Workplace Motivation:It's Complicated

The concept, and indeed, the definition of motivation is far from static. Further, the superficial idea of motivation presents a causality dilemma of whether it is the perceived reward that urges the subject forward or whether the subject’s intrinsic nature pushes towards greater benefit. Academic research into the nature of motivation reveals a multitude of powerful techniques, however, as society evolves so must the methodology employed to achieve the desired results. Employee motivation is differentiated from the broader concept by a more direct relationship that is often easier to measure. How management achieves higher levels of employee motivation continues to be a goal unto itself. Ultimately, the manager must choose the right tool for the situation and apply the appropriate techniques for maximum return. There are numerous techniques and approaches open to the organization, however, care must be exercised given the potential harm from misuse. 

Foundations

           The nature of the endogenous drive is often cited as the primary source of motivation. How then, can employers both foster and grow motivation amongst employees? Research is conducted in an effort to find a common thread within the traditional methodology of increasing employee motivation. Three main branches have emerged from within the psychology of motivation. Intrinsic, belief in a mission, and the reward-based systems help to narrow the field of study (Besely & Ghatak, 2017). Beyond the motivations source, however, lies the nature of man within a capitalist society and the implications of how individuals leverage the tools provided them. Further, researchers must view whether the motivation provides long or short-term benefits. Clearly the difference between motivation and manipulation lies in the belief that motivation provides a reward for the employee, the manager, and the mission as a whole (Ermer, Cosmides & Tooby, 2008).

           The modern study of employee motivation revolves around homo economicus and the wants, needs, and desires therein. The simple reward-based technique, the employee receives more pay for more work, is being challenged by a more sociological comprehension. Emerging science reveals that both economic and social rewards can achieve high levels of motivation. Besely and Ghatak state, “... there are good reasons to believe that alternative motivations have greater psychological fitness according to specific criteria.” (2017). The authors indicate that there are possible drawbacks to the use of social rewards within the field of motivation. Increased levels of risk taking among highly motivated employees can have deleterious effects on production. The findings of Ermer, Cosmides, and Tooby reveal that, “...the results support the idea that motivational systems designed to negotiate a status-saturated social world regulate the cognitive processes that generate risky decision making in men.” (2008). Tapping into the psychology of a non-economic motivation system can have serious implications. The role of belief systems, relative to motivation, is actively being studied. Katz and Shahar found that Self Determination Theory (SDT) operates within the belief system realm saying, “SDT is a theory of human motivation that recognizes an external–internal continuum of motivational orientations. At one end of the continuum is behaving out of coercion or to achieve a reward (controlled/extrinsic motivation), and at the other end is behaving out of pleasure, interest, enjoyment, and understanding the rationale of behavior (autonomous/intrinsic motivation) (2015). Katz and Shara focus exclusively on the world of education and teacher motivation; however, their research easily transfers into the economic/capitalist plane. If an individual or team’s unique belief systems are tapped to increase production, or efficiency, the impact must be carefully balanced. Motivation and indeed the effort to grow increased yield, does not exist in a vacuum.

 Intrinsic Motivation

           When addressing inherent motivation, the study must form along two paths, the inherent motivation of the individual, and the organization’s intrinsic motivation. The naturally motivated employee, finding themselves within a non-supportive organization, will often flounder. Hackman and Oldham conclude, “With respect to work design and intrinsic motivation, close attention should be paid to intrinsically motivational job characteristics such as job autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance and feedback from the job.” (1976). While perhaps dated, the research study tested 658 workers on 62 tasks spread over seven different companies providing a broad spectrum of data. The title of the course, “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory” provides solid context for the paper. The more recent study, “Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance” by Kuvass and Dysvik indicates that intrinsic motivation can be greatly enhanced with the application of limited self-autonomy (2009). Perhaps the most effective method of achieving motivation occurs when an organization finds a solid pairing of person and task, “Organizations serious about obtaining profits through people will expend the effort needed to ensure that they recruit the right people in the first place” (Pfeffer 1998). While Jeffrey Pfeffer focused primarily on effective management, he keenly identified the importance of finding the right person for the job and the subsequent effects on employee motivation.

