging work which requires creativity, teamwork, etc. and where overall well-being and work quality are valued, incentives may still be included but framed as less salient (e.g. base salary increase) and implemented in a way which retains high levels of intrinsic motivation. This is perhaps the most difficult challenge presented thus far for leaders. Understanding work demands, their people, and how to develop the most effective forms of extrinsic motivation which can be integrated into the individual is not easy!
So, can leaders influence intrinsic motivation? A 2019 study found that the transformational leadership style can have a positive impact on intrinsic motivation and work performance (Nguyen, Mai, & Huynh, 2019). This study found that all four strategies associated with transformational leadership influenced intrinsic motivation. Idealized influence positively impacted employee’s emotions (relatedness). Inspirational motivation improved individual’s awareness of the vision, mission, and goals (identified regulation). Intellectual stimulation stimulated the intelligence of employees who were then able to analyze and develop plans to meet their goals (competence, autonomy). Although the effect size was less than the previous three, individualized consideration had a positive effect on intrinsic motivation as well by helping individuals orient themselves and maintain positive emotions.
In addition to fostering intrinsic motivation, leaders can carefully utilize extrinsic motivators to improve performance. Interestingly, given that identified regulation was a better predictor of workplace performance than intrinsic motivation (Van den Broeck, Howard, Van Vaerenberg, Leroy, & Gagne, 2021), it seems that optimal performance requires some amount of external guidance. In other words, if we want our followers to perform well we shouldn’t leave them entirely to their own devices. When crafting external motivators leaders can follow a few general rules of thumb based on the literature. External motivators should be financially based, focused on longer term (6+ month) timelines, team oriented, and used primarily for more routine and less intrinsically motivating work. It is important to monitor whether the external motivator is provide a net increase to overall motivation, or if it is inadvertently undermining the pre-existing intrinsic motivation.
?Other areas for consideration
While we have covered four major motivating factors that influence work performance and discussed how leaders (and transformational leaders in particular) can improve motivation, there are a number of other topics worthy of mention.
Our discussion thus far has focused on motivating individuals. Motivating teams is an equal or perhaps even more important topic for leaders. Topics such as organizational citizenship behavior, social loafing, team efficacy, team identify, and the effectiveness and interplay between team and individual goals and incentives can inform leader behavior in the group context. For further consideration this article refers the reader to Chen et al (Chen, Kanfer, Kirkman, & Allen, 2007) and Dietz et al (Dietz, van Knippenberg, Hirst, & Restubog, 2015).
Another important consideration is the individual differences in motivation which might exist. A recent synthesis of 50+ meta-analyses showed that trait-conscientiousness is strongly associated (ρ = 0.19) with performance (Zell & Lesick, 2021). Is personality also associated with motivation? One study found a relationship between trait conscientiousness and trait extraversion with striving and job performance among sales representatives (Barrick, Steward, & Piotorwski, 2002). A meta-analysis from the same year found that trait neuroticism (average validity = -.31) and conscientiousness (average validity = .24) were correlated with performance motivation (Judge & Ilies, 2002). Leaders might consider using personality assessments as a means of evaluating candidates to determine which ones will be more or less motivated based on their personalities alone. That said, it is important to note that statelike motivation measured at a point in time has been found to be a better predictor of performance than stable trait motivation traits (Van Iddekinge, Aguinis, Mackey, & DeOrtentiis, 2018).
Lastly, we should heed the advice of the masters of workplace motivation, Locke & Latham. In a 2004 paper they provide six recommendations for motivation theory in the 21st century. Most relevant for leaders, they suggest that we study subconscious as well as conscious motivation, that we use introspection as a method of understanding motivation, and that we acknowledge human behavior is not purely deterministic (Locke & Latham, 2004). For those looking to synthesize many of the items discussed thus far we leave you with a brilliant diagram courtesy of Locke and Latham.
Figure 3: from Locke & Latham, 2004
Conclusion
Figuring out how to motivate people is quite difficult given that motivation at any point in time can be influenced by an infinite number of factors (Dieffendorff & Chandler, 2011), and is completely unique for everyone (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003). Given their responsibility for organizational performance, leaders have no choice but to do their best to motivate individuals. Researcher have explored many methods for motivation and found a few with sufficient evidence to support their use in the workplace. Goals, self-efficacy, extrinsic motivators, and intrinsic motivation all play a significant role in affecting individual motivation and ultimately performance. Leaders can make targeted efforts to use tactic individually as a means of motivating others, or they can adopt a more cohesive transformational leadership style. In this way, they can directly influence motivation and performance through the mediating roles of job characteristics, intrinsic motivation, and goal commitment (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Most importantly, leaders should reflect on how they can use the methods described in this paper to increase their own motivation and performance.