Common Mission (Spirituality)

           Can employee motivation be enhanced through the communication of a common goal or mission? The question of mission-based-motivation is addressed by researchers Sebastian Desmidt and Anita Prinzie in their article, “Establishing A Mission-Based Culture: Analyzing the Relation Between Intra-Organizational Socialization Agents, Mission Valence, Public Service Motivation, Goal Clarity and Work Impact” (2019). The researchers found, in part, that motivation gains were directly tied to effective communication of the organization’s mission and vision. By providing a compelling goal, individuals found themselves to be part of a united team, which raised stakes for each participant. From a critical perspective the authors understood the limited scope of their research, noting, “We thus advise readers to interpret the study results with some caution, as future research should use samples from multiple organizations to assure generalizability and analyze the examined relationships in different organizational settings.” (2019). We can extrapolate from other historical events and anecdotal evidence, a similar mindset of mission-driven motivation that supports Desmidt and Prinzie’s findings. Recently, Tom Rivett-Carnac provided a compelling example during a TED (Technology, Education, and Design) presentation that focused on Winston Churchill and his ability to rally a nation facing almost certain defeat, “He wasn't promising victory. He promised blood, toil, tears and sweat. That's literally what he said. But he was promising meaning. He was promising something that people could get engaged in and, as a result, be part of a great shared endeavor. And that's what motivated people to action. It's not actually the sense of an easy victory.” (2020).

           Tradition dictates that “feel good” motivators, like a unified mission, are ancillary when compared to purely economic rewards. Lea Cassar concludes that agent motivation can emerge from business management’s prosocial tasks in her recent work. Three separate experiments were designed and tested to measure agent response to pairing a pro-social mission with the previously established business goals. Consistently, across each experiment, the pro-social mission’s addition resulted in higher returns and increased motivation. The substitution of non-monetary incentives indicates that employees’ social conscious and mission mindset can be leveraged to the company’s benefit (Cassar, 2019). Clearly the pro-social mission must align with the employee’s personal belief system, but the evidence indicates that a sense of mission can inspire motivation.

 Reward-Based System

           Historically in employment the ‘bonus’ monetary reward has been the backbone of workplace motivation. The concept of piece-work allowed for a direct tie between the number of items produced to the employees pay, while sales staff often encounter budget numbers that provide additional pay for met benchmarks. In the western world, the integration has even extended into child-rearing with the idea of Christmas; if the child behaves throughout the year, a reward of presents is expected on Christmas morning. How then does the practice hold up in today’s world?

China’s move toward a partial capitalist economy has provided researchers fertile ground to study. One such panel examined the role of increased monetary reward for taxi drivers in China and whether the reward drove up motivation amongst the drivers. Researchers concluded, “Our ?ndings suggest that monetary rewards and intrinsic motivators have signi?cant effects on Internet taxi drivers’ work engagement in the IT-enabled sharing economy.” leaving little doubt that money matters (Hua et al., 2020). While the authors reached the clear conclusion that a reward-based system works, they go further to propose that money alone will provide long-term motivation. Direct reward incentives are a jumping-off point for further efforts involving spirituality and enhanced opportunity.

           Research scientists in motivation have continued to question whether extrinsic motivation through rewards is detrimental to worker’s long-term growth. The release of dopamine in the central nervous system can be triggered by pleasurable events like a bonus’s achievement. Research has been published indicating that exposure to such methods of reward may ultimately decrease intrinsic motivation. Further, the theory of learned behavior is based on the belief that the motivation will become self-perpetuating with or without the external stimulus of monetary reward over time. Murayama, Matsumota, Izuma, and Matsumota performed extensive brain-based research into performance and increased motivation provided by reward stimulus. The study included MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to see into the brain while measuring reactions within the brain’s specific regions related to pleasure. The authors then sought a corollary between a reward-based performance cadre and a control group who did not receive such stimulus. The most significant findings are related to the removal of the stimulus after providing it for an extended period. Consider that a company offers a bonus for reaching 100% of a sales target, the target is then elevated in an effort to motivate the employee to try harder and harder to reach the goal and receive the reward. The researchers warn that such a scale eventually becomes unattainable and the result is a sales staff with less motivation. The report states clearly, “In other words, the strong incentive value of monetary reward pushed down the intrinsic value of task success. As a result, when the monetary reward was no longer promised, the intrinsic task value was underestimated, resulting in decreased motivation relative to the control group…” (Murayama et al., 2020). Thus, an apparent motivator may do more long-term harm than good.

           Researchers are, however, learning that reward-based motivators are deeply encoded into our brains. As noted previously, the concept of working hard in order to receive a reward is at the core of a capitalist system. Those who learn, practice, and perform at the highest levels often advance while individuals who lack focus, shun hard work, and fail are relegated to the lower levels of society, according to popular belief. Oddly, these key components are linked to similar patterns seen in drug addicts. Brain researchers Goetz, Robinson, and Meier note in their current research article, “Attentional training of the appetitive motivation system: Effects on sensation seeking preferences and reward-based behavior”, that dopamine receptors grow increasingly hungry for rewards as the subjects become accustomed to the burst of neurotransmitter chemicals. When the outside incentive is removed, researchers’ data indicates that regressive behavior patterns are possible and directly related to reward-based systems. The authors acknowledge that further study is required and that a larger sample group would help solidify the conclusions (2020).

Distinctions Between Motivation and Manipulation

           The linguist would say that motivation is for the benefit of the superior and the inferior, while manipulation serves only the superior. Scientists evaluating workplace settings use a precise term for manipulative behavior in the workplace, EM (emotional manipulation). A recent study revealed that up to 17% of subjects openly admit to EM at work; these actions include making disingenuous statements to gain favor and sowing discord amongst co-workers for their singular benefit Hyde and Grieve, 2016). These forms of manipulation strike at the very heart of efforts to genuinely motivate. Hyde and Grieve support the concept of EM being impactful,  “...teachers were asked to measure their school principal's willingness to manipulate. Teachers who perceived being manipulated in a negative manner also self-reported higher levels of negative affect.” (2016). The study concluded that EM is a personality trait that holds tremendous destructive power in the workplace. Further investigation of the subject is warranted.

           One might call the fostering of self-worth a defense against EM and diminished motivation. The thorny issue of self-worth, often dismissed in both the classroom and workplace, can directly affect motivation. Thompson, Barber, and Davidson note in their study, “This theory states that certain students, known as self-work protective students, will voluntarily withdraw effort in achievement situations in which poor performance is likely to be attributed to low ability.” (1995). The process of comparing an individual’s achievements within a work environment may have a similar deleterious effect. The goal of motivation, through shame, is a form of manipulation, as previously discussed. Providing an available excuse for low performers to access increases their ability to rebound from a failure and perform better on future tasks. However, such excuses may become a significant crutch that the employee/student leans upon to heavily, thus defeating the purpose of the effort.

Practical Means of Motivation

         Having examined the components of motivation and the philosophical opposite, manipulation, how are managers and business owners able to construct a plan designed to motivate their employees towards high performance? Trepanier et al. clearly state, “Employees who function optimally – with manifestations of well-being (e.g. work engagement and commitment) and few manifestations of ill-being (e.g. psychological distress and psychosomatic complaints) – translate into more productive and competitive organizations.” (2015). Therefore, the goal must be to provide employees with the tools necessary to succeed. These tools take numerous forms.

Physical Environment

  There is little doubt that our physical surroundings affect our ability to perform at optimal levels. Trepanier et al. make this clear in their study, stating, “SDT (self-determination theory) also posits that the work environment plays a key role in promoting optimal employee motivation and functioning by facilitating the satisfaction of psychological needs.” (2015). Employees need the tools necessary for success if they are to be open to external motivation. The authors repeat this assertion saying in part, “...by being distinctively related to employees’ psychological and motivational experiences at work, job demands, and resources play a significant role in employee functioning at work.” (2015). Managers and business owners possess the ability to set a foundation for motivated employees by providing adequate resources and eliminating related stressors.

Emotional/Mission Connection

An organization’s ability to clearly communicate their mission and vision play an essential role in motivating employees towards high performance. As described earlier, employees who clearly understand the organization’s goals and comprehensive mission have higher levels of motivation (Desmidt and Prinzie, 2018). It is not enough that the top managers communicate the mission/vision; instead, the middle managers, who often act as intermediaries between upper management and front-line employees, must exhibit support for the goals (Galunic and Hermreck, 2012). Further, the administration must demonstrate active participation in moving the effort forward. As Galunic and Hermrech state, “Consequently, although the results seem to lend support to the assumption that the often-adopted “cascade” mechanism whereby top management communicates strategy and values only to middle managers and depends on them to disseminate it to frontline workers is flawed.” (2012).

Intrinsic Motivation and Reward-Based Modalities

Studies continue to stress the need for hiring practices that match the right person to the right job and the potential for future growth. Kuvass and Dydvik state in their 2009 study involving PIED (Perceived Investment in Employee Development), “Across three different studies, our findings suggest that intrinsic motivation completely mediates the relationship between PIED and work effort. In addition, intrinsic motivation seems to moderate the relationship between PIED and organizational citizenship behavior.” Motivation springs intrinsically from efforts that are well-matched to the skill set possessed by employees. The ability to grow and develop into new roles also triggers intrinsic motivation.

The proper use of reward-based motivation tools can yield results but must be managed carefully. The human brain is susceptible to addiction, and the merit-based reward system can form addictive patterns that produce the opposite desired effect. Long-standing reward systems stopped abruptly, often lead to frustration, anger, and resentment towards the employer. As previously noted, unregulated and uninformed reward-based systems can have devastating effects; Goetz, Meier, and Davidson conclude their study by saying, “In sum, our results indicate that manipulations targeting attention to reward appear to co-opt the appetitive motivation system. Such results are theoretically important in understanding the processing basis of this system. Moreover, the results may have utility in designing interventions to rectify extremely low levels of appetitive motivation, such as commonly observed in major depression.” (2008). Therefore, reward based systems that are well managed and regulated can be combined with intrinsic motivation to produce highly motivated employees.

Conclusion

           Motivating employees for high performance requires diligence. Much like a child’s string puzzle, pulling on one thread may shorten another. Based on the research cited, a balanced, rational approach is needed to achieve high levels of motivation. The chosen process must balance the audience’s physical, psychological, and emotional needs for maximum return. There is no panacea or easy answer to motivating employee attitudes and actions. Employees will have greater levels of motivation if they clearly understand the mission, have their needs met, and receive well-designed rewards that do not build dependency. It should be noted that as society evolves, so do the needs and wants that trigger high achievement. It is gratifying that researchers continue to investigate the motivation process and possible pitfalls to human achievement. The researchers cannot pause, however, due to unforeseen events. The introduction of quarantine relative to COVID-19 serves as an example. Societal norms changed seemingly overnight, introducing new demands on both employees and companies ill-prepared for such an event. Companies, managers, and employees must strive to do the most good with the tools available.

References

Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2017). Profit with Purpose? A Theory of Social Enterprise. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 9(3), 19–58.

Cassar, L. (2019). Job Mission as a Substitute for Monetary Incentives: Benefits and Limits.  Management Science, 65(2), 896–912.

Desmidt, S., & Prinzie, A. (2019). Establishing A mission-based culture: Analyzing the relation between intra-organizational socialization agents, mission valence, public service motivation, goal clarity and work impact. International Public Management Journal,  22(4), 664-690.

 Galunic, G. and I. Hermreck. 2012. How to Help Employees “Get” Strategy. Harvard Business Review 90(12):24.

 Ermer, E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2008). Relative status regulates risky decision making  about resources in men: evidence for the co-evolution of motivation and cognitionEvolution and Human Behavior, 29(2), 106–118.

 Goetz, P.W., Robinson, M.D. & Meier, B.P. Attentional training of the appetitive motivation  system: Effects on sensation seeking preferences and reward-based behavior. Motiv Emot   32, 120–126 (2008).

 Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

 Hua, Y., Cheng, X., Hou, T., & Luo, R. (2019). Monetary Rewards, Intrinsic Motivators, and Work Engagement in the IT‐Enabled Sharing Economy: A Mixed‐Methods Investigation of Internet Taxi Drivers*. Decision Sciences, 51(3), 755-785.

 Hyde, J., & Grieve, R. (2018). The dark side of emotion at work: Emotional manipulation in everyday and work place contexts. Personality and Individual Differences, 129, 108–113.

 Katz, I., & Shahar, B. (2015). What makes a motivating teacher? Teachers’ motivation and beliefs as predictors of their autonomy-supportive style. School Psychology International, 36(6), 575-588.

 Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009). Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic  motivation and work performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 217– 236.

 Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., & Matsumoto, K. (2010). Neural basis of the   undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation. Proceedings of the   National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(49), 20911–20916.

 NPR. (2020, May 22). Tom Rivett-Carnac: How Can We Shift Our Mindset To Fight Climate Change Together? NPR.

 Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven Practices of Successful Organizations. California Management Review, 40(2), 96–124.

 Thompson, T., Davidson, J. A., & Barber, J. G. (1995). Self-worth protection in achievement motivation: Performance effects and attributional behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 598-610.

 Trépanier, S.-G., Forest, J., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2015). On the psychological and  motivational processes linking job characteristics to employee functioning: Insights from  self-determination theory. Work & Stress, 29(3), 286–305